Managing military training-related environmental disturbance

Military Training Areas (MTAs) cover at least 2 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface and occur in all major biomes. These areas are potentially important for biodiversity conservation. The greatest challenge in managing MTAs is balancing the disturbance associated with military training and environmental values. These challenges are unique as no other land use is managed for these types of anthropogenic disturbances in a natural setting. We investigated how military training-related disturbance is best managed on MTAs. Specifically, we explored management options to maximise the amount of military training that can be undertaken on a MTA while minimising the amount of environmental disturbance. MTAs comprise of a number of ranges designed to facilitate different types of military training. We simulated military training-related environmental disturbance at different range usage rates under a typical range rotation use strategy, and compared the results to estimated ecosystem recovery rates from training activities. We found that even at relatively low simulated usage rates, random allocation and random spatial use of training ranges within an MTA resulted in environmental degradation under realistic ecological recovery rates. To avoid large scale environmental degradation, we developed a decision-making tool that details the best method for managing training-related disturbance by determining how training activities can be allocated to training ranges.

Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience

Mitigating the environmental effects of global population growth, climatic change and increasing socio-ecological complexity is a daunting challenge. To tackle this requires synthesis: the integration of disparate information to generate novel insights from heterogeneous, complex situations where there are diverse perspectives. Since 1995, a structured approach to inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary(1) collaboration around big science questions has been supported through synthesis centres around the world. These centres are finding an expanding role due to ever-accumulating data and the need for more and better opportunities to develop transdisciplinary and holistic approaches to solve real-world problems. The Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS <http://www.aceas.org.au>) has been the pioneering ecosystem science synthesis centre in the Southern Hemisphere. Such centres provide analysis and synthesis opportunities for time-pressed scientists, policy-makers and managers. They provide the scientific and organisational environs for virtual and face-to-face engagement, impetus for integration, data and methodological support, and innovative ways to deliver synthesis products. We detail the contribution, role and value of synthesis using ACEAS to exemplify the capacity for synthesis centres to facilitate trans-organisational, transdisciplinary synthesis. We compare ACEAS to other international synthesis centres, and describe how it facilitated project teams and its objective of linking natural resource science to policy to management. Scientists and managers were brought together to actively collaborate in multi-institutional, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary research on contemporary ecological problems. The teams analysed, integrated and synthesised existing data to co-develop solution-oriented publications and management recommendations that might otherwise not have been produced. We identify key outcomes of some ACEAS working groups which used synthesis to tackle important ecosystem challenges. We also examine the barriers and enablers to synthesis, so that risks can be minimised and successful outcomes maximised. We argue that synthesis centres have a crucial role in developing, communicating and using synthetic transdisciplinary research.

Precaution, prediction, proof, and policy assessment

The challenge of sustainable development--the ultimate goal of precaution-- demands that we shift our focus away from individual environmental problems and toward long-term integration of environmental, social, and economic policy. It also elevates protection of ecosystem processes and biodiversity to the status of significant policy goals. In this article, the author argues for a new use of the precautionary principle, as a means to assess broad policy decisions to target indirect or systemic rather than direct threats to sustainability. He draws on a case study of two Australian policies: the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), and the National Competition Policy (NCP).1 While the proposals are ambitious and may not be achievable in the near future, nonetheless, it is in the nature of institutional and policy systems that it is difficult to predict when opportunities for policy change will arise. It is crucial to develop and articulate strategies now, to be promoted during brief windows of opportunity for policy change.

Institutional barriers and opportunities: processes and arrangements for natural resource management in Australia

While "institutional failure" is commonly cited as a core barrier to sustainable resource management, operational prescriptions or criteria for institutional design are rare. Institutions are crucial, and may be barriers or opportunities. This article offers some principles and design features for "adaptive" institutions, capable of balancing the core principles of persistence, purposefulness, information-richness, inclusiveness and flexibility. It then draws on emerging findings from recent Australian research to identify some major institutional barriers and opportunities for improving capacities in sustainable resource management.