Discussion Form Question

O P I N I O N A R T I C L E

Conservation planning and Indigenous governance in Australia’s Indigenous Protected Areas Lee Godden1,2, Stuart Cowell3

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) recognize that “country” constitutes land and waters that have enduring cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that extend over millennia, and which are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures. Within Australia’s conservation system, IPAs become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous peoples voluntarily announce their intention to manage “country,” in accordance with their law, custom, and culture, and consistently with national and international conservation guidelines. The NRS requirement is that land is managed “in perpetuity” which highlights a potential tension between with the conservation goals and the voluntary character of IPAs. Ecological restoration in IPAs also raises contested ideas about what is “natural,” the relevant “baseline” for restoration, and what are the objectives to be achieved — ecological or cultural sustainability? Experience from Healthy Country Planning in IPAs indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision-making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes. Ecological restoration is most effectively achieved by restoring governance processes that support Indigenous peoples given the inseparability of cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives.

Key words: Aboriginal, Healthy Country, National Reserve System, traditional knowledge

Implications for Practice

• Restoration must engage with Aboriginal traditional knowledge and practices when defining what is to be “restored” and avoid locking in a static Indigenous culture.

• The Healthy Country model aims to protect and provide for the respectful utilization of traditional knowledge in ecological restoration.

• Effective conservation planning and ecological restoration in Indigenous Protected Areas must support Aboriginal communities though decision-making and governance for protected area planning.

Introduction

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are representative of a significant change in conservation planning and management within Australia over the last two decades (Jaireth & Smyth 2003). IPAs occur over areas of land or sea held by traditional owners where the Indigenous communities have entered into an agreement with the Australian government to promote biodiver- sity and cultural resource conservation. The focus on Indigenous participation and governance distinguishes IPAs as a signifi- cant shift away from a wilderness model for protected areas (Godden 2002). The new paradigm, evident in IPAs, acknowl- edges that “country” constitutes land and waters that have endur- ing cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (TSI) peoples. Those connections extend

over millennia and are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures (ALRC 2015). The transition is neither comprehensive nor is its implementation unproblematic.

IPAs have a specific designation within the legal framework for conservation management within Australia. A protected area is defined by Australian governments as “a clearly defined geo- graphical space, recognised, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conser- vation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cul- tural values” (Australian Government 2016). An IPA on land will become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous “landowners” voluntarily declare their intention to manage their “country,” in accordance with traditional law, cus- tom, and culture, and consistent with national reserve require- ments and international conservation guidelines (Dudley 1994). For IPAs on sea country, there is not the same correlation with the NRS given the flux in the status of the marine reserve sys- tem (Butterly 2013). There is significant variation in the forms of tenure and rights that comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “ownership” across the Australian continent (Tehan 2003). A prerequisite for terrestrial IPAs is that the underly- ing traditional ownership has been “formalised.” Sea-country IPAs differ, as an underpinning tenure may be absent, thereby

Author contributions: LG, SC conceived, researched, and wrote the paper.

1 Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia 2 Address correspondence to L. Godden, email lcgoddden@unimelb.edu.au 3 Conservation Management Pty Ltd, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia

© 2016 Society for Ecological Restoration doi: 10.1111/rec.12394

692 Restoration Ecology Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 692 – 697 September 2016

Conservation planning in Indigenous Protected Areas

requiring Indigenous groups to actively build networks to sup- port culturally based conservation measures.

The establishment of IPAs was preceded by various forms of comanagement or joint management with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities over their traditional land and waters (Bauman & Smyth 2007). These moves to “jointly” manage country were given impetus by legal reforms, including the recognition of native title in 1992 (Bauman et al. 2013) and international human rights developments. Over the same time frame, ecological restoration has progressively developed within Australia, from discrete programs such as Landcare to a more comprehensive approach to conservation (McDonald & Williams 2009).

While the two trends coalesce around IPAs, each brings a particular perspective and set of knowledge practices to conser- vation planning and management that may not necessarily be congruent. IPAs have a unique status within Australia’s conser- vation system, while aligning also with the NRS for biodiver- sity conservation. The NRS is regarded as the “nation’s natural safety net against our biggest environmental challenges” (Aus- tralian Government 2014).

Well-established protocols and programs such as “Healthy Country Planning” (HCP) now exist, which build on earlier “co-management” and “partnerships” approaches but which seek to institute a stronger model of governance of IPAs by Indigenous communities (Butterly 2013). Attention is now being directed to supporting capacity for Aboriginal and Tor- res Strait Islander communities to actively govern IPAs. Chal- lenges still remain in fully incorporating ecological restoration goals into broadly conceived Indigenous governance of pro- tected areas. Experience from HCP indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision-making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes in IPAs.

This article briefly charts the reorientation in conservation planning for protected areas in Australia, before examining the legal structures that enable and support IPAs in Australia. The article then turns to the challenges of conservation planning and ecological restoration in IPAs. A “restoration” model for IPAs raises contested ideas about what is “natural,” the rele- vant “baseline” for restoration, and engenders debate about the objectives to be achieved — ecological or cultural sustainability? Secondly, there are significant resourcing and capacity build- ing requirements to support conservation in IPAs, particularly where proactive ecological restoration is planned or where tra- ditional owners have been displaced from “country” in the past. Finally, it raises the challenge of how best to support and build Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community governance and decision-making around multifaceted objectives for IPAs.

From Wilderness Ideals to IPAs

Protected areas grew from a preservationist ideal of nature where the impulse was to separate humans and nature to pro- tect a sublime nature as “wilderness” (Colchester 1997). Early World Conservation Union (IUCN) guidelines for protected

areas emphasized this separation. Protected areas subsequently were considered to be “essential for the conservation of biologi- cal diversity” (Ghimire & Pimbert 2013). Widespread criticism of the wilderness model and its effects upon communities that live within or depend upon protected areas led to significant changes in conservation philosophy (Dudley 2013). Even so, a constellation of views about “conservation” often will exist among members of Indigenous communities (Butterly 2013).

The early management paradigms for Australia’s protected areas and national parks were strongly influenced by the ini- tial international approach. When combined with the legal posi- tion that Australia was a settled colony, it excluded considera- tion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ relation- ships with traditional land and waters (Godden 2002). Ecology, with its origins in colonial science, reinforced the purported “primitiveness” of Australia’s Indigenous people casting them as either “Noble Savages” and even at times as “mega fauna” in an ecosystem. The European “property” perspective predis- poses toward dominance over land and water (now arguably transmuted to softer “management” concepts). This approach contrasts with Aboriginal peoples’ obligations to country:

The social practices that constitute the expression of proprietary interests are embedded in everyday life and its patterning by kinship, descent, spiritual metaphors and both individual and community his- tory. Knowledge of both the biophysical and spir- itual landscape is essential to the good standing, authority and power of a landowner, particularly an Elder, to represent the interests of the group in the affairs of the territory. (Langton 2010)

Australian law and conservation frameworks have belatedly recognized these connections to country, the attendant obliga- tions, and the need for country to form the foundation for social, economic, and cultural sustainability for Aboriginal and Tor- res Strait Islander communities (Altman 2014). In 2005, Tucker noted “[t]here are, however, few practical examples of the par- allels between ‘healing country’ (restoration) and ‘healing rela- tionships’ (reconciliation).” He advocated consideration of the intertwined concepts: reconciling the relationships that Aus- tralian society has with the land and its Indigenous inhabitants, as well as “restoring new ecological balance to the country which nurtures and sustains all cultures” (Tucker 2005).

IPAs and the NRS

A residual silo approach to “environment” and Indigenous peo- ples still is evident in some aspects of the NRS. The NRS and “protected areas” are generally governed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The NRS objectives reflect an ecological perspective:

The National Reserve System is Australia’s net- work of protected areas, conserving examples of our natural landscapes and native plants and ani- mals for future generations. Based on a scien- tific framework, it is the nation’s natural safety

September 2016 Restoration Ecology 693

Conservation planning in Indigenous Protected Areas

net against our biggest environmental challenges. (Australian Government 2014)

“Australian ecosystems have been shaped by Aboriginal peo- ples for tens of thousands of years prior to the arrival of Euro- peans” (McDonald & Williams 2009). Thus, the “fit” between robust recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander gov- ernance of traditional land and waters and the priorities of con- servation planning under the NRS (including marine reserves) are part of the complex challenges facing IPAs. Significantly, it is estimated that 30% of Australia is held under Indigenous tenure or “rights” (Altman 2014). Native title claims to offshore areas, and other forms of agreement-making with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples around sea country, have the potential to significantly expand that coverage. The NRS objec- tives to date do not express the enhanced role of Indigenous communities in land and sea management that these changes to tenure reflect. IPAs are an important factor in addressing this gap.

Ecological Restoration and Conservation Planning

Broadly speaking, ecological restoration efforts in Australia seek to address the “reduction in the condition and area of most ecosystems” due to modern postindustrial society (McDonald & Williams 2009). Measures are designed to counter the degrada- tion of endemic ecosystems, the loss of habitat, and the decline in species to re-establish functional ecosystems’ (Clewell et al. 2000). Expanding human populations, invasive species, and cli- mate change make the challenge of restoring species assem- blages and ecosystem processes in highly degraded landscapes difficult. While ecological restoration applies at many different sites and scales, protected areas offer an obvious location when seeking to restore ecosystems.

Changes in approaches to conservation planning in Aus- tralia reflect broader changes in economic, political, and social institutions and processes. As noted by Moorcroft et al. (2012) “[h]istorically, conservation planning in Australia has been embedded in a specific cultural context that privileges Western science, linear views of time and bounded notions of space, and asserts particular assumptions about the separation of nature and culture, resource management and human intervention.”

Conservation planning now needs to consider inter alia integration of social, cultural, economic, and natural factors; inequalities of wealth and gender; development of social, cultural, and natural capital; devolution of decision-making; and managing ecosystems in a human context (Campbell & Fainstein 1996; Maltby 1997; Mercer 2000; Selman 1996 in Lockwood 2016).

These changes are most evident in the development of plans for IPAs, where “planning can achieve positive out- comes for Indigenous groups if it is community-based, and centered on community objectives, capabilities and knowl- edge systems rather than those imposed by another party” (Lane 2006 in Moorcroft et al. 2012). Increasingly, Indigenous law and practice are guiding the development of conserva- tion planning; fostering legal pluralism and greater intercultural

understanding — a feature clearly evident in many sea-country IPAs (Butterly 2013).

NRS and IPAs

The Australian government established a “comprehensive, ade- quate and representative” protected area system, which later evolved into the NRS. The NRS includes more than 10,000 protected areas covering almost 18% of Australia, comprising Commonwealth, state and territory Crown land and reserves, Indigenous lands and protected areas held by nonprofit con- servation organizations, and ecosystems protected in perpetu- ity on private land (Australian Government 2014). In the off- shore areas, the marine reserve system is well developed. The incorporation of privately owned land and IPAs has been driven in part by the need to enhance the comprehensiveness of the NRS. Land and sea that come under various forms of tradi- tional ownership and which are protected as IPAs comprise almost 7% of Australia (Australian Government 2014), and 40% of the NRS. The extent of IPAs within Australia is shown in Figure 1.

Legal Framework for Indigenous Participation in Conservation

Legal change has been an important driver for enhanced Indigenous participation in environmental management. The prenative title era was characterized largely by the exclusion of Indigenous communities from “formal” conservation models apart from land management and planning connected with statutory land rights schemes and some ad hoc involvement in national parks, World Heritage. Cultural heritage legisla- tion was significant in regulating land access and instituted site specific protections (Godden 2002). Many initiatives for Indigenous involvement in environmental management were limited to a consultative role.

A series of comanagement arrangements were developed by federal, territory, and state governments seeking to involve Indigenous people in government-managed protected areas in Australia. Comanagement models include Kakadu, Uluru Kata-Tjuta, and Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Parks in the Northern Territory. Most comanaged national parks are implemented through a lease-back model where Aboriginal groups have their traditional country returned on condition that they lease it back to government conservation agencies as pro- tected areas (Smyth 2011).

While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long cared for country under their law, tradition, and custom, the recognition of native title in Mabo v. Queensland (No 2) in 1992 gave stronger legal weight to Indigenous peoples’ involvement in the protection of country. Native title also gave effect to Indigenous governance of land and waters, through the concept of connection in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Despite not fully meeting the aspirations of Indigenous communities, native title gave Indigenous people “a seat at the table” to care for country (Dodson & Strelein 2001; Bartlett 2015).

694 Restoration Ecology September 2016

Conservation planning in Indigenous Protected Areas

Figure 1. Australian Indigenous Protected Areas 2015.

The growing number of determinations of native title has driven a correlative expansion in Indigenous environmental governance. Expansion has occurred via agreements, often as Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA) under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Agreement-making has assumed cen- tral importance in determining how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ relationship with the “conservation” and ecological restoration sector is managed (Smyth 2011). Agreement-making, while offering opportunities for Indigenous communities in environmental governance (Bauman & Smyth 2007), may not deal effectively with the pervasive exclusion of Indigenous peoples (Altman & Kerins 2012; Altman 2014). IPAs have the potential to “close the gap.”

Conservation and IPAs

IPAs rest on a prerequisite of Aboriginal “ownership” of land and waters to be protected. For inclusion in the IPA program, Aboriginal and TSI communities commit to manage their land to maintain biological diversity according to internationally rec- ognized land management categories defined by the World Con- servation Union (IUCN). Aboriginal communities must already have native title or other forms of “ownership” over areas that are brought voluntarily into the IPA Programme. Once an IPA has been declared, following initial funding discussions and management planning, subsequent investment proposals can be made to implement a plan of management. IPAs offer resources for land management without the loss of autonomy that may be associated with comanagement or joint management schemes.

Conservation Planning in IPAs

In the past few years, conservation planning in IPAs has moved from specific tenure-based approaches to more holistic country planning, in what is frequently referred to as a tenure-blind approach. The focus in such an approach is on Indigenous governance rather than the scope of planning being determined with primary reference to the nature of the underlying land tenure. Such a model is exemplified by sea-country IPAs. In these approaches, the establishment of IPAs has become a tenure-based “strategy” a country plan. One approach (of many) used in planning for country and IPAs is the HCP methodology.

HCP is an adaptation of the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Open Standards) being used and adopted by Aboriginal land management teams across Australia. The Open Standards are an adaptive management tool that “bring[s] together common concepts, approaches, and terminology in conservation project design, management, and monitoring in order to help practitioners improve the practice of conserva- tion” (CMP 2013). The Open Standards are “increasingly being used in landscape and property conservation planning projects throughout Australia, including well-known landscape projects (e.g. Gondwana Link), and as the primary planning tools for a number of ENGOs. The tools are also increasingly being adapted to support Indigenous community use” (Moorcroft et al. 2012).

Although built around biodiversity conservation, the tools of the Open Standards are able to be translated for use into other contexts, particularly those where biodiversity

September 2016 Restoration Ecology 695

Conservation planning in Indigenous Protected Areas

Figure 2. Healthy Country Planning approach.

conservation is intertwined with the culture and livelihood of local communities. HCP is consistent with the Open Standards, but with language and some of the facilitation approaches and tools tailored to community needs, focusing on participation and engagement and the inclusion of community and traditional knowledge and priorities. HCP follows five main steps, each with a number of substeps that are illustrated in the Figure 2:

(1) Deciding what the plan is about: clarifying what the plan will focus on, including vision, scope, targets (assets), threats, and stakeholders

(2) Making the plan: develop strategies, actions, and monitor- ing plans

(3) Doing and monitoring the work: putting into practice our actions

(4) Deciding if the plan is working: review of progress and making changes if needed

(5) Telling ourselves and others: reporting on our progress

The key additional features of HCP are:

(1) Planning on country — being on country is the appropriate place to talk about country

(2) Using Indigenous governance — adapting planning process structure to suit local context, codevelopment of approach

(3) Flexible time and regular feedback — not rushing the plan- ning process and being flexible with dates

(4) Using appropriate terms and language — like all planning systems, Open Standards language has specific terms that can be adapted to suit the context

(5) Restoration of traditional owner decision-making — using and valuing community knowledge

By ensuring the process is controlled by traditional own- ers and incorporates Indigenous language and core concepts

means that HCP, like many approaches in this space, respects and supports community integrity (Moorcroft 2012). In turn, this demonstrates that “indigenous controlled planning can shape a more equitable intercultural conservation” (Moorcroft et al. 2012).

IPA Management: What Have We Learnt?

Thus, as is increasingly demonstrated by Country Needs People (2016), restoring culturally based management can support other restoration goals — ecological, as well as social and cul- tural. Yet, if IPAs are to fulfill the function of offering a more equitable form of intercultural conservation and ecological restoration, then it is vital to continue to build governance capacity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Entry into an IPA arrangement or similar model is a significant, tangible outcome for traditional owners from many native determinations across Australia: for some groups, it may be the only substantial outcome. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) pro- vides traditional owners with a negotiating position for entering into agreements, but native title groups face ongoing challenges in the postdetermination landscape. Strengthening governance capacity for the group should commence well before the tra- ditional owners have a native title determination. Moreover, currently, few Native Title Bodies Corporate (the entity which exercises governance powers on behalf of people holding native title after a native title determination) are being adequately sup- ported to manage well. Further, many groups have to contend with, “the general inflexibility of the Native Title Act and the lack of institutional and resource support for Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate” (Bauman et al. 2013). These constraints may inhibit the achievement of the wider goals embedded within the restoration of culturally based land and sea management.

Future Challenges

IPAs, while part of the NRS, also need to serve longer term goals for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The challenge for ecological restoration efforts is not to lock in a model that gives priority to either ecological values or static “traditional” management but rather to adopt a flexible approach that allows for “bottom up” Indigenous community management. Ideally, IPAs offer an opportunity to build collaborative governance structures to achieve long-term improvements in Indigenous social capacity, and environmental and economic well-being. The conjoining of ecological protection and Indigenous com- munity decision-making and governance for biodiversity management in this way can achieve long-term sustainability (Wallis et al. 2012).

Acknowledgments

An earlier version was delivered at The Restoration Dialogues Workshop, 3 – 4 November, 2015. The authors thank Professor T. Lefroy and Professor B. Richardson for organizing that work- shop. The authors also thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggested improvements.

696 Restoration Ecology September 2016

Conservation planning in Indigenous Protected Areas

LITERATURE CITED Altman J (2014) The political ecology and political economy of the Indigenous

land titling ‘revolution’ in Australia. Māori Law Review Indigenous Law Speaker Series: March 2014

Altman J, Kerins S (2012) People on country, vital landscapes, indigenous futures. The Federation Press, Annadale, Australia

Australian Government (2014) National Reserve System Protected Area Requirements. Department of the Environment. http://www.environment. gov.au/land/nrs (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Australian Government (2016) Indigenous Protected Areas. Department of the Environment. http://www.environment.gov.au/land/indigenous- protected-areas (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (2015) Connection to coun- try: review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (ALRC Report 126). https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc126 (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Bartlett R (2015) Native title in Australia. LexusNexus Butterworths, Sydney, Australia

Bauman T, Haynes C, Lauder G (2013) Pathways to the co-management of protected areas and native title in Australia, Discussion Paper No. 32. AIATSIS, Canberra, Australia

Bauman T, Smyth D (2007) Indigenous partnerships in protected area manage- ment in Australia: three case studies. AIATSIS, Canberra, Australia

Butterly L (2013) Changing tack: Akiba and the way forward for Indige- nous governance of sea country. Australian Indigenous Law Review 17:2 – 22

Campbell S, Fainstein S (eds) (1996) Readings in planning theory. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom

Clewell A, Rieger J, Munro J (2000) Guidelines for developing and man- aging ecological restoration projects. Society of Ecological Restoration. http://ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/guidelines. (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Colchester M (1997) Salvaging nature: Indigenous peoples and protected areas. Pages 97 – 130. In: Ghimire K, Pimbert M (eds) Social change and conser- vation environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas (2013). Earthscan, London, United Kingdom

Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) 2013 Open standards for the practice of conservation, version 3.0. www.conservationmeasures.org (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Country Needs People (2016) http://www.countryneedspeople.org.au/ (accessed 8 Mar 2016)

Dodson M, Strelein L (2001) Australia’s nation-building: renegotiating the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state. University of New South Wales Law Journal 24:826 – 839

Dudley N (1994) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Dudley N (ed) (2013) Guidelines for applying protected area categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/ gpap_home (accessed 10 Feb 2016)

Ghimire K, Pimbert M (eds) (2013) Social change and conservation environmen- tal politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom

Godden L (2002) Indigenous heritage and the environment: legal categories are only one way of imagining the real. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 19:258 – 266

Jaireth H, Smyth D (eds) (2003) Innovative governance: Indigenous peoples, local communities, and protected areas. Ane Books, New Delhi, India

Lane M (2006) The role of planning in achieving Indigenous land justice and community goals. Land Use Policy 23:385 – 394

Langton M (2010) The estate as duration: ‘Being in place’ Godden L and Tehan M (eds) Comparative perspectives on communal lands and individual ownership: sustainable futures. Routledge, London, United Kingdom

Lockwood M (2016) Introduction to management planning. Notes from KGA531 Protected Area Management Plans. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Aus- tralia

Maltby E (1997) Ecosystem management: the concept and the strategy. World Conservation 3:3 – 4

McDonald T, Williams J (2009) A perspective on the evolving science and practice of ecological restoration in Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 10:113 – 125

Mercer D (2000) A question of balance: natural resources conflict issues in Australia. 3rd edition. Federation Press, Sydney, Australia

Moorcroft H, Ignjic E, Cowell S, Goonack J, Mangolomara S, Oobagooma J, Karadada R, Williams D, Waina N (2012) Conservation planning in a crosscultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the Kimberley, Western Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 13:16 – 25

Selman P (1996) Local sustainability: managing and planning ecologically sound places. Chapman, London, United Kingdom

Smyth D (2011) Indigenous land and sea management: a case study. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Popula- tion and Communities on behalf of the State of the Environment 2011 Committee, Canberra, Australia

Tehan M (2003) A hope disillusioned, an opportunity lost? Reflections on common law native title and ten years of the Native Title Act. Melbourne University Law Review 27:523

Tucker N (2005) Healing country and healing relationships. Ecological Manage- ment & Restoration 6:83 – 84

Wallis R, Wallis A, Picone A (2012) After 80 years absence, Wuthathi people plan for the return and management of ancestral homelands on Cape York Peninsula. Ecological Management & Restoration 13:81 – 84

Coordinating Editor: Benjamin Richardson Received: 10 March, 2016; First decision: 6 April, 2016; Revised: 6 April, 2016; Accepted: 6 April, 2016; First published online: 21 June, 2016

September 2016 Restoration Ecology 697