**Published name**
1. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you believe that the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework will contribute to high quality Conserved Area additions to the Conserved Area Network?
1.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework that could be addressed.
The tenure (i.e. 25 years) and lack of legal definition relating to long term intention will result in a short term benefit to conservation,
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘unclear’ and 5 being ‘clear’, how clear is the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework, including figures and diagrams?
2.1. Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework, including figures and diagrams, that could be addressed.
Further detail regarding site assessments based on individual merits is required, detail regarding benefits/motivators for private land holders to engage is required, prioritisation of degraded sites vs intact ecological values is required.
3. Are there any gaps in the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework?
3.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question.
As per response to question 1 and 2 , ALCA submission and TLC submission. In addition, details are required regarding state and territory involvement, assessment tools, monitoring requirements, enforcement and inclusion of culturally significant sites.
Direct engagement with ALCA would inform the department regarding current private land conservation actions and opportunities relevant to the OECM implementation and framework.
4. Are there any gaps in the proposed implementation arrangements?
as above
5. Is the proposed site assessment tool for Conserved Areas recognition fit for purpose to identify sites eligible for Conserved Area recognition?
6. If you have tested the proposed site assessment tool on a specific site, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think it was easy to use?
6.1 On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think the proposed site assessment tool is fit for purpose?
Upload a submission
