To remain sustainable, countries have to maintain or increase their Gross Nature Product together with their Gross National Product. (See “The Value of Natural Capital – World Bank” http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/winter01/article.asp?id=97 )

So no matter what practices are used in natural environment management, the overall Gross Nature Product must be maintained or increased.

Agreed except we are as a society far from a belief in science data as the driver of action. For example the recent 'proof' using isotope attenuuation has shown that removal of forest in the Amazon results in reduced rainfall. One might imagine on such data more forest including Australian, would be locked up. True maybe selctive logging would have less effect on the rainfall. A question for science to answer. But to find funds and the political will for the effort the appeal, like modern evangelism, is for effectiveness, directed at the emotions. Maybe more research on why humans are as they are and the extent to which behaviour is alterable is desirable. Jared Diamond in his recent book recording how man with obvious ill consequences of his actions staring him in the face has chosen again and again to adopt-what? A was not told did not see in favour of maintaing current behaviour. The evidence of real energy and consequent reduced green house gas is before us and has been for years. Amory Lovins has shown the profitability of recycling even having industries grouped so the waste of one is feedstock for the next. Taken up in Europe particularly Denmark but largely ignored here Why? The question is larger than simply becoming pragamtic for we at present do not know how on any large scale.

A brave piece, Ms Marohasy. Quoting Darwin in evidence for a rational approach to anything is the proverbial red rag to the godbothering bull, so expect "replies" from a few folk who didn't read past that sentence.

Apart from that, the simple fact is that governments are the worst possible vehicle for intelligent policy in this area, given that their job security is predicated on pure emotion, rather than facts or evidence. They will follow the line that delivers them a parliamentary majority, a line that these days has a distinctly Greenish hue. And as we know, Green policy, such as it is, has little to do with the economics of real life.

Good article. Hope it gets lots of responses. Any strategy revisions will by definition have to be a grass-roots effort.

Ms Marohassy's article is a timely reminder that you must have at least a basic understanding of the system you are trying to manage, its history as well as its present. And further, that the world exists in spite of us not because of us.

The comment regarding the effects of clearing on tropical rainforests is a perfect illustration of that - although I do not believe that was the author's intention. When clearing commenced no one realised just how tightly the forest was integrated into the regional hydrological cycle. Although this is now common knowledge there is too much short term financial gain and too much political corruption involved for anyone to say "stop". It would be possible to achieve at least a limited restoration of the rainforest, but not by leaving it to "natural processes".

This suggests that none of the existing agencies can operate to effectively manage the 'natural world' and an entirely new agency utilising existing systems plus an entirely new range of inputs from (currently ignored) stakeholders will be required.

Well said, Jennifer. In the Queensland (so-called) Public Service from 1991-2002 I sought to promote evidence-based policy across the board, to little avail. I hope you have more success than me!

In 1996, my Cabinet brief persuaded the Qld Coalition Government to support Australia's adherence to the Kyoto Agreement (I don't think that the Queensland Greens would have believed this if it had been publicised, but the Premier advised the PM in writing of Queensland's decision), arguing that (a) economic modelling of the impact on the Queensland economy showed a relatively modest impact - 32% GSP growth over 10 years compared to 35% without Kyoto; (b) that while there were great uncertainties re global warming, there were grounds for adopting a precautionary approach, and the insurance cost was acceptable if it averted the worst outcome scenarios; (c) that before the Kyoto period of 2008-2012 was reached, we would have a much clearer understanding of climate prospects; and (d) if fears expressed in 1996 were unfounded, little would have been lost if Qld pursued least-regrets greenhouse policies (e.g. cost-effective building insulation) while research continued. Nine years on, I'm more sceptical - the IPCC's global warming scenarios are all based on economic modelling, which has been discredited; if properly modelled, the outcome of the most likely scenario for warming by the end of this century would probably not be significantly different from zero. I was aware in 1996 that climate modelling was extremely complex; it has turned out to be even more complex.

The forests which concern you have had less research effort but at least as much emotion, which I agree is not a basis for sustainable policy in the community interest.

Great article Jennifer Marohasy - Having grown up on the north coast of NSW with the timber industry where I came to realise management is important for sustainable forests industries. The clear felled forests that made way for farming in the early 1920's are now returned to native species as managed private forests.

We have a responsibility to manage our natural resourses, as Genesis 2: 9 says, "And out of the ground God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." There is in forests both asthetic and practical uses that are our human responsibility to manage and maintain. I was schooled in Botany by Leonard Cronin author of several books one "Key Guide to Australian trees", during his classification, analysis and research into North Coast Rain forest trees, so I from him developed a love for forest diversity.

Pericles, what do you mean? "Quoting Darwin in evidence for a rational approach to anything is the proverbial red rag to the godbothering bull, so expect "replies" from a few folk who didn't read past that sentence."

It would appear that this statement indicates some obsession or importance to you, so what prompted you to say it?