Caracterización de las conductas de estudio en una muestra de alumnos de Secundaria.

This period seems to be marked at its end by a paradigm shift that was to widely and fundamentally affect environmental policy. The publication by Carson (19620

and the foundation of the United Nations Environment Programs arising from a meeting in 1972 are just two internationally recognised signposts of this shift. The most significant local marker was the proclamation of an important piece of legislation and the establishment of new institutions (National Parks and Wildlife Services and the Department of the Environment). This was not gradual

transformative change in the sense of Streck and Thelan (2005) but something more recognisably abrupt.

No evidence of policy learning appears to have been carried over from the previous period. The use of Acts of parliament with no substantial organisational or

implementational backup was carried from the last period into this one. From the outset of this period it could be said that the then influential policy actors in Tasmania recognised that there would be benefits to flow from being part of a federation. This included the Commonwealth‘s assumption of responsibilities (and costs of) tasks like defence. This might come under the ―government learning‖ of Etheridge (1981) or the social learning of Hall (1995).

The earliest tree conservation measures were recommendations made by individuals trained as forest conservators in Britain or Europe. Scientific forestry was an

enlightened discipline from the earliest days and, as pointed out,

…over two centuries ago, forestry was appreciated as being necessary to sustain the production of timber, to protect river catchments, to harbour wildlife, and to provide for the recreational enjoyment. (Australian Department of Agriculture Forestry and Timber Bureau 1975:1)

Early untrammelled exploitation of forests led to the early promulgation of forestry legislation and the appointment of the early forest conservators. The widespread clearing for agriculture led to the early measures to protect vegetation, but under the guise of water or soil conservation. The Soil Conservation Act 1938 of New South Wales (NSW) for example, provided for the proclamation of areas of ―protected land‖ where trees were protected. As early as 1929 the South Australian Crown Lands Act 1929 provided for the dedication of areas for the purposes of nature conservation and protection of natural habitat. Even earlier, the Tasmanian Forestry

Act 1920 provided for the declaration of areas for the protection of flora and other scientific values. Cresswell (1999) describes similar measures across the states. The forestry profession was born out of the realisation that wild forests were being damaged by lack of management. This led to the birth of the profession in Europe, particularly Germany, in the mid-nineteenth century. The awareness spread

throughout the world but struggled to gain a foothold in Australia ―In some parts of the world apparently inexhaustible areas of forest led to this European appreciation (‗multiple use forestry‘) of forestry being overlooked (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Timber Bureau 1975:1). Barton (2002) though, has argued that

today‘s‘ environmental stewardship originated in the Marquis of Dalhousie‘s Forest Charter of 1855, which created a system of protected forests throughout India. The idea was disseminated throughout the world beginning with the other British colonies on the Australian and African continents.

In Tasmania Colonel Legge, who surveyed the extent and nature of Callitris rhomboidea in eastern Tasmania, carried out one of the earliest forest assessments (Legge 1911) and prepared a report for the Legislative Council. The origin of the idea for this report is not certain, beyond the mention in a preface by Legge that he was pleased to forward a report about the issues that he had previously discussed with members of the council. It may well have been at the prompting of Legge himself as he was well connected politically and had a fine collection of trees, including conifers (and indeed a captive specimen of Callitris rhomboidea, in his garden at ―Cullenswood‖ in the Fingal Valley). He also appears to have been

acquainted with the contemporary principles of the forestry profession. This was not surprising for a man with military training. An understanding of timber and its properties was crucial to military engineering of the time.

While the roles of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (RTBG) and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery are likely to become more important for vegetation management in this period, they played peripheral roles in the

furtherance of any vegetation policy objectives. This is in spite of the importance of these institutions to the history of vegetation science and botany in the state. The herbarium previously held at the RTBG was transferred in 1946 to the safekeeping of the University of Tasmania Botany Department. The collection formed the basis

of taxonomic accounts of Tasmania‘s flora (Curtis 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969; Rodway 1903), which was fundamental to understanding the composition and distribution of Tasmanian flora.

The development of knowledge of Australia‘s flora, an essential prerequisite to its proper husbanding, is described in George et al. (1999). This demonstrates the close links between the small number of botanists and their institutions that were

botanical gardens and universities at that time. Most botanical gardens were centres of taxonomy, an arrangement that continues to this day in most states except

Tasmania. The botanical gardens also saw one of their main roles as acclimatisation gardens for exotic flora of use to the colonies. Indeed, the emphasis on economic botany was a reflection of this—either in named buildings or titles of curators. The gardens were also areas displaying examples of the world‘s floras. Many had

herbaria attached to them and this taxonomic expertise complements the curatorship of living collections.

During the development consolidation period there was very little academic study of vegetation (see citations in Reid et al. 1999) right through until the end of the period. The accumulation of scientific knowledge about Tasmanian vegetation began to develop rapidly from the beginning of the 1970s. This is demonstrated by the number of scientific papers dealing with the vegetation and flora of the state, according to citations in Reid et al. (1999). There was a low level of publication until the late 1960s when the number increased steeply.

The publication of Carson‘s Silent spring (Carson 1962) was part of a re-

examination of the values of western society and was symptomatic of questioning across areas such as pollution, conservation, war, urban redevelopment,

consumerism, public health, economic growth and agriculture. The dawn of a conservation movement in Tasmania arguably coincided with the proposal to flood the unique Lake Pedder in the south-west wilderness, now part of the World

Heritage Area. At the time there were no vegetation policies in Tasmania to prevent this action. There was not even any need to provide an environmental impact statement concerning the inundation. Some informal studies were, however, carried out and even here the botanical input was minimal. WM Curtis described a new

plant species collected from the sandy shore of the lake, but most of the studies were geomorphological and faunal.

Lesson learning began to emerge during this period but was very piecemeal. There was disquiet about the lack of policy instruments surrounding the management of production forest and this lead to the Kessel report, which was commissioned to enquire into various aspects of the forestry department, and through that into

forestry matters generally. An enlightened example of lesson learning was the result of Legge‘s report. A vestige of the work by Legge may have remained as there was a policy in the state forestry agency (Forestry Commission) in the mid-1970s that precluded any cutting or logging of areas that were mainly Callitris.

The end of this development consolidation period saw the beginning of a phase of substantial conflict and the land use centric arguments of whether land should be hydro-electric dam or national park, forestry or nature conservation reserves. The government was not set up to consider all aspects of vegetation management and the annual reports of the Scenery Preservation Board or the Animals and Birds Protection Board showed, for example, that vegetation was not considered except as habitat for animals. The Animals and Birds Protection Board commissioned a report on the vegetation of Chappell Island (Gillham 1960) with its purpose to provide the environmental context for shearwater and Cape Barren goose management. The interpretation of policy during this period suited the predominance of traditional views of policy change—government bending to societal pressure. The government was perceived as very strong and authoritative during this period and continued to be so until it collided with the rise of advocacy groups and advocacy coalitions in the 1970s.

In summary, the development consolidation period was characterised, more than anything else, by the impacts of the Great Depression of the 1930s and World War II. Authoritative government in Tasmania (as elsewhere) had a widely

acknowledged remit following these events to rebuild society on the basis of strong industrial performance. Responses to these major events overshadowed any

3.6 The Environmental Period: The Establishment of the National Parks