APRIL 1999 13
Conservation directions in a political landscape Grahame Douglas
In March 1995, the Australian Labor Party was elected to office with a promise to declare 25 new national parks, declare identified wilderness areas, and improve the protection of the State's natural heritage. Near the conclusion of the Carr Government's first term of office, it is appropriate to review the progress achieved and to establish a framework for the declaration of additional protected areas within NSW.
The Coalition before 1995
After the Wran-Unsworth era, the level of new national park
declarations within NSW fell to an all-time low. In an attempt to
improve the situation, a Bill prepared by NPA and sponsored by
the independent member for Manly, Dr Peter Macdonald, was
presented to the Greiner Government. It sought to establish 25
new national parks While this Bill was unsuccessful, the areas
which formed ALP policy closely mirrored those of Dr Macdonald's
Bill.
Both Tim Moore and Chris Hartcher as Ministers for the Environment tried to advance the agenda for new national parks but were frustrated in Cabinet by the National Party. However, the Coalition were highly successful in two areas: park management, with the focus on fire management, pest species management (weeds and feral) and neighbour relations (see article on p 18); and the provision of funding to acquire outstanding lands under the 8(b) and 6(c) park additions on the north coast. Notable new parks during the Coalition's time included the Nattai parks in the Warragamba catchment, Popran, Wyrrabalong and Conjola/Cudmirrah national parks.
A major backward step was the transfer of many state recreation areas from NPWS administration to that of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (now Land and Water Conservation) although, admittedly, a number of areas were upgraded from SRA to national park.
The ALP initiatives
The ALP's Nature Conservation Strategy, released in February
1995, sets out a clear and concise agenda for establishing new
national parks estate as well as addressing the need for marine
national parks and a system of regional parks in Sydney. In
Sutherland, the ALP also committed themselves to a specific
program to deal with unresolved national park additions at a
ceremony on Port Hacking and signed by Pam Allan.
As part of their Forestry Policy, the ALP identified a process of structural adjustment in conjunction with a forest assessment process under the National Forest Policy Statement. This was undertaken at the expense of the Environmental Trusts established by the forward thinking of Minister Tim Moore. The Environmental Trusts' funds were diverted from environmental restoration/rehabilitation, education and research projects to various aspects of the ALP's initiatives for forests and national parks.
By any reasonable measure, the ALP have achieved much in the area of declaring new national parks estate, adding some 66 new parks and reserves and adding nearly 600,000 ha during its first term of office. The proportion of the State in protected areas has risen from less than 5% in 1994 to nearly 6% today. The majority of areas promised under the 25 new parks policy were achieved by 1996/97. Much has also been achieved through the Regional Forest Assessment process, though there has been justifiable criticism that conservation outcomes have not been adequately achieved (see article on the northeast forests on pp 9-12).
Across the State, protection has not yet been achieved for important areas promised under the ALP's policies including: Prospect Reservoir; Silverwater NR (partly achieved); Warrell Creek; Stockton Bight; Maroota NP; Blue Mountains NP additions Blackheath, Katoomba, Woodford catchments and the Kedumba Valley; and Hunter Water sensitive catchment lands.
New visions, or more of the same?
From the beginning of the 1990s, NPA has sought to develop a
strategic and bioregional basis for the planning of a system of
protected areas in the State, based on the criteria of
comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness for
biodiversity and landscapes (referred to as the CAR reserves). It
is recognised that a system of national parks on its own will not
protect the State's biodiversity. However, it is a core from
which nature conservation initiatives can be managed in a
landscape.
In 1992, NPA released its report on Nature Conservation in Western NSW (Morgan & Terry, 1992) which identified those bioregions, sub-regions and provinces which required additional areas to develop a CAR reserve system. The report identified 103 key areas and 4 wilderness areas requiring protection to expand protected areas in the west.
In 1995, a report was prepared by Peter Parker entitled Marine and Estuarine Conservation of NSW Coastal Waters. The Atlas of Marine National Parks in the report identified 21 marine and estuarine protected areas for coastal NSW, largely based on existing terrestrial reserves.
In October 1998, Martin Denny submitted to NPA his final report on the Bioregionalisation of Eastern NSW covering the area not addressed by Morgan and Terry.
The west
Western NSW has the poorest representation within the terrestrial
protected area system in the State, with the Central West having
been largely cleared for agricultural purposes. The capacity of
the west to add to a CAR reserve system will be difficult, with a
number of bioregional provinces being unlikely to ever meet the
criteria of comprehensive, adequate and representative.
NPA has identified a number of important areas for reservation in western NSW bioregions: River red gum forests along the southern inland rivers of the State; Woomargama NP proposal comprising 36,700 ha of the Woomargama State Forest and adjacent Crown land (subject to Southern CRA); Goonoo NP proposal comprising the Goonoo SF as a core (of 62,500 ha) and other State forests and private lands to link to the Castlereagh River; expansions of Mt Kaputar NP and Pilliga NR providing a link to the Warrumbungles; and additions of travelling stock routes and other lands to Sturt NP, Mungo NP, Nocholeche NR, Conimbla NP, Weddin Mountains NP, Cocoparra NP, Yathong NR and Nombinnie NR.
The South Coast
Unlike the west, the major threat to our coastal areas arises
from population pressures for a range of competing land uses.
Protected areas and additions have been identified from Batemans
Bay up to Nowra such as:
a) Five Lakes NP - the area is listed on the Register of the National Estate and includes Crown lands and the State forests of Termeil and Woodburn, which are situated between Ulladulla and Bawley Point on the South Coast. The total area of the park would be around 6,000 ha including the lake beds.
b) Additions to Murramurrang NP between the existing park and the Princes Highway, including the Kioloa and Benandarah State forests and a small part of south Brooman SF. Durras Lake and adjacent Crown lands are also proposed for inclusion. The total area of the additions is around 7,600 ha.
c) Jervis Bay NP (Lake Woolumboola) additions - located near the coastal town of Culburra, north of Jervis Bay. It neighbours the Government's outlined Jervis Bay NP and is approximately 800 ha in size including the lake bed and adjoining beach.
d) Conjola/Cudmirrah NP additions - areas of Crown land (including the bed and waters of Swan Lake) and some 22 State Forest compartments have already been identified for addition to the national parks. The total area of the proposed new national park including existing reserves is 17,000 ha. This would also protect an east-west link to Morton NP.
Marine environment
The marine environment is the most poorly represented ecosystems
within the State system of protected areas, and the State's
fishing agency appears either unwilling or unable to protect our
coastal habitats from over-exploitation. Many rock platforms
adjoining national parks are stripped bare of marine organisms.
The Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1997 also fails to
protect marine organisms. The ALP has still not fulfilled its
promise to add the intertidal zone to coastal national parks.
Areas of priority identified by NPA include: Cook Island MP near Tweed Heads; Cape Byron MP, particularly Julian Rocks; Smokey Cape MP adjacent to Hat Head NP; Curracurrong MP off the coast at Royal NP and in Port Hacking; Broulee Island MP adjacent to Broulee township on the South Coast; and Montague Island MP off the coast near Narooma.
Catchment protection
Prior to the last election, the ALP promised significant
additions of Sydney and Hunter Water catchment lands to the
national parks estate. With the recent concerns over water
quality for human consumption, it is appropriate to transfer all
catchment areas to the NPWS so that they can be managed for both
conservation and water quality.
The major catchment areas requiring early transfer to NPWS for management include: Woronora catchment area of approximately 10,000 ha; metropolitan catchment areas of approximately 68,000 ha including the Cordeaux, Cataract, Avon and Nepean catchments; Warragamba including all land owned by Sydney Water such as Kedumba Valley and Crown lands, to be incorporated into Blue Mountain NP and the Nattai group of parks; Sydney Water owned lands within the O'Hares Creek catchment near Darkes Forest for addition to Dharawal NR and SRA; and Tomago sandbeds owned by Hunter Water and lands near Tomaree NP.
Sydney Region
Although a large amount of land APRIL 1999 15 surrounding the
Sydney Region has been declared national park estate, there are
significant deficiencies in the Cumberland Plain sub-region.
Helen Latham (1999) has developed a comprehensive report outlining proposals for more than 60 new areas or additions to national parks estate within the Greater Sydney Region.
New areas such as Maroota NP, South Creek Regional Park, Ourimbah Creek NR, Bargo River NP, Macarthur SRA as well as additions to Dharawal SRA and NR, Marramarra NP, Muogamarra NR, Royal NP/Garrawarra SRA and Agnes Banks NR have been identified as priorities by NPA.
Funding nature conservation priorities
From the earliest beginnings, many areas were purchased to
establish or improve the management of national parks estate.
Examples include the bushwalkers' purchase of the Blue Gum Forest
in the Blue Mountains and the Friends of Durras purchase for
addition to Murramarang NP. Since 1967, the NPWS has spent some
$78 million on land purchases with around $14.5 million spent in
1996-97 (NPWS, 1998). Other lands have been acquired through the
Coastal Scheme and Sydney Region Development Fund.
The NPWS acquisition budget has always been modest, with a usual budget of $2 million for discretionary land acquisition. This has meant that many opportunities for land purchase have been lost through the lack of available funding. Some assistance from the Commonwealth has occurred in more recent times through the Natural Heritage Trust.
It can be seen from the above discussion that priorities for future additions to national parks will need to be funded in a progressive way.
A solution could be examined through a trust arrangement similar to that provided by the Environmental Trusts. With the transfer of land from the water supply authorities, it would be reasonable to charge a "catchment management" levy for all consumers based upon the level of water consumed. At a rate of 1 cent per kilolitre, such a levy would generate $5 million per year from Sydney Water consumers alone, with a normal household paying less than $2 per quarter. Industry would pay more.
This funding could then be directed to the progressive voluntary acquisition of land in water catchments for incorporation within the NPWS estate. In time, the `trust' could be extended to cover Hunter Water consumers and local council supply areas.
Rationalisation of land management
Principles which should be considered for future policy making in
this area are:
What future for protected areas?
It has not been possible to address all the assumptions
surrounding this discussion, however some points for future
policy making can be considered: future protected areas should be
achieved through the RFA process for the Southern Region; the
greatest priority for terrestrial protected areas is in the west
of the State (this may require a different assessment process
over all tenures); the poorest representative bioregions are
found in the marine and intertidal areas of the State; the
capacity to continue deriving a comprehensive, adequate and
representative reserve system will come from the progressive and
voluntary acquisition of key areas in western NSW and in areas of
inholdings or adjoining properties within existing protected
areas; and to achieve future land acquisitions, extra funds will
need to be found. The establishment of a trust fund similar to
the Environmental Trusts could be used to achieve key areas and
additions.
* Grahame Douglas is Convenor of the NPA Reserves Committee.
Bibliography
16 APRIL 1999
A history of national park additions -1967 - 1999 Stephen Lord*
I n 1967, the NPWS commenced with a handful of national parks that were dedicated under the Lands Department and some smaller reserves established by the Fauna Protection Panel - a total area of 860,759 ha. In the late 1960s and early 1970s with the Liberal - Country Party in power and Tom Lewis as the responsible Minister, there was a real enthusiasm for building a national park estate.
The annual reports of the time devoted large sections describing the new additions and percentage increases in areas protected in parks and reserves.
An active and effective National Parks and Wildlife Foundation also operated in this period and raised significant funds for acquisition of private lands.
Following the departure of Tom Lewis as Minister, the final years of this Coalition Government saw fewer areas added to the park system.
The Wran Labor Government came to power in 1976 with a strong environmental platform.
After a slow start with respect to park additions, the effects of a properly funded land-assessment unit within the NPWS started to become evident. This unit had adequate resources and personnel to investigate new area proposals, reference them to other government departments and see many of them through to gazettal.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s many significant areas were dedicated. These included Wollemi National Park in 1979 and large areas of rainforest in northern NSW in 1983 and 1984. The second half of the nearly 12-year long Labor term saw a decline in national park dedications, although in the final year there was a notable improvement in the number of parks gazetted.
In 1988-1989, the first year of the Greiner Coalition Government, 113,765 ha were reserved, although much of this was from programs established by the Unsworth Labor Government.
Following this came the biggest drought in the gazettal of new national park areas since the inception of the NPWS. Over the next five years, less than 150,000 ha of new reserves were dedicated. The final year of the second coalition term under John Fahey saw more areas protected, and some of their proposed reserves were dedicated after it lost office in 1995.
Figure 1: Area of national park lands dedicated in each financial year 1967 - 1999 Notes: 1. National park lands refer to all categories of NPWS reserves 2. First period in graph: 1967-June, 1969 3. Final period in graph: July 1998-January, 1999 4. The shading refers to Coalition periods in government ARTWORK NO 1 REDUCE BY 25% APRIL 1999 17 The current Carr Labor Government came to power with a promise of 25 new national parks in its first year. It kept this promise, although a few of the specific areas identified - such as the proposed Maroota National Park still wait protection, for instance due to competing Aboriginal land claims. The RACAC process has since seen over 400,000 ha added to the NPWS estate. These parks comprise valuable areas of old growth forest and their dedication greatly improves the range of forest communities reserved in eastern NSW. (A separate article on how the RACAC process in north-eastern NSW could have lead to a much better outcome is on pp 9-12 of this issue.) To demonstrate the fluctuations of new national park additions over time, the areas added to the national parks estate in each year since 1969 are shown in Figure 1.
Also identified in shading are the periods each political party has been in power. It is acknowledged that a comparison of each government's performance in the creation of new national parks is not totally precise - government terms and financial years do not correspond exactly, and some parks proposed and investigated under one government may not reach fruition till the next is in power.
Nonetheless, with only three changes of government and with such large blocks of time each party has had in government, it is possible to assess the political parties with respect to their commitment to establishing an adequate reserve system. Figure 2 simplifies the association, by showing the average annual area of new areas dedicated for each of the four political terms.
As can be clearly seen from the figures, there have been striking differences in the rate at which areas have been dedicated as national park under the different governments. The initial Coalition period showed a strong commitment to conservation by establishing the NPWS, and supporting the growth of the national park system under its control. The Wran/Unsworth government picked up the pace of national park dedications, and included areas in the park system that had strong competing claims from other government departments such as Forestry and Mineral Resources.
The Greiner/Fahey Coalition Government, however, was the odd one out. A complete lack of enthusiasm for national parks at a Cabinet level (despite a committed Minister for the Environment in Tim Moore) was reflected in a very slow rate of national park additions throughout most of their two terms.
In contrast, the Carr Labor Government commenced with a flourish of 25 new parks in its first year, and has added a great number of important areas in its last three years.
While the overall growth in national parks since 1967 has been pleasing, NPA contends that the reserve system is still far from adequate. We have submitted to the Minister for Environment and the NPWS proposals for important parks and reserves throughout NSW (see article in this issue on pp 13-15). We have also commissioned the Latham report which comprehensively describes the areas required for conservation reserves in the Greater Sydney region. Western-slopes vegetation remnants remain a high priority, and the reserve system in western NSW still falls far short of an adequate and comprehensive reserve system outlined by NPA's Morgan-Terry report.
Two major commitments are required from the political parties to gain support from NPA: 1 A serious commitment to dedicate a comprehensive and adequate reserve system across the State. This would require continued additions to the park system in the next term of government at a rate similar to that achieved during the last four years.
2 A major commitment to providing funds for acquisition of private lands for addition to the national park estate. A minimum of $120 million over a four-year term is required to partly address the gaps in the reserve system that has been established primarily from Crown and Forestry lands, and to rationalise and improve current park boundaries.
* Stephen Lord is Senior Vice President of NPA and NPA's nominee on the Advisory Council of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Figure 2: Average per annum area of national park lands dedicated during each political term ARTWORK NO 2 REDUCE BY 25% 18 APRIL 1999
The Resource Package for better managing our parks Where to from here? Stephen Lord*
U ndoubtedly the major contribution to nature conservation of the last Coalition Government was the Resources Package announced by Premier Fahey in 1994. The package increased funds to a level of $5 million per annum for the management of feral animals and noxious weeds; increased funds to $4 million a year for fire management; as well as increasing funding for other park improvements and neighbour relations programs. This was a major boost for the NPWS and saw its funding increase from $43 million to a projected $79 million within three years.
Of particular significance, programs
that were continually considered to be of high priority, but were
not previously possible due to funding constraints, actually
started to happen. NPWS officers were employed with
responsibilities directly related to elimination and control of
pest species. As a result, improvements have been made in many
areas.
For example, considerable progress has been made in many of our coastal parks in the control of bitou bush - the blight of our coastal dune areas. Pig and goat culling and fox-baiting programs have also commenced in affected parks, which has been very beneficial for native fauna populations.
Many programs have also been undertaken with the cooperation of park neighbours to maximise their effect. On a more general level, pest species have been identified and mapped, and priorities have been made for targeting the most invasive weeds or the most damaging feral animals. Furthermore, a great strength of the Resources Package was that it specified that the resources for the specific programs could not be transferred to other areas, such as people management.
Within a year of announcing the Resources Package, the Fahey Liberal Government lost office. Thankfully, the Carr Labor Government has continued to fund the additional programs, although reference to it as additional funding to the NPWS ceased in 1998. Thus in the 1998 Annual Report budget papers, there is a small note that indicated that the resource package allocations are now part of the mainstream budget.
While this does not constitute any immediate threat to continued better funding of pest management, fire management, infrastructure maintenance and neighbour relations, such programs will no longer be identifiable (and therefore protected) in Service budgets. It is possible, or even likely, that if funding for the NPWS is tightened in general budgetary cutbacks, the "invisible" areas of park management such as feral animal control will suffer, as dayto-day management of visitors cannot be compromised.
Clearly, management of pest species, fire and rehabilitation works will be long-term projects for the NPWS. NPA therefore seeks from political parties before the next election a commitment to maintain the funding of important park management programs initially outlined in the 1994 Resources Package.
* Stephen Lord is Senior Vice President of NPA and NPA's nominee on the Advisory Council of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a A feral goat caught in Mutawintji NP TOM FINK PHOTO NO 4 REDUCE BY 29%
APRIL 1999 19
NPWS A 30 year review Tom Fink*
The NPA is ten years older than the NPWS. In July 1997 NPA and NCC jointly held the Paddy Pallin Visions for the new Century Conference to celebrate our respective 40th and 30th birthdays.
During the conference, the Minister, Pam Allan, announced that she would commission a major review of the performance of the agency in nature and cultural heritage conservation.
The review was guided by a steering committee comprised of seven key members of the staff of the Service. Outside members included representatives of recreational, Aboriginal, mining and farming interests, as well as conservation and university people.
The review included a well-attended conference held at Sydney University last July, and visits to all regions of NSW to maximise opportunities for interested people to contribute. The Steering Committee reported to the Minister last November, unfortunately at the same time as the Labor Party announced its forest decision. The report deserved more publicity than it received.
Needless to say, given the nature of a review such as this, there are few radical findings, however the whole committee was firm on some matters: that the agency responsible for national parks and nature conservation must remain independent from ministries responsible for the exploitation of our natural resources; and that commercial operations in our parks should be seen as exceptions and not to be encouraged.
This is an overview of the report, and some of the specific recommendations will be mentioned in future articles in the National Parks Journal.
Vision for conservation There have been significant social and economic changes since the NPWS was founded. It is now widely recognised that each generation has an obligation to hand to the next a system of ecologically sustainable landscape management which conserves nature and cultural heritage, and which has as its centrepiece a reserve system which protects significant natural and cultural values managed in trust for the people of NSW, Australia and the world.
This principle lay at the heart of the Committee's vision for conservation in NSW and for the NPWS. It was felt that by 2010, NSW should be regarded as having the highest standards of nature and cultural heritage conservation, achieved through a partnership between the government and the people. This partnership should be built on a commitment to the highest standards of ethics, transparency, stewardship, environmental care, and equity, and to safeguarding the interests of future generations.
Vision for the NPWS The review foresaw the NPWS working with the community to provide leadership in the conservation and restoration of nature and cultural heritage and on a landscape scale. The Committee saw challenges and opportunities for the NPWS in fulfilling this vision. The report lists the following: moving beyond the relatively small percentage of NSW protected in formal reserves to achieve conservation across the whole landscape; building more effective and cooperative relationships with communities to achieve conservation outcomes, particularly in rural and regional NSW; establishing the Service as a leader in interpreting landscapes which contain both natural and cultural values; expanding the terrestrial and marine reserve and larger protected areas systems, consistent with agreed State conservation criteria and targets, including the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representation; managing the reserve system to ensure the conservation of its natural values within a bioregional context; promoting the rehabilitation of lands with potentially significant conservation values within and outside the reserve system; developing the role of the NPWS in Aboriginal cultural heritage conservation, recognising that Aboriginal people are the custodians of their culture and that this culture is inseparable from the land; and developing a leadership and management capacity, an organisational structure and legislation that allows the Service to be proactive in achieving the conservation of our natural and cultural heritage.
The Committee developed a comprehensive range of recommendations which, if acted upon, will position the Service into the next millennium to achieve the Committee's vision.
Some changes have already been made to the structure of the Service with the intention of improving the decision-making process and making the Service more accessible, particularly in the country. A small committee has been set up to develop an implementation action plan; its members are Bob Beeton, Brian Gilligan, Peter Prineas and Jane Robertson.
A copy of the report of the steering committee is held in the NPA Head Office.
* Tom Fink is NPA President and was a member of the Review Steering Committee.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
20 APRIL 1999
Nature conservation, conservation reserves & the RFA process Tony Norton* on behalf of the National Biodiversity Council**
C onservation reserves are vital for sustainable land management. We need them to protect Nature and to help conserve biological diversity. We need conservation reserves to help safeguard fragile, rare and uncommon ecosystems and the biota they support. We need them to provide buffers against threatening processes and global changes. We need reserves to safeguard evolutionary processes and the functioning of ecosystems to meet the habitat requirements of single species and assemblages of organisms. We need them to protect ecological processes operating at the landscape level, such as to sustain the needs of migratory species. We need conservation reserves to protect significant populations of species. We need them to minimise the risk of ecological and biological catastrophes resulting from wildfire, drought and disease.
And perhaps the most compelling reason is because our ecological knowledge of ecosystems is imperfect. Our environmental management methods are poor and often fail to deliver the desired conservation outcomes. Ecosystem management and land management are experimental and adaptive processes. To differentiate the effects of management practices from natural processes, we need benchmarks and control areas; only then may we be well placed to improve land management practices.
Put simply, if we are serious about conserving Nature, we must use formal protected areas as part of an overall strategy to minimise the risk to Australia's natural heritage and safeguard it over time.
The scientific basis for all of these needs is well established, as are the elements for selection and the criteria for determining conservation assessment and evaluation priorities for different components of biological diversity. Indeed, Australian scientists are among the world leaders in this area.
The selection elements include threatened ecosystems and species; rare and declining ecosystems; and the distinctiveness of species assemblages, species and populations. The assessment and evaluation criteria include ecosystem diversity, species richness, the level of endemism, vulnerability and threats, the irreplaceability of a system, and its complementarity - that is, the extent to which a site or area adds new elements to the overall reserve system.
Representation is one of the most widely accepted goals of conservation. Here, the intention is to represent (or formally protect) the full range of biological diversity observed within a region. This "target" may be attempted initially by at least ensuring that the diversity of all vertebrates, vascular plants, vegetation ecosystems, physical habitats and environmental gradients are protected within a conservation reserve system.
Increasingly, in Australian forest regions we have the data to achieve these initial targets.
Conservation reserves and scientifically credible conservation reserve systems are recognised universally as the "backbone" of any viable approach to sustainable land management. This point is reflected in many international conventions - the Australian Government, for example, is a signatory to the International Convention on Biological Diversity. The policy of the Australian Government is that all major ecosystems be surveyed and that a comprehensive, adequate and representative national system of protected areas be established progressively by 2000. Similarly, two of the primary aims of the current Regional Forest Agreement process in Australia are: " the creation of a world-class conservation reserve system in each region, and the development of world-class off-reserve management practices." Through the National Forest Policy Statement (NFPS), Australian governments have agreed to set aside parts of the public and private native forest estate in reserve systems in order to protect native forest communities and their biological diversity. The principles for creating a world-class conservation reserve system in forests are outlined in the NFPS as comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness.
However, a critical failing of the RFA process has been the lack of faithful implementation of these principles (see also pp 9-12).
Without doubt, this failing seriously threatens forest biological diversity through biotic impoverishment at the ecosystem level - the loss and degradation of habitats, species assemblages and populations, and natural processes. This failing also increases the endangerment of individual species.
Clearly, the world-class conservation scientific capability that Australian science has developed in the past decade is lame in the absence of political will to employ it appropriately and critically.
* Tony Norton is Professor of Spatial Information Science in the Department of Land Information at RMIT University in Melbourne and specialises in biodiversity conservation and resource management.
** The National Biodiversity Council comprises 13 elected scientists from around Australia and is the peak, independent scientific body for biodiversity conservation issues in Australia. More information on the NBC can be obtained from the author at: LandInfo@rmit.edu.au.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
APRIL 1999 21
Letters to the Editor
Readers are welcome to respond by letter or e-mail to other letters or articles in the National Parks Journal, or to write in about any topic you choose. Preference will be given to short, concise letters. Other letters may be edited or not included, depending on space limits. Please be aware of libel and defamation laws! All views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared or endorsed by NPA.
Talking about walks
In the February NPJ, F Winternitz complains about people
who "do" tracks and then share stories of their
exploits. After 30 years of bushwalking and related outdoor
sports, I am heartily tired of selfrighteous, holier-than-thou
bushwalkers telling everyone else how they should take their
pleasure.
If someone has completed a walk and wishes to share the story of their journey with others, what right has F Winternitz to deny them this enjoyment? As long as the journey itself has had no impact on the landscape, how people delight in their travels is entirely up to them. Get off your soapbox, F Winternitz.
Colin Killick Giralang ACT 13 February 1999
Dorman & the DMR
Re article by Mr Dorman regarding the culture of Department of
Mineral Resources in February NPJ: It is also worth noting that
DMR are repeatedly one of the major objectors to many of the
proposed NPWS reserves put forward by NPA and the Service. A
perverse example is DMR's ongoing objection to the proposed
addition of a relatively small, but botanically significant, area
of Crown land to Windsor Downs Nature Reserve.
Believe it or not, in what is an increasingly urbanised area (Bligh Park), DMR claims that the addition should not proceed because of the potential to extract natural gas from the area! The Department makes almost equally unreasonable objections to some additions and new reserves because, for example, what we recognise as a wetland could be drained and dug up to provide loam, sand and gravel for the construction and landscaping industries. I even heard of DMR objecting to almost any addition or gazettal of sandstone terrain because it has the potential to be used for cut stone or crushed to form road base.
Basically, the DMR seems to object to just about every addition to the NPWS estate. It appears to be their standard response. These objections, unless over-ruled by Ministerial discretion, can prevent additions to the NPWS estate, or at least delay them for long periods.
Such delays often result in areas of great conservation significance being left unmanaged and neglected; as most vacant Crown lands are.
One of the many conspiracy theories I've heard about this situation is that, if DMR can object to land becoming NPWS estate for long enough, the site may well become so badly degraded through uncontrolled recreational vandalism, bushrock theft, rubbish dumping etc that eventually the conservation values may be heavily diminished or removed to the point where NPWS eventually backs away from the proposal.
Mr Dorman's call for major reform of DMR and associated legislation and policy is one to which NPA should give its full support.
Steve Douglas Hornsby 11 February 1999
Clarification and apology
Mr Ribaux of the Capertee Valley has taken exception to an
article on Genowlan Mountain, of which I was the author, in the
National Parks Journal of October 1998 (pp 20-21).
I wish to make it clear that the original track network on the Mountain was constructed under the terms of an exploration licence.
However, at the time the new tracks and regrading of others was done in late 1997, the exploration licence had ceased and no new exploration licence existed under which such work could be carried out. State Lands Services (Department of Land and Water Conservation) has also informed me that no road building has been approved on the Mountain.
Mr Ribaux has also informed me, and I am prepared to accept, that steep sections of road used by trail bikes as `drop-offs' were not bulldozed by him with that purpose in mind. I regret any hurt or damage that such a suggestion may have made to Mr Ribaux's reputation.
Haydn Washington 9 February 1999