John Benson
NPA member

It seems that each new Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is reluctant to further expand the reserve system on the grounds that the NPWS resources are over-stretched, irrespective of its priority in the NPWS Corporate Plan. While this sentiment is appreciated, it has rarely been in line with community, political and scientific expectations and thus areas continue to be reserved. In fact, there are powerful arguments for more land acquisition to fulfil state and national obligations. And there are economic reasons to acquire land that often do not receive the airing they deserve.

Articles by S Lord and G Douglas in the National Parks Journal, April 1999 cover the history of reserve additions and proposals for future reserves in NSW. At present, 6.6% of NSW is protected in conservation reserves. This may rise to 8% after the regional forest assessments of southern, central and western NSW. It will still be less than Tasmania (25%) or the provinces of western Canada (12%). In any case, proportion reserved is only part of the picture - representative- ness of ecosystems and species is a critical consideration.

The currently reserved lands of NSW are unlikely to protect all species over the long term because they fail to properly sample the richer soil lands which have been alienated from public ownership; and they are too small or exist as islands in a highly disturbed landscape. Some species require larger areas to survive periodic disturbance such as fire, occasional catastrophes such as disease, and climate change.

Although the present reserves are mainly composed of steep and low fertility landscapes ("useless lands" in agricultural terms), they are assets for biodiversity conservation, catchment protection and places for passive recreation.
These reserved public lands are the cores of a "geography of hope".

So how can we extend the "geography of hope'’? Firstly, we must continue to acquire key lands for the reserve system. Secondly, we must ensure that private landholders sustainably manage natural ecosystems. I suspect the latter is harder to achieve than the former, as there are 122,000 people in NSW who each own more than 10 hectares of land (RLPB 1998). This is why a publicly owned and managed reserve system should not be undervalued.

A CAR reserve system
The National Biodiversity Strategy 1996, NSW Biodiversity Strategy 1999, National Forest Conservation Reserves Report 1995, NPWS Corporate Plan and NPWS Visions for the New Millennium Report of 1998 all recommend an expanded reserve system to meet the targets for a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system. The aim is to establish a reserve system that samples the full range of ecological communities and species to ensure their survival. For forest protection, the JANIS (1996) report applied the criterion that at least 15% of the pre- European extent of all vegetation communities should be sampled in reserves, in turn sampled over the range of their distribution.

The history of reservation has resulted in poor reserve boundaries and an imbalance in the representation of species and landscapes. This is clearly demonstrated in the conservation assessment of 1,400 landscapes of NSW in Pressey et al. (in press). At a coarse scale, the bioregions of the coast are better reserved than inland regions. Why? Because there was available public land; most of the people live there and they succeeded in conserving their "back- yards"; and the region contains the most spectacular landforms and forests.

Macleay River and inholding in Oxley Wild Rivers NP
Photo: John Benson

Economic benefits
If society internalised the economic benefits of protecting natural ecosystems, the cost of land acquisition would be countered by a raft of benefits. The economic benefits of protecting natural habitats in reserves include:

• landscape aesthetics adding to property values;
• tourism and recreation;
• genetic resources; and
• ecosystem services - clean water, air and non- degrading catchments.

Non-use values include "bequest values", that is, the maintenance of environmental attributes for the benefit of future generations; and "existence values", that is, the satisfaction the community derives from knowing that nature exist (Gillespie 1999). Increasingly, reserved land may be valued for its role in carbon sequestration to counter greenhouse gas emissions.

At present, the taxpayer foots the bill of fixing land degradation, most recently through the Natural Heritage Trust funds. It may be cheaper to prevent land degradation in the first place by either purchasing land or protecting it under a caveat. Production from many degraded Western Division farms is at least partly subsidised; it may be more effective for government to assist farmers through stewardship payments to protect ecological systems.

There are cost benefits for reserve management by purchasing inholdings, minimising the boundary-to-edge ratio of reserves and gaining greater control of the catchments of reserves. Boundary rationalisation makes financial sense:

• unnecessary access trails to previous inholdings can be closed;
• there is greater control of visitor use;
• there is reduced likelihood of unscheduled costly fires;
• buffers against pollution and weed infestation would be improved; and
• key species and ecosystems can be protected.

Funding
For 20 years the NPWS’s annual basic land acquisition budget has been $2 to 4 million. In 1979 that may have bought 20 parcels of land. Today it will purchase only a few. Prior to the last NSW election, the Government promised that the NPWS acquisition budget would rise substantially, but this was not realised in the 1999 State Budget. Presumably, the Olympics took precedence. Establishing a CAR reserve system should rank higher than the Olympics since their benefits will outlast 16 days of sport!

So what can be done about funding? Firstly, this issue has to be given high priority by government. Secondly, a secure funding source has to be found. I propose that at least 10% of land tax should be diverted into the NPWS acquisition fund, and that it could accumulate over budget years. Grahame Douglas (NPJ April 1999) mooted an Environmental Trust-like fund derived from a catchment management levy based on water consumption.

Administration 
Whatever the funding source, a NPWS land acquisition committee should supervise the spending of funds. Acquisition priorities should be focused on achieving a CAR reserve system, and on improving the management boundaries of existing reserves. The NPWS should develop an information system that keeps track of proposed reserves or additions, and link this to biological databases and non-biological information systems such as the Land Title Office records. With the recent retirement of the NPWS’s Property Officer, Ces Bartlett, after 32 years in the job, the agency has lost much of its knowledge about the history and methods of land acquisition. Property negotiation can be contracted out, but contractors are unlikely to have an overview of the NPWS’s policies and priorities for reservation. Therefore, the NPWS should maintain a strong, central land-assessment and property-coordination section that can service all of its regions. 

The NPWS should continue its efforts in off-reserve conservation by entering into more voluntary conser- vation agreements; supporting a land-for-wildlife scheme; participating in regional planning issues; and providing expert advice about species, ecological communities and landscapes to other agencies and to the general public. Conservation agreements under both the National Parks and Wildlife and NVC Acts will become more important. However, they may not be suitable in many cases where it would be more economical to buy the land, rather than to spend resources on negotiation and ongoing payments to a landholder. 

In concluding, the ecologist David Ehrenfeld states in his book Beginning Again that, whilst the 20th century witnessed the rise of conservation as a major public issue, the greatest challenge for the next century will be meeting our conservation obligations. Establishing a CAR reserve system by continuing to acquire lands for reserves is a prerequisite to meeting this challenge.

References 

Gillespie, R (1999) Economic values of native vegetation. Background Paper of the Native Vegetation Advisory Council of NSW (NVAC: Sydney) 
JANIS (1996) Nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forests in Australia. Report to ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement implementation sub-committee (Australian Government: Canberra) 
Pressey, R et al. (in press) "Terrestrial reserves in NSW: gaps, biases, and priorities to minimize further loss of native vegetation". Submitted to Biological Conservation
Rural Lands Protection Board (1998) Annual Report (RLPB: Orange)

* John Benson is a long-term NPA member and ecologist. He has helped establish many reserves in NSW, and has been influential in developing policies and programs for off-reserve conservation.