Our grandmothers had a particularly evocative expression – "Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!" It pithily encapsulates a simple idea: when you are discarding something you no longer want, make sure you do not inadvertently lose something precious. What we most definitely wish to discard is unsustainable Australian land use; however the ‘baby’ at risk is the national park system of Australia.

Ironically this risk comes not from the ‘usual suspects’ of extractive industries, but in fact from people genuinely seeking long-term conservation. No less a figure than the Director of the Australian Museum, Professor Michael Archer, appears to be challenging the validity of parks as we know them. The Bulletin headed its feature by Bob Beale on Archer’s views, "Wanted Urgently – Rational Parks" (Beale 1999), with the statement:

"Australians may be proud of their national parks but to zoologist Michael Archer they are little more than ‘environmental leper colonies’. He believes they must encompass economic activities such as mining if they are to achieve long-term conservation goals …"

In the same article Archer is quoted as describing parks as ‘death traps’, ‘token remnants’, ‘lands of the living dead’ and places where wildlife is ‘incarcerated’. This ‘park attack’ is inspired by his view that the small size and isolation of most parks means that these ‘islands’ will not ensure long-term survival.

The scientific basis for such a view is widely accepted. There is an international consensus that our conservation ‘islands’ must be turned to conservation ‘networks’ to ensure long-term viability and to survive disasters and climate change (Figgis 1999). However, it is a huge leap to jump from acknowledging the inadequacy of current parks to depicting them as a negative for conservation.

Given the dire threats to the ecosystems and biodiversity of the Australian continent, it is certainly legitimate for major figures like Archer to stimulate a robust debate on how to best protect and restore our ecosystems while sustaining the economic needs of Australians.

There are many points of agreement. It is unarguable that the current 7.8% of Australia in national parks and protected areas alone will not protect our biodiversity in perpetuity. Vastly greater areas of the Australian land and coastal seas need to be actively managed for conservation purposes. We need to massively expand bioregional conservation management on a whole range of tenures, and phase out current land-use practices which cannot be made both ecologically and economically sustainable.

However, it is a strange twist of logic to attack the legitimacy of the core lands currently dedicated to biodiversity. The National Strategy for the Conservation of Biodiversity (Commonwealth 1996) underscores the role of parks clearly: "Australia’s current protected area system includes a significant proportion of our biological diversity." Most of us are familiar with the principles of bush regeneration; if you wish to repair and restore degradation you build out from the strongest point. Well, in nature conservation, national parks, for all their problems, are the strong points.

These refugia are holding the biodiversity fort, so that nature can expand out if we are successful at building off-reserve buffers and corridors. We all acknowledge that feral animals, weeds and other management problems undermine habitat values, but national parks remain the core lands from which to build.

Archer’s vision is of vast conservation landscapes where so-called ecologically sustainable activities – like kangaroo harvesting, ecotourism and mining – have displaced damaging land uses – like sheep and cattle grazing on ‘most’ lands (Archer 1999).

The issue of the ethics and ecology of kangaroo harvesting is an issue for a separate article, but what of the role of multiple use? One can acknowledge part of Archer’s approach. Undoubtedly, as we seek biodiversity conservation across whole landscapes, we will be seeking to bring in a mosaic of lands under many jurisdictions, many of which will not be managed as strict reserves. These lands can support a whole range of sustainable uses, alongside the judicious application of innovative conservation tools such as voluntary conservation agreements, carbon and biodiversity credits, stewardship payments and covenants.

However, Archer expresses the desirability of putting people and industries back into environments, and one presumes he includes parks. It was one thing to have humans and nature integrated when there was abundant nature, few humans and low levels of technology; it is quite another in the 21st century when nature is scarce, humans abundant and the technological capability to subdue nature is immense. Given that the vast area of Australia outside our protected areas is available for multiple use, protected areas should be managed first and foremost for nature. Unspoilt landscapes are also eagerly sought by the genuine ecotourist who both Archer and myself identify as part of a better future.

Scientific support for ‘multiple use’ is music to the ears of all the arrayed forces who oppose the allocation of land for nature – components of the rural lobby, the right-wing access and gun lobby and some of the mining, oil and commercial fishing industries. These are the forces most likely to use any chink in strict protection, not the environmentally benign interests envisioned by Archer.

Archer’s contention that agriculture is far more more damaging than mining may be true, but it is hardly a reason for a sweeping endorsement of mining. Mine sites may be small but when they go wrong the damage can cover huge areas. The case of OK Tedi to our north is the most vivid example, although there are many Australian examples. Current plans by South Australian uranium mines to pump mining wastes into aquifers lying just above the Great Artesian Basin bring into question the depiction of mining as a relatively benign industry.

So, my view is clear – national parks are crucial core lands for conservation efforts and multiple use belongs outside park boundaries. There are of course many other reasons for defending the concept of parks including ethical, aesthetic and spiritual benefits which cannot be detailed here. I would also argue vigorously that our current parks are indeed multiple use if the many ecosystem, recreational and tourism values are considered.

New paths undoubtedly need exploring but conservation should move out from parks, not multiple use move in! I hope Michael Archer will use his influence to help the community see our national parks not as ‘environmental leper colonies’, but as ‘bastions of biodiversity’ and ‘refugia for regeneration’.

Archer, M. (1999) ‘Sustaining Australia’s Land – Time for Action’ available on the Australian Museum website HYPERLINK http://www.austmus.gov.au/archer2.htm

Beale, B. (1999) ‘Wanted Urgently – Rational Parks', The Bulletin, April 27, pp 53-56

Commonwealth of Australia (1996) The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity, Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra

Figgis, P. (1999) ‘Australia’s National Parks: Future Directions’, National Parks Journal, Vol 43, No 4 August, pp 6-7

IUCN (1996) Economic Assessment of Protected Areas: Guidelines for their Assessment – Summary; and supplement: ‘A Park Managers Introduction to Economic Impact Assessment’, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland

Mackay, B.G., Lesslie,

R.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., and Nix, H.A. (1998) ‘Wilderness and its place in nature conservation in Australia’, Pacific Conservation Biology, 4, pp 182-185

Penny Figgis AM is a member of NPA, 
Vice President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, 
and a member of the World Commission on Protected Areas.