Feature

National parks often appear as islands in a sea of development.
But can they withstand future developments which might wash ashore?

National parks and other protected areas established for the conservation of natural heritage should, as far as possible, be ecologically sustainable. But is this truly the case and, if not, what is needed to get back on track?

The reality is that, for a whole variety of reasons, many parks and other protected areas are already compromised and their ecological sustainability is in question. Some national parks may be sufficiently large and buffered from human developments for ecological processes to continue, independent of externalities. But the number of such areas is in decline across the globe.

If national parks are not ecologically sustainable, increasingly there will be a need for human intervention, an expensive and problematic last resort, to be avoided if possible. It is more practical and economic to provide for ecological sustainability than to play God in restoring collapsed ecosystems. This is not a rosy picture and it certainly presents a challenge.

Ecological sustainability is not just an ideal for national parks but increasingly will be essential for survival of the biodiversity of the planet and, with it, survival of human civilisation as we know it. However, the gulf between the rhetoric and reality of ecologically sustainable development is still huge. For even our national parks to achieve ecological sustainability, a new and concerted wave of effort will be needed to increase the prospects of sustainability.

Photo: Andrew Cox
A "track" in Royal NP – access v sustainability

It would be overly simplistic to conclude that all development within or adjacent to national parks further threatens ecological sustainability. In certain circumstances development may be benign or even enhance ecological sustainability. The impacts of tourism, indeed a variety of developments in or adjacent to national parks, will depend very much on the nature of the impact – and the effort to turn the negatives into positives.

The strategic response to environmental (read ecological) impact of proposed developments has evolved over the past four decades. I characterise the stages in evolution of response strategies as:

"Impact Minimisation": This response was articulated in the 1960s and 70s with the advent of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The long-term prognosis of its application is progressive deterioration in the prospects of sustainability.

"No Net Impact": The "No Net Impact" principle is founded on rigorous minimisation of impacts of development, such impact being offset with some form of environmental enhancement. I believe that the "NNI" objective is achievable in many situations but achievement is not guaranteed in all cases. Application of the No Net Impact principle will in the longer term achieve status quo at best.

"Net Benefit": Recognising the evolution of strategic thinking about management of the impact of development, I now actively promote the concept that I call the "Net Benefit" (NB) principle. That development can deliver net environmental benefit may sound a contradiction of terms. Admittedly it cannot work in all cases but nevertheless it is a valid objective. If it has an application anywhere, it will be in the management of national parks. As a management objective it can be justified as a logical response to addressing the already compromised ecological sustainability of many parks. It is code for ongoing improvement in the sustainability of parks.

The long-term prognosis from application of the Net Benefit principle to all activities in national parks is incremental improvement in the prospects for ecological sustainability. The Net Benefit principle has been embodied in the management of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, where real benefits can already be demonstrated. Similarly I have introduced the principle into the new park and reserve system in Lebanon.

The three strategies outlined can be considered and applied as management principles, not just to address impacts of proposed development but to guide all national park management activities. However, the order in which they are applied is critically important. The highest hurdle must be applied first and only lowered if it has been proved beyond doubt that it cannot be achieved.

For example, the first test of a development proposal, inside or adjoining a park, should be to assess if the development can be designed to contribute a net benefit to the park, especially in terms of ecological sustainability. Only if that proves to be not prudent and feasible is the bar lowered to the No Net Impact principle. I believe it is no longer responsible to resort to the Impact Minimisation principle in an age supposedly committed to ecological sustainability.

The best example that I can quote of practical application of the Net Benefit principle is in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area where a proposed major powerline was approved only after the withdrawal of three existing powerlines was negotiated. The Net Benefit arises from high-lift cabling above the rainforest to avoid clearing, together with the revegetation of existing powerline clearings. The result: a net increase in rainforest area as well as improved habitat connectivity.

Conclusions

Given that many national parks and protected areas are not ecologically sustainable, it is no longer sufficient to adopt a management strategy of Impact Minimisation or even of maintaining status quo by No Net Impact. A much more proactive approach is necessary to progressively improve the prospects of ecological sustainability. That includes innovative approaches to ensure that any development which occurs in or near national parks has a Net Benefit, if at all possible.

Also required is a commitment to a proactive approach to national park management; to not just manage them as islands, but to manage them as an integral part of the wider sea of development.

If ongoing planning of national parks is fully integrated into the wider field of sustainable land use, they can play an important catalytic role in promotion of the new culture of sustainable development in the community. Managed in isolation many parks will not only fail to be ecologically sustainable but will make much less contribution to ecological sustainability of life in general.

If we cannot achieve ecological sustainability for the cream of our national parks then there is little prospect of the human population, the ‘boat people’ adrift in the ocean of development, achieving ecological sustainability on the increasingly turbulent high seas.

And for anyone contemplating development in or near a national park: ‘Ask not what the national park can do for you, but what you can do for the national park.’

* Peter Hitchcock is a Cairns based international environment and heritage consultant and was formerly the first Executive Director of the Wet Tropics Management Authority, a Deputy Director of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. He has served two terms on the Australian Heritage Commission.