Having quickly reviewed the existing regional parks in Part 1, it appears that management of most of these areas by the NPWS is not the best option. The majority are heavily modified and are primarily set aside for non-nature-based recreational purposes, Berowra Valley RP being a distinct exception. In the case of Berowra Valley RP, its natural heritage values alone are sufficiently high as to warrant its reservation as a national park when compared with similar landscapes in the Greater Sydney area. However, there may equally be a substantial argument for placing it and other parks such as Lane Cove, Georges River, part of Cattai and Garigal NPs under the below-mentioned category of State park – they are not nationally significant and/or cannot necessarily be managed primarily for nature conservation because of irreconcilable land-use problems.

The present situation with most regional parks is not one that accords with the NPWS’s primary role as the manager of the State’s nature conservation estate. The concept of regional open space that functions to provide regional recreation opportunities whilst also conserving cultural and natural values is very sound. The issue is whether NPWS is the most appropriate agency to be managing such areas. The following model is suggested as a preferable approach for promoting and maintaining the objectives of regional parks without pushing the NPWS in the direction of becoming a recreational services provider.

Regional parks should be managed by a Regional Parks and Cultural Heritage Authority, preferably under the Ministry for Environment. There are grounds for placing such an Authority under the Minister for Land and Water Conservation or the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, but neither agency currently has the money, staff or credibility appropriate to this task.

The proposed Regional Parks and Cultural Heritage Authority should take on the NPWS’s current responsibilities relating to both regional parks and historic sites. The NPWS should then focus on conservation of natural heritage values, rather than having to concern itself with active recreational demands and the sometimes very costly management of historic sites. The Authority could also take on the NPWS’s responsibilities relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage, something that may gain at least partial support from those Aboriginal groups who have expressed dissatisfaction with NPWS management of their cultural heritage. The Authority should be established by legislation that constrains it such that it cannot act to undermine or devalue natural or cultural conservation assets in meeting recreational or other developmental demands.

Would such an Authority be just another brick in the bureaucratic wall, or would it serve a legitimate purpose? I believe that it is important to separate the nature conservation role of the NPWS from the need to manage cultural heritage (particularly so-called "built heritage") and, more importantly, to separate it from the need to provide non-nature-based active recreation opportunities in and around Sydney (or other urban centres).

The establishment of such an Authority could also address the classification and management of State Recreation Areas (SRAs), which are another reservation type that needs further review. Those SRAs set aside primarily for recreation in substantially modified environments should by reclassified as regional parks and come under the control of the proposed Regional Parks and Cultural Heritage Authority. SRAs that cover natural environments and are not gazetted as national park or nature reserve (often because of existing or future mining operations) should be designated as State parks (as in Victoria) and be managed by the NPWS (which most are already). Existing legal mines could continue to operate in/under these areas but any new proposals or expansions should only be permissible with the consent of the Minister for Environment after an Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted and made publicly available.

In order to make sound and apolitical decisions about any such reclassification of NPWS estate – without setting a precedent for outright degazettal of reserves – I would suggest that the status of all NPWS estate be reviewed by an independent scientific committee, in a process similar to that used by the former Land Conservation Council (now Environment Conservation Council) of Victoria.

NPA and the conservation movement in general should not be afraid of a review of reserve status on the proviso that such a review is genuinely independent and of a scientific nature. There are strong rational arguments for reclassifying some areas to achieve consistency in reservation and management alongside appropriate allocation of management resources. Similarly, there are strong arguments for reallocating management responsibilities, particularly in relation to regional parks and some SRAs.

* Steve Douglas is an NPA member and works as an environmental consultant.