Features

Mining creates a major barrier to reserve dedication. In most cases, mining interests preclude reservation altogether, as the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) has a virtual veto over reserve proposals if they consider the proposed areas have potential mineral deposits.

In some cases areas may be reserved where there is active mining or mining potential. However, the reserve category used for this purpose – State Recreation Area – is inappropriate, as this category often falsely conveys to the public that the areas reserved are suitable for intensive recreation.

Recently as part of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment process, disputed areas have been declared as Crown Reserves vested under the control of the Director General of the NPWS. However this reserve strategy also has limitations because such reserves are outside the public planning process and are dedicated for a period of five years only, with no guarantee of permanent protection.

A cliff collapse in Burragorang SRA spilling
610,000m3 of sandstone towards shores of
Lake Burragorang , Sydney's Water Supply.
This took place several decades ago due to coal extraction from Wollondilly Extended Colliery.
Photo: Henry Gold

In this article, we are presenting a case for a new reserve category - Interim Conservation Reserves (ICR).

This concept is not currently the National Parks Association (NPA) policy, but is being aired in the Journal for comment. ICRs would have the following characteristics:

o Firstly they would be dedicated on an interim basis, for example five years at a time. However, the defaulting position after each five-year period is not for the reserve to lapse, but instead, be re-dedicated as National Park or Nature Reserve. This would be an automatic process unless the DMR could show good cause to Government that the area should remain an ICR.

If this were the case, the area would be reviewed again five years later, and this process would continue indefinitely as long as good cause could be proven.

o The case for continued reservation as an ICR would have to be placed on public exhibition with a mechanism for incorporating public comment.

o DMR claims of 'prospective mineralisation’ would have a maximum period of 25 years.

If no proven mineral resource were identified in this time, the area would then automatically be rededicated as National Park or Nature Reserve.

o Mining would be permitted in ICRs, subject to stringent environmental safeguards. For example, surface works would be kept to a minimum or excluded from the reserves, and mining under fragile areas such as swamps and cliffs would be prohibited.

o With the exception of any actively mined areas, the NPWS would manage the reserves as if they were dedicated as National Park or Nature Reserve.

o The National Parks and Wildlife Service and conservationists, including representatives from NPA and NCC (as well as representatives of DMR and the Mineral Council), would be represented on regional management boards that determine mining proposals and monitor mining operations. Mining proposals would need to be placed on public exhibition for comment.

o Adequate bonds for rehabilitation works would be kept in a trust for each reserve under the control of the management board.

The major advantage of this proposal is that many natural areas could be reserved with a high level of protection. This is particularly the case for lands in the western half of the state. The disadvantage is that many new reserves may be dedicated as ICRs and not National Parks and Nature Reserves, and thus subject to prospecting activities and possible mining.

Attempting to reconcile the process of increasing the conservation estate against competing interests has been a long standing problem. It is nothing new. Stephen Lord’s useful contribution provides some important insights but other issues warrant consideration.

The current National Parks Estate in NSW is based on IUCN classifications I–IV inclusive. Mining is not supported in such reserves under IUCN guidelines. Plus the challenge is not with mining alone. Conservation reserves prevent logging and in some cases limit recreational activities (e.g. 4WD, horseriding). Tim Moore introduced a Bill such as that proposed by Stephen in the early 1980s.

We should look for existing reservation processes prior to advocating a significant change. Crown reserves can (and did) provide for protection for conservation values. Crown reserves do not prevent mining.

Abercrombie National Park is a case in point where an area of Crown land has been reserved for conservation and is vested with the Director-General of the NPWS to be managed in a manner complementary to that of the national park.

State Recreation Areas (SRAs) are a major misnomer as pointed out by Stephen. However is the problem the reservation process or the terminology? The reality is that the DMR is as likely to object to a SRA as much as it is to national park, because they believe that future community pressure will prevent mining taking place. Can we change the name to State Conservation Reserve/Area?

The major issue is the process of reservation. In Victoria, the conservation estate exceeds 17 per cent compared to nearly 7 per cent in NSW. Why? I would suggest the major reason lies in the process of land use determination through a transparent and open process in relation to public lands.

In Victoria, the major driver was the former Land Conservation Council of Victoria. The significant increases in national parks estate in NSW over the last 5 years arose largely out of the Comprehensive Regional Assessments and Regional Forest Agreements. These have, by necessity focussed on forested lands (and forestry operations) rather than more broadly on all public lands.

What is the likelihood that Stephen’s suggestions are really feasible in political terms?

Any protection should be seen as being for the long term, not simply provide for protection until some other use can lay claim to the land.