I am writing to condemn the appalling advertising on television for the Mitsubishi Pajero, which encourages the abuse and degradation of the Australian environment by the four-wheel drive fraternity using their vehicles in an irresponsible manner.

The advertisement starts with one of these oversize gas-guzzling monsters in the city not bothering to navigate a roundabout in the usual manner but demonstrating its superiority by going over the top – oh well it’s only native vegetation and useless habitat for endangered species.

Then the versatile vehicle drives along the river, which fortunately is shallow enough for it not to sink and drown all those aboard. It climbs up out of the river but of course no damage is visible to the riverbank which again is precious habitat for native species.

It is very difficult for National Parks authorities and others to get their message across about conserving the environment when such big-budget advertising campaigns give the impression that you can buy a four-wheel drive and go anywhere at anytime.

Stephen Lord and Grahame Douglas canvas the use of new reservation processes and new categories of reservation — Interim Conservation Reserve or State Conservation Area — for areas of Crown land or areas purchased for nature protection by NPWS (NPJ, October 2001) in order to overcome the automatic veto by Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) of any reservation under the NPW Act if an area is deemed by them to have any mineral prospectivity (which they claim to be the case for virtually all of NSW).

They also claim that mining affects only a small proportion of the land and therefore should be allowed in and under National Parks and will have no serious environmental effects. This ignores the fact that National Parks occupy less than 10% of NSW land but protect State significant environmental values, while exploration and mining can occur virtually anywhere without hindrance in the other 90% of NSW.

Yes, we do need a new category of reservation to replace SRAs and to allow management by NPWS of high conservation value land whose reservation otherwise is blocked by the DMR veto. This means accepting that mining can be allowed in a conservation reserve, and yes, it is a worry that with a category allowing mining we may never get another fully protected National Park — but it is the only way to break the current impasse over conservation management of areas with allegedly potential mineral reserves. We urgently need new processes to assess the environmental values of land for purchase acquisition by NPWS.

The RFA put many areas into State Forest 'Informal Reserves' protected by forestry prescription and zoning, with grazing and mining interests to be reviewed and dedication under NPW Act to be re-considered in five years — but with provision for the Minister for Mining to always have concurrence rights (read "veto") in any decision.

Such an area is Avondale State Forest (a small sample of Tablelands ecosystems) which was not dedicated as a Nature Reserve like other small forests such as Eastwood, Hillgrove Creek, and Boorolong near Armidale because DMR thought it might have potential for gold, since there was an old goldmine nearby at Rockvale.

Meanwhile the area is unmanaged by SFNSW, the grazing licence has been extended till end of 2002, and NPWS has no jurisdiction. Gazetting it as a State Conservation Area at the next five- year review would at least give NPWS management rights, and it is most unlikely that the area would in fact ever be mined for gold or anything else.

This approximates some of both Stephen Lord’s and Grahame Douglas’s proposals.

How can we progress a better system of administering regular review, limiting of DMR claims of prospective mineralisation, and long-term management for conservation values, as Stephen suggests?

How can we get protection for conservation areas for the long-term, not simply until some other use lays claim to the land?

MORE ON MINING

As a recent escapee from NSW to Victoria, I’d like to add some comments to the articles by S Lord and G Douglas regarding types of conservation estate, particularly in the context of mining interests.

I agree that the term state recreation area (SRA) is inappropriate for most of the land to which it is applied, especially when as the authors point out, it is mainly used for areas that on objective assessment should be declared national park or nature reserve, were it not for the conflict or prospective conflict with mining interests.

Victoria has far more categories of reserve, some of which might be an appropriate replacement for SRA. These include nature conservation reserves (rather different to NSW nature reserves), regional parks, and the recently recommended category of national heritage park.

All of these categories permit mineral exploration, mining and metal detecting; with regional parks and national heritage parks also allowing gold panning and gemstone fossicking. Nature conservation reserves do not permit gold panning or gemstone fossicking.

Perhaps the term closest to SRA that is used in Victoria is state park, a category just below national park. In contrast to NSW, Victoria tends to reserve the category of national park for only the largest and/or most significant areas of conservation estate. However, mining is not permitted in state parks (unless pre-existing). Mineral exploration and gemstone fossicking is also prohibited, although gold panning and metal detecting are generally permissible.

The above-mentioned five reserve categories are but a few of those used in Victoria; at last count there seemed to be about 17.

Grahame Douglas uses the rather different figures for percentage of total land reserved in NSW and Victoria (~17% & ~7% respectively) to suggest that the more flexible system of reservation used in Victoria offers more scope for increasing the area of conservation estate. This may be the case, but the use of these figures is potentially problematic because what it doesn’t tell the reader is anything about the actual area of conservation estate, its quality (including edge/area ratio, extent of fragmentation), or the way in which it is managed.

Victoria does have a far higher percentage of its total land area reserved but a lot of it consists of relatively small fragments, many of which have been and some of which continue to be significantly compromised by mining and recreation, including fossicking in its many guises.

I’d suggest that rather than following the Victorian model of having a ridiculous multitude of reserve classes, NPA lobby for a revision of the SRA category so that such areas are named more appropriately and managed for nature conservation by the NPWS.

KNOW-HOW ON LORD HOWE