Chapter 9 - Effective planning for conservation
9.1
There are various reasons why people use national parks, and the
management of these uses is discussed in chapter 10. Effective planning for
conservation cannot occur without taking into consideration, in addition to
environmental conservation objectives, the use of parks and reserves by people.
The level of public access as well as other potential uses of protected areas
needs, however, to be related to the objectives of the protected area. Effective
planning will take account of these factors.
9.2
This chapter examines the whole-of-landscape approach to planning for
conservation; the development of management plans and planning processes; and
the development of Indigenous Protected Areas. The chapter also considers the
need for co-ordination between stakeholders.
A whole of landscape approach
9.3
An integrated approach to Protected Areas (PAs) and the surrounding
areas of land or sea is critical to effective environmental conservation.[1] Variously called the 'whole of landscape',
bioregional or ecosystem networks approach, the concept reflects the
fundamental thinking of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere concept and the science of
conservation biology.[2] This
whole of landscape approach is an important factor in the formulation of
management plans for parks and reserves.
9.4
The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for
the National Reserve System (Directions Statement), acknowledged the need
to establish and manage protected areas within a landscape context on the basis
that conservation objectives can best be achieved through an integrated
approach at the landscape level.[3]
The Ministerial Council document represents the collective efforts of
Commonwealth and state and territory governments over several years to develop
a common approach on key issues for the future of the National Reserve System
(NRS).[4]
9.5
The concept of 'ecological networks' has strong backing in Australia and
is being actively promoted by national non-government organisations (NGOs),
especially Greening Australia and the Wilderness Society under the name WildCountry,
which is discussed below. This approach recognises that connectivity and argues
that 'turning islands to networks' is the way to achieve the international goal
of 'benefits beyond boundaries' and is essential to management effectiveness
and a key component for building resilience in the face of rapid change,
especially climate change, into the system.
9.6
The Wilderness Society (TWS) stated that:
The conservation of biodiversity and our natural heritage
demands a landscape-wide approach that recognises the importance of ecological
connectivity. The processes that sustain and regenerate ecological systems and
all their components operate across a range of spatial and time scales. Many,
if not most, work at space and time scale exceed those at which humans manage
land and natural resources. Thus, many important ecological processes involve
connections at scales not considered by conventional conservation planning and
management.[5]
9.7
The National Parks Association of NSW noted that:
Increasingly it is recognised that isolated reserves will not on
their own safeguard our native biodiversity, particularly in light of growing
threats due to climate change, invasive species, and even large bushfires. It
is important the reserves are connected to allow species migration and
movement, and improve long-term viability. This will require a range of
approaches from all land managers – public and private. The concept of
‘managing the matrix’ will ensure that the reserve system is seen in a large
context of connected landscape elements.[6]
9.8
The Commonwealth and state and territory governments have endorsed this
approach. The SA Department for Environment and Heritage stated that:
Parks will not survive as islands. They have to be managed as a
part of a bigger landscape, and that is where the resilience comes in and so
Nature Links is about establishing connectivity in some form or another. It is
not necessarily vegetation corridors. It involves biological connectivity based
on a series of core protected areas, highly protected areas, buffered and then
joined by areas that are managed for conservation objectives, and they can be
in addition to production objectives and everything else, but that then
provides those linkages that we are trying to achieve.[7]
9.9
The marine equivalent of the 'whole of landscape' approach is the zoned
marine protected area. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park World Heritage Area
pioneered the idea of cooperation and coordination across a large area between
user groups and zoning for a spectrum of conservation management regimes.
9.10
While there is a broad consensus on the desirability of such multiple-tenure
models based around core conservation lands, only a few working examples have
emerged to date, such as the Gondwana Link project which is discussed below. The
primary impediment to the further development of this model remains the cost
and complexity of putting together different land tenures and sea uses, gaining
the cooperation of the many government departments and agencies in a federal
system, as well as coordinating the private and community input. This will only
occur with real and sustained commitment of policy and funding by both
national, state and territory and local governments. The emergence of a vibrant
and innovative private conservation sector will be vital component in pursuing
the goal of large ecological networks. The private sector can complement and
add value to public protected areas.[8]
9.11
As noted in Chapter 7, South Australia has developed the NatureLinks
concept for landscape-scale conservation whereby public protected areas are to
be managed as core conservation areas and a range of complementary conservation
and land management measures can be applied across the landscape to achieve
long-term conservation outcomes.[9]
9.12
The South Australian Government noted that many conservation programs in
the state adopt a landscape scale approach to addressing threats to the
conservation values of reserves. This recognises that most reserves are not
large and pristine enough to be self-sustaining in the face of threats. There
is an additional benefit in adopting an approach that looks beyond park
boundaries, as these programs can engage directly with adjoining landholders
and local communities and encourage them to participate in on-and off-park
activities.[10]
9.13
Submissions noted that the national reserve system cannot be built
solely on public lands. Dr Robyn Bartel of the University of New England noted
that the historic division between public and private property management has
been damaging for the environment. Conservation aims must be pursued on both
private and public lands not only to meet environmental outcomes but also to
trigger institutional changes that will ensure more effective and
environmentally conscious management of all land. Dr Bartel argued that new
community participation and processes are evolving to manage land degradation,
native vegetation and water management issues on private land, such as
Catchment Management Authorities and Landcare groups. Similar bodies and
processes may be bought into play to assist in the management of public lands.[11]
9.14
Witnesses emphasised the need to build resilience into reserve system,
planning to especially take account of such issues as climate change. Mr Chris Tallentire,
Director of the Conservation Council of WA stated that:
...we need to maintain the linkages to act as some sort of safety
for climate change effects. The resilience is dependent on the ability of
adjacent land forms to accommodate the ecological system that has to migrate
somewhere else. I think the resilience could in fact be a test to see whether
or not we have the connections that will provide for the future of those
systems that will need to move because of moving rainfall patterns or
increasing temperatures.[12]
9.15
Mr Andreas Glanznig, Senior Policy Adviser with WWF-Australia also noted
that:
...if you put resilience into the CAR sort of approach, it
highlights the need for these very large conservation corridors. One of the
options...is an eastern escarpment conservation corridor which could span from Cairns
right through nearly to Eden. Of course, being an escarpment, it would include
a range of altitudinal climes, and a lot of that is already within the national
parks estate. So the opportunity with a proactive response to climate change is
to think big, and really to build in as many opportunities for our ecosystems
and species to adapt.[13]
9.16
Targeted acquisition, private land conservation (especially in
situations where the only remaining healthy examples of particular ecosystems
are on private land), reform of agriculture, revegetation, zoning and urban
growth boundaries provide mechanisms for restoring natural ecological function
in areas around and between national parks.[14]
Gondwana Link
9.17
The Gondwana Link project was cited in evidence as an effective model
for landscape scale work in Australia.[15]
The project involves national, state and other groups cooperating to reconnect
fragmented natural vegetation country over a distance of almost 1,000
kilometres between the ecosystems of inland Western Australia and the unique
tall karri and jarrah forests of the south west corner. This region is one of
the world's biodiversity hotspots where exceptional concentrations of endemic
species are suffering extensive loss of habitat through fragmentation and other
threatening processes. The project seeks to restore ecological connectivity and
maintain ecosystems. Major government, community and non-government players are
involved with the project, and a crucial element of the project is the purchase
of key properties by private land trusts, including the Australian Bush
Heritage Fund, one of the key players in private conservation in Australia, and
Greening Australia (WA)[16]
as well as the Australian Government's significant investment under the NRS
Programme.
9.18
Dr Beth Schultz, Director of the Conservation Council of WA, further
elaborated on the operation of the project:
[The Gondwana Link] are trying to acquire the remaining bits of
native vegetation and they are buying other properties and replanting them with
native species and also with commercial species. They are trying to grow
Sandalwood to provide an income to provide funds for management. So this is an
area where there has been extensive fragmentation but it is being addressed in
this way.
That is one illustration of the problem that exists and an
attempt to address it. The ultimate goal is to have a belt of native vegetation
starting at Margaret River and going right across the south west—on the South
Coast, especially in the forested areas, there is still native vegetation—and
to link it up through Stirling Range, across to Fitzgerald River, to Alice
Springs and then eventually right across the country. It is a huge vision but
they are moving on it and it has created a lot of excitement because it is such
a worthwhile project.[17]
9.19
The Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy (GMS) in Western Australia provides
another example of a recent development in strategic broad scale planning for
protected area establishment. The Strategy was developed to address the
environmental, economic, and social needs of this rangelands area in Western
Australia. When the GMS was announced in 1998, approximately one million
hectares, or 2 per cent of the Strategy area, was within conservation reserves.
The Strategy area covers some of the most arid land in WA but is known to have
high biological diversity. A concerted effort to identify gaps in
representation of ecosystem's of the region's protected areas subsequently led
to the strategic purchase of nearly 4 million hectares of pastoral leasehold
properties. By November 2004, about 5 million hectares, or 8.8 per cent of the
GMS area was within conservation reserves or had been purchased for reservation
as part of the formal conservation reserve system in WA. This has resulted in
74 vegetation types within the reserve system, bringing the total to 148 or
57.1 per cent of all vegetation types in the region of which 83 (32 per cent)
have more than 10 per cent of their area represented.[18]
WildCountry
9.20
The Wilderness Society (TWS) has developed a conservation planning
framework – WildCountry – which integrates protected area design and
natural resource management to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives at
a landscape scale. Central to the approach being developed is the need to
evaluate biodiversity and identify priorities for biodiversity protection and
restoration at a range of scales – continental, regional and landscape.
9.21
Using a new understanding of large-scale connections across the
continent, WildCountry is developing a science-based, continent-wide
approach to conservation planning that involves both protecting the best of
what is left of Australia's natural environment, and restoring important areas.
WildCountry has a particular focus on maintaining and/or restoring
ecological connections in landscapes and seascapes.
Establishing core protected areas, free from destructive and
degrading practices, is a cornerstone of WildCountry. We know if we are
to ensure the long term survival of species and ecosystems, we must establish
resilient fully protected areas as well as significantly reduce the impacts of
all human activity across marine and terrestrial environments. In this context,
it is important that the establishment of highly protected areas should occur
on both public and private lands and with support from both the public and
private sector. [19]
9.22
WildCountry provides a scientific framework for tackling protected
area network design, as well as for tackling threats to nature such as land
clearing, intensive logging and damage to river, marine and other aquatic
systems. WildCountry aims to provide a framework of conservation priorities
which will give long term relevance to today's environmental issues and promote
close cooperation with, and integration across, a wide range of community,
public and private conservation programs. [20]
9.23
The fundamental principles underlying the approach being taken include:
- Conservation planning must take a large-scale perspective (in
space and time);
- The key elements to long term conservation planning include
large, relatively undisturbed core areas, embedded within a landscape matrix of
buffers and linkages;
- Core reserves must be complemented by appropriate off-reserve
management that together ensure connectivity of key ecological patterns and
processes, particularly at larger space/time scales. Off-reserve management can
involve formal private conservation reserves such as conservation agreements
and nature refuges or wider regulatory approaches or the protection of
vegetation through vegetation clearing laws and regulations; and
- 'Connectivity processes' need to be brought together in an
integrated framework and applied in a substantial way to inform and guide
conservation planning.[21]
9.24
WildCountry is working with the South Australian and Northern
Territory Governments on several projects. The Northern Territory Government is
a partner in one of the Australian Research Council projects – the project is
attempting to look at the reasons why species are becoming extinct in Northern
Australia. The South Australian Government has been working on trophic regulation.
The Government has provided their state environmental data to the program and WildCountry
is working with them on a number of levels, attempting to better inform their
biodiversity strategy for the state.[22]
Biosphere reserves
9.25
Biosphere Reserves are areas designated by the International
Co-ordinating Council of the Man and Biosphere program of UNESCO.[23]
9.26
Biosphere Reserves are a landscape-based approach to environmental
conservation and its sites are recognized under UNESCO's 'Man and the Biosphere
Programme' which innovate and demonstrate approaches to conservation and
sustainable development.[24]
Biosphere Reserve designations are flexible and proactive declarations of a
commitment to sustainable development, and are one of the few international
environmental mechanisms that can be applied to urban areas.[25]
9.27
UNESCO's aims in designating Biosphere Reserves are to:
- Foster sustainable economic and human development;
- Preserve landscapes ecosystems, species, and genetic resources; and
- Support demonstration projects, environmental education and training,
and research and monitoring related to local, national and global issues of
conservation and sustainable development.
9.28
They remain under national sovereign jurisdiction, yet share their
experience and ideas nationally, regionally and internationally within the
World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
9.29
Nomination of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) as a Biosphere
Reserve was suggested by the Nature and Society Forum during 2003,[26]
and the ACT Government affirmed that it was pursuing the nomination in October
2005.[27]
The proposal is currently before a committee of the ACT Legislative Assembly,
and documentation and submissions on the proposal are publicly available.[28]
9.30
The World Commission on Protected Areas in their submission to this
inquiry noted that such a landscape-based approach reflects the fundamental
thinking of the 'Man and the Biosphere' concept, and that such an approach had
strong backing in Australia by all national Non-Government Organisations
(NGOs).[29]
Conclusion
9.31
The committee believes that planning for the conservation of
biodiversity and our natural heritage demands a whole-of-landscape approach. It
is abundantly evident that national parks and reserves will not survive as
'islands' and will have to be managed as part of a larger landscape.
9.32
The committee notes that the Directions Statement acknowledges the need
to establish and manage protected areas within a landscape context on the basis
that conservation objectives can best be achieved through an integrated
approach at the landscape level. The committee is pleased to note various initiatives
at the Commonwealth and state level, and by non-government organisations, to
promote this approach and encourages all stakeholders to further develop
initiatives in this area.
Management plans and planning processes
9.33
Once protected areas are declared, protected area managers must ameliorate
or control current threats to the biodiversity values for which they were
established and put in place arrangements for their long-term management. The
Directions Statement notes that current protected area management reflects the
growth in the acceptance by land managers of a landscape-based approach for the
maintenance of ecological functions.
9.34
The Directions Statement notes that there are a series of underlying
principles in relation to protected area management. These include the
requirement that protected areas be managed through the development and
implementation of appropriate plans of management. Management plans should be
based on good baseline biological information and involve stakeholder consultation.
Management programs must be consistent with the primary aim of maintaining
biodiversity values and relevant IUCN protected area category objectives. In
addition, protected area agencies should have in place monitoring and
evaluation programs.[30]
9.35
The Directions Statement also notes that management plans:
...contain strategies and actions that will lead to the
achievement of the primary management objective and inform the manager on the
effectiveness of the actions undertaken.[31]
9.36
Management plans should contain performance indicators, be open to
independent scrutiny and reporting, and must be authorised by the government or
agency responsible for protected areas in the relevant jurisdiction.[32]
As pointed out in chapter 10, one of the challenges for parks managers is to take
into consideration, along with environmental concerns, the various uses of
parks by people. The Directions Statement notes that factors such as the level
of public access, the extent of facility development, and all use of the area
should be related to the objectives of the protected area, the relevant IUCN
protected area category, and should be specified in management plans.[33]
9.37
The Directions Statement provided two specific directions aimed at ensuring
management plans were in place consistently across jurisdictions:
Direction 28: Management plans or, where this is not
possible, statements of management intent, to be in place for all existing NRS
reserves and for any new reserves within three years of establishment unless
Native Title Act considerations preclude this;
Direction 29: Interim management guidelines to be in
place within nine months of acquisition of protected areas under the NRS
program.[34]
9.38
The Directions Statement also outlined the key management issues that
needed to be considered by protected area managers in the context of
establishing management plans. These included the management of fire,
introduced species, tourism/park visitation, neighbour relations, resource use,
and stakeholder involvement.[35]
9.39
Although the Directions Statement laid the foundations and set out directives
for a more consistent reserve planning and management system, it seems that
more work still needs to be done in State jurisdictions to achieve the aims of
the Statement. This is apparent from some of the evidence presented to the committee
during the inquiry.
Concerns about the current system
9.40
A range of explanations were presented during the inquiry as to why the current
management planning regime was not working as well as it could. These related
to factors such a lack of a thorough knowledge of the values and objectives of
management, a lack of resources and the lack of a 'knowledge-base' on which to
make decisions.
9.41
Dr Marc Hockings cited a lack of clarity about values as affecting park
planning:
Information on values is also needed by park management agencies
for planning purposes. The inquiry has already heard that many national parks
and protected areas around Australia lack management plans. Things are getting
better; for example, in New South Wales a couple of years ago together with the
park management agency we did a management assessment of every reserve in the
state. The assessment revealed that 90 per cent of the protected areas of the
state are covered by management plans, either in draft or completed. More significantly,
the assessment showed the benefits of having management plans. Those parks that
had management plans, either in draft or approved, were performing better in
relation to a whole series of aspects of park management, such as those
relating to the knowledge of the park or the park values and relating to the users
of the park and the application of that information in decision making. They
also performed better in terms of understanding and managing key impacts on the
parks, and in terms of consultation with the community....If we have a better understanding
than we have now of the values of the reserves then we can look at what are
compatible uses in relation to that.....The management plans that we have vary in
terms of how well they do that.[36]
9.42
Another issue raised by Dr Hockings was the tendency for park managers
to write management plans around the availability of resources rather than what
resources are actually needed to manage a park effectively.[37]
This highlights the need for State governments in particular to commit
recurrent resources for ongoing management of the national parks every time
they expand their conservation estate.
9.43
Concerns were also raised about delays in incorporating information
about such things as key threatening processes into plans, and that the need to
facilitate more research before effective plans could be put into place was
paramount:
Governments (State and Commonwealth) have been creating lists of
key threatening processes (which apply more broadly than just to conservation reserves),
but have been woefully slow in developing practical responses in terms of
preparing and implementing threat abatement plans.[38]
Conservation research tends to be ad hoc and opportunist and
long term systematic data collection and monitoring is difficult to find...In our
view governments need to give much more attention to planning to accommodate
future environmental change – even if we cannot necessarily predict specific
changes that change will occur is inevitable.[39]
There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that active
management is essential to maintain the biodiversity values and forest health
of this asset. In addition, given the significant value, there is evidence that
national parks are not being well managed for the risks associated with such a
large asset. If you have an asset worth over $20 billion, it makes sense to
have an active management plan to protect this asset from deterioration.[40]
9.44
A lack of funding was cited as another major reason why managements
plans had not been put into effect properly:
There is not enough funding towards the management planning
side. A lot of time, money and effort has been put into draft plans and a lot
of them have been sitting in the office for a long time. A lot of good work has
been done but they have not been released for comment.[41]
The key threat that we mentioned is one of funding. Collectively
as a community we may not allocate sufficient funds to the management of this
asset. We know from any other asset resource that we may own collectively that
it has to be maintained.[42]
9.45
A lack of proper management plans can result in inappropriate uses being
tolerated in parks. Dr Paul Williams pointed out some of the threats faced when
there was a lack of adequate planning:
If we do not have a management plan, there are practices that
can start up and, especially with commercial operations, can then be hard to
deal with. If there is no management plan that, for example, says, ‘This cannot
be done in the national park,’ and someone starts building up a business, later
on it is very hard for the department to say, ‘No, this is not really in tune
with the Wet Tropics values or with the national park’s values.’ It becomes
very hard to stop that operation because people have created a business.[43]
9.46
The importance of the formation of management plans was strongly supported
by conservation groups and land managers. Management plans are important, not
just for publicly managed reserves, but for private landholdings as well. Dr Michael
Looker from The Nature Conservancy stated:
In terms of our program, the formation of management plans is a
very important part of what we do..... It is important... that we have smart
objectives in those management plans so that we do know what to measure over
time.... our organisations generally around the world that I know of, and
certainly within TNC, have perhaps not attended to that end of things as much
as they should or could have.... We have tended to work very hard to get hold of
those opportunities when they arise and to protect those areas but then perhaps
have not had the follow-through to get the management and monitoring to the
level that we should.[44]
9.47
Mr Atticus Fleming, Chief Executive of the Australian Wildlife
Conservancy stressed the importance of such plans, but pointed out that
management plans were not useful unless they became operational and resulted in
appropriate actions:
We work primarily on the basis of what I call operational plans,
not management plans. That might reflect my own bias. I see a lot of management
plans sitting on the shelf and not making a lot of difference on the ground. We
focus on our operational plans. We set out what our strategies are and we list
the actions we are going to do in the field to achieve our objectives. The
objective might be to reduce weeds along five kilometres of a particular river;
it might be to de-stock 60,000 hectares; it might be to lay 70,000 baits before
the end of June. We have operational plans for each of our properties that
specify those sorts of actions and we report against them quarterly. It is a
good question, because you can put a lot of resources into a management plan or
a management planning process that does not necessarily translate into good on–ground
outcomes. It is much more important to get straight to what you are going to do
on the ground and then do it. That is why most of our staff is in the field and
why most of our money goes into the field.[45]
Recommendation 7
9.48
The committee recommends that management plans clearly identify
practical on-ground outcomes and that protected area agencies have in place
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programs to continually assess
management effectiveness and the extent to which protected area values are
being maintained.
Co-ordination between stakeholders and conservation across tenures
9.49
Witnesses to the inquiry emphasised the importance of co-operation and
co-ordination between governments, private land conservation groups and other
stakeholders in furthering a whole-of-landscape approach to planning. Mr Atticus
Fleming of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, provided examples of the
benefits of a partnership approach involving the private sector and
governments:
Even though the private sector conservation needs to be able to
do more in Australia, a lot of what the private sector will do will be in
partnership with governments, so that is where a lot of the real opportunities
lie. Paruna sanctuary is a property in south-western Australia. We actually
acquired six different properties to link those two national parks—Avon Valley National
Park and Walyunga National Park. Without AWC acquiring that land, the
national parks would have been isolated.
It is a great example of what you can do on a landscape scale
approach with government and private sector working together. Having done that,
we then worked with the WA conservation department to implement a regional
baiting program, a regional fire management program and together we have
re-introduced over five mammals that were extinct in this region. That would
not have occurred if it was only government and it would not have occurred if
it was only the private sector but together we have achieved quite a lot there.[46]
9.50
The need to encourage cross-tenure networks of significant lands that
could be planned and managed collaboratively was also emphasised. Mr Brian Gilligan
cited several positive examples of where this is occurring:
...certainly there are some positive examples of things like the
collection of reserves in the Gascoyne-Murchison in Western Australia, or the
collaboration that has been possible with the Australian Alps. The Australian
Alps is a pretty good example where the Commonwealth, without having a direct
land management role, has sat very comfortably at the table with the state
jurisdictions and collaborated in the management of the Australian Alps
collection of parks and reserves. There have been various discussions—which I
presume are still going on.
From time to time there have been discussions about what could
and should happen, say, along the Murray River. You would need a collaborative
arrangement between New South Wales and Victoria—and presumably also South
Australia—but maybe with some involvement of the Commonwealth to get a
particular kind of protected area regime along that linear area. I think those
things are possible but the challenge is there also. In south-eastern New South
Wales, for example, some good work was done at the time of the Eden regional
forests agreement. Some areas went into reserves and voluntary conservation
agreements were entered into to establish and secure the linkages between some
of the areas that would not have otherwise been able to be secured.[47]
9.51
Mr Gilligan suggested that pilot arrangements could be undertaken on
cross-tenure collaborations in relation to land management. Such pilots could
be funded or co-ordinated by the Commonwealth.[48]
9.52
The Directions Statement highlights the critical role of
partnerships between all governments and non-government organisations in
ensuring the success of the National Reserve System.[49]
9.53
Evidence indicated the need for greater co-operation between
stakeholders in furthering a whole-of-landscape approach. The Australian
government has increased the range of stakeholders it deals with to include
sectors that were previously ignored; these included private landholders.
9.54
Some private land conservation groups also raised issues related to the
level of co-operation with state governments. Mr Atticus Fleming argued that
the level of co-operation with these governments has been 'mixed'. He added
however that 'overall, all of the state agencies are positive, but in each of
the states you come up with resistance at various levels at various times'.[50]
9.55
Witnesses pointed to the need to further cultural change within
stakeholder groups and develop trust between the various players seeking to
achieve a common aim:
...That sort of thing [the Gondwana Link] cannot happen without
partnerships, and partnerships cannot happen without trust. So how do you get
trust if you are representing government? You have to sit down and build trust.
That is really the only way to do it. So initiatives designed to bring about
those sorts of cultural changes within government and within the private sector
are the sorts of initiatives which will reap enormous rewards. And it is not
just in government agencies or this level of government where the resistance
lies. I certainly notice it within government, but I notice it equally within
the private sector.[51]
9.56
Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks, however, pointed to
examples of effective cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and
with other stakeholders arguing that current arrangements generally work well:
[the committee] heard evidence before from the Bush Heritage
Fund as to some of those things that have been put in place and others that
would be desirable. So there is good interagency cooperation on that. There is
very good cooperation between our staff who work on the Indigenous Protected
Areas Program and other parts of the portfolio—the Office of Indigenous Policy
Coordination, the Indigenous Land Corporation and state agencies.
...most of these activities do not sit entirely within any one
portfolio and therefore collaboration and cooperation are essential for us to
achieve our objectives. I do not think I could point to a relationship that is
not functioning well. Perhaps some of them could function better or more
effectively, but that is probably true in many other areas of government. In
general, I would have to say that our cooperative arrangements work very well at
both the Commonwealth level and the Commonwealth-state level.[52]
Coordination of conservation across
jurisdictions
9.57
A number of submissions noted inconsistencies and conflict between
Commonwealth and state jurisdictions, and called for the Commonwealth to lead
the co-ordination of marine legislation and program direction:
Much of the process to date has been the states or the
Commonwealth doing their own thing with very little commitment to engaging the
other side of government in the process...There is a lot of resistance at the
moment through the south-east process about the fact that the states believe
they were largely left out of it and it was run by the Commonwealth...
The worst thing that industry can see is one government
implementing a set of criteria and arrangements in an area only to see a
different set of rules supposedly addressing the same principles applied in
another jurisdiction. From our perspective, an enhancement and improvement in
the system would be a greater level of engagement between state and
Commonwealth agencies and in the planning process generally.[53]
9.58
One way of ensuring a consistent legal and policy framework to deal with
marine environments would be to develop a Commonwealth Act in collaboration
with the states. Mr Anthony Flaherty referred to a discussion paper on the need
for national legislation, prepared by the Australian Conservation Foundation
and the National Environmental Law Association:
Until you start to get consistent legislative and jurisdictional
approaches to land and sea management you will always get inconsistencies
between states, which means you will get inconsistencies in the way things are
managed and conserved between states. That is important in the marine
environment when you have a range of wildlife that is highly migratory but when
you have impacts in marine environments that are across jurisdictions—things
like marine pests and marine pollution.[54]
9.59
The CSIRO's submission noted that insufficient
coordination of government efforts at federal, state and local levels, and
between government and non-government agencies, poses a threat to the
achievement of the objectives of protected areas.[55]
9.60
This observation was supported by a number of people who had prepared
submissions based on their personal experiences dealing with various agencies
about parks or related maters. Ms Lynda Newnam wrote:
In my experience there is a lack of coordination between
government agencies and at each level of government. There appears to be no
commitment to bringing players to the table to solve problems in a whole of
government approach and certainly no commitment to provide leadership in the
solution of any such problems.[56]
9.61
Dr Richard Kenchington noted that even within governments, there is a
lack of co-ordination between agencies who are key stakeholders in marine
policy development:
...there are a number of sectoral areas that are not involved in
the development of oceans policy. One, of course, is the area of defence and
national security, which is integral to it. In fact, I think there are nine
departments of state which have major maritime interests, whether it is
transport or fisheries or science—they all come under different areas. I think
there is this lack of a clearing house.[57]
9.62
Ms Claire deLacey and Mr Steven Chamberlain also referred to
'lack of co‑operation and co‑ordination between various government
agencies...particularly where large‑scale or potentially damaging processes
such as bushfire are being considered'. They also noted that 'policy emphasis
often differs between different levels of government, often to the detriment of
biodiversity values.'[58]
9.63
Inconsistent policies and practices have ramifications in many areas of
marine park development and management. Dr Gina Newton provided the example of
inconsistent data collection protocols, that impede the collation and
comparison of historical information:
One of the fundamental issues regarding governments relates to
data collection. Because there are so many jurisdictions involved, often data
that informs science is collected in different manners at different spatial
scales or time scales and therefore it is difficult sometimes to get national
pictures or even large cross-state pictures of what is going on because the
data is not compatible. So from that point of view and from a scientific
understanding point of view, that is an important issue. If there could be
standard and consistent methodologies and data collection protocols, that would
be very helpful.[59]
Marine planning – a case of the
need for national planning
9.64
The need for the Commonwealth and the states to have a complementary and
collaborative approach to the planning and design for MPAs was highlighted in
regard to the fish stock and marine protection.[60]
Mr Craig Bohm from the Australian Marine Conservation Society told the committee:
There needs to be a network because of the fluidity of the
systems. The network is important. For example, a snapper coming out of a river
in south-eastern New South Wales moves up the coast towards Wollongong or Sydney
and grows larger. At some stage it might migrate back or it might stay up there
to produce a lot of babies, if it is allowed to grow big enough. You can have a
marine park in the nursery area where that snapper comes from, but if you do
not have one where the fish ends up, the big fish might be able to be caught
but you lose the productivity because the big fish that produce all the babies
are killed before they get a chance to spawn[61]
9.65
Similarly, Professor Frank Talbot from the Australian Marine Sciences Association
told the committee:
One of the issues here is what your fish actually do, what your
organisms do—the distribution pattern of your organisms. If you were trying to
protect an area fairly thoroughly where there are species that are migratory
and they migrate well beyond that area and get into a fishery, you will do just
as much damage as if it were not there. So you really have to look at what you
are trying to protect.[62]
9.66
The committee was told the despite the offshore constitutional arrangements between Commonwealth and state
managed fisheries there remains some difficulty in linking up the management
regime of governments and fishermen:
So I think there are still some areas, but probably at the
margin, where the offshore constitutional settlement has not really resolved
some of those issues.[63]
9.67
Similarly the committee heard:
In some cases there is good cooperation between states where
fishermen are working both inside and outside the three-mile limit. It is a
problem in that, in some cases, people given a licence to fish by the Commonwealth
actually cross the border—the three-mile limit—and fish inside a state where
they do not have a licence and would not get one. So there is no question that
the issue is an important one and that some conformity would be enormously
useful. How you achieve that I do not know. It does need cooperation between
the states and the Commonwealth. Any move in that direction I think would help
marine protected areas enormously.[64]
9.68
The need for greater Commonwealth and state, and state to state,
legislative consistency was raised across a wide range of marine management
issues. For example:
When you look at specific wildlife management issues there is a
need to manage wildlife populations consistently under similar legislation. So
for seal populations across southern Australia we should have state legislation
that is similar to that for whales. We have come some way with whales. It also
extends to fisheries regulations and aquaculture regulations—the whole gamut.[65]
Some would argue that there is a need for a national oceans
policy. We had an oceans policy which was developed and launched by the
Commonwealth government, but it was a Commonwealth policy. It was very hard to
get commitment across the states, as is the case with any of these things
unless there is some funding tied to it...
Until you start to get consistent legislative and jurisdictional
approaches to land and sea management you will always get inconsistencies
between states, which means you will get inconsistencies in the way things are
managed and conserved between states. That is important in the marine
environment when you have a range of wildlife that is highly migratory but when
you have impacts in marine environments that are across jurisdictions—things
like marine pests and marine pollution.[66]
Marine parks or marine reserve no-take zones are certainly one
tool in the toolbox for managing the marine environment. What has been done in
Victoria is admirable, but if there is ineffective fisheries management
adjacent to those marine parks or if you then have large oil and gas leases or
areas of prospectivity sitting over other areas of high biodiversity, it
negates the benefits that you would have from establishing those marine
reserves.[67]
9.69
A lack of complementary management practices between fishery management
and environmental protection agencies has meant that at times there is a poor
overlay of areas which have been closed to the fishing industry:
For example, in fisheries management, quite often spatial
closures are introduced for specific reasons—maybe to protect spawning areas or
pupping areas for sharks. There is a whole range of reasons why you might have
a spatial closure. It is important that, as the marine protected areas roll
out, there is some engagement between the conservation agency and the fisheries
agency to try and develop the synergies and make sure that those area closures
complement each other rather than being developed in isolation so you have an
area closed off for fisheries management reasons and another area that is close
by is that closed off for conservation reasons.[68]
9.70
A lack of high quality data recognised and trusted by all stakeholders may
also be discouraging progress, as disagreements continue around important
matters such as the status of fish stocks:
State fisheries reports are not independent. The Department of
the Environment and Heritage strategic fisheries assessments are not
independent—they are not an audit and they are not able to be applied at a
generic level across the country for us to get that picture which you asked for.
I wish we had that, and I think it is something which the Commonwealth could
take stronger leadership on. I have certainly been lobbying for a group like
the Bureau of Rural Sciences to have massively increased funding to provide
that marine audit function at least on our fish stocks, let alone the broader
marine ecosystem and the impacts we may be having on it.[69]
9.71
Evidence to the inquiry indicated the need for the Commonwealth and the
states to adopt a complementary and collaborative approach to marine planning
issues, including the design of MPAs and the relationship between governments
and stakeholders. Evidence also highlighted the need for greater consistency
between Commonwealth and state and territory legislation across a range of
marine management issues.
Public consultation
9.72
Discussion of the management planning system cannot take place without
taking into consideration the role of public and community consultation in the
process. The contributions and views of the wider community certainly play a role
in the establishment of management plans for parks and reserves, and also in
the creation of new reserves. During the inquiry the committee heard about concerns
with the poor coordination and communication extended to dealings with
stakeholders. Mr Dudley Maslen, the Shire President of Carnavon (WA) noted that
'the biggest threat that I see here...is communication or consultation with the
local communities.'[70]
9.73
Mr Maslen's concerns were shared
by a diverse range of organisations. The Prospectors and Miners Association of
Victoria described their experience of consultation prior to the creation of
new national parks in Victoria:
We spent an enormous amount of our resources to ensure our
involvement was as detailed and complete as possible. This was largely a waste
of time and money and we believe that we were only given minimal consideration.
It became clear early in the process that there was a
pre-determined outcome. There would be a series of parks, nothing was going to
stop this.
While the ECC claimed to consult with those affected, it was
obvious that their idea of ‘consultation’ was to bring us in for meetings and
send us away with a condescending pat on the head while ignoring anything we
had said. It was patronisation, not consultation.[71]
9.74
The Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing (TARFish) attached to
its submission a recent letter to Senator the Hon Ian Campbell, Minister for
Environment and Heritage, reporting its exclusion from consultative processes
prior to the creation of Marine Protected Areas in Tasmania:
The establishment of these MPAs has fallen far short of ‘due
process’ and genuine consultation. Your press release on 5 May 2006 stated that the MPA network was 'the culmination of extensive discussions with
stakeholders...' As a major stakeholder, TARFish is astonished by the fact that
it has NOT been invited to participate in this process, despite our on-going
requests for such involvement. We understand that, alarmingly, our national
body, Recfish Australia, was also excluded from the consultative process.[72]
9.75
The Snowy Mountains Horse Riders' Association described their sense that
there had been no consultation with local stakeholders about significant
changes to horse access within Kosciusko National Park:
Our Association and the local community is still at a loss to
understand how such major changes could be made that would affect the community
at large, unopposed and without public consultation.
The local community was not notified nor consulted –our heritage
has been hijacked!![73]
9.76
The Head of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS), Dr Tony
Fleming, understood the consultation process in relation to Kosciusko
differently, and told the committee:
We are continually trying new ways of consulting with the
community. The development of the Kosciuszko plan of management involved
extensive community consultation and tried novel approaches to achieve
effective engagement with the community in what finally appeared in that plan.[74]
9.77
The Australian Trail Horse Riders' Association, a participant in the Kosciusko
consultations, described their usual experience with consultation in NSW:
The usual sequence of events is that a draft plan of management
is drawn up by park staff. It is then placed out for public consultation for a
period of three months. People make submissions. There are some
modifications—usually basically no modifications—to the plan of management that
then goes to the local advisory committee, of which there are, I think, 19 in
New South Wales, that has some input. It then goes back to the service and
maybe some minor changes are made. It then goes to the peak body, the advisory
council, and from there to the minister for ratification.
Our experience is that, once a plan has actually been scripted
or drafted, there is generally no modification or very little modification.[75]
9.78
The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) conducted a public
Inquiry into Queensland National Parks in 2000. Their report found that
relations between QPWS staff and their local communities varied significantly
across the state:
While some Councils indicated a positive working relationship,
others suggested that there was very limited consultation at a local level and
little attempt to involve the local community. The Inquiry could not fully
establish the basis of this variation, however, some explanation may lie in the
poor resourcing issues and service culture.[76]
9.79
The LGAQ report went on to recommend that:
An objective of QPWS should be to establish local community
participation and involvement in Park Management. This will require development
of consultative and advisory mechanisms, effective communication strategies as
well as greater engagement of the local community by QPWS staff.[77]
9.80
The WA Department of Environment and Conservation acknowledged the need
for community engagement, but noted that their efforts produced variable
results:
As part of our general processes, we engage with all the other
jurisdictions and we have shared information and tried to develop approaches
towards public participation, involvement and consultation. They can be quite
variable, depending on what resources you have in the district, region or
country town, and that is part of the variability there.[78]
9.81
The Department also noted that some complaints about consultation
processes arose when people did not get the results they sought:
There will always be some people who do not agree with the
outcome and who also claim that there was not adequate consultation because
they did not get the outcome that they specifically wanted. We try and get the
majority of people to come to the point where there is an agreement with either
a management plan or an approach.[79]
9.82
Similar issues were raised in the marine park planning context, discussed
in Chapter 4. The South Australian Fishing Council had argued:
When draft plans are put on the table, we would like to consider
that the planning process is rigorous enough that it actually seeks the correct
information and then balances it up before it releases even a draft plan, let
alone seeks to finalise an arrangement.[80]
9.83
The inquiry received a lot of input about community consultation, from
many sources. Dissatisfaction with outcomes, and a failure to understand
consultative processes, may account for some of the complaints and observations
received. They can also be understood as signals that current consultation
processes are not appropriate for particular situations, have been poorly
explained to stakeholders, or have been finalised prematurely.
9.84
NSW NPWS recognised that consultation processes need to be appropriate
for particular times and community needs:
A technique of consultation may work at one time in history and
then not work, so you have got to keep refining and improving those things. The
fact that we are developing branch visitation management plans—which is just
one part of the planning that we do—indicates that we recognise that there is a
change in the landscape over the years.
There has been an increase, particularly in the eastern part of
the state, in the amount of reserves, which has changed the balance of reserve
to non-reserve land. We need to look carefully at what that means for
recreational opportunities for people. That is one of the drivers behind the
development of the Living Parks strategy and the need for these plans. It was
not driven so much by the fact that we perceived our consultation was
inadequate—I think there are always ways that we can look to improve our
consultation. It was more about the changing nature of the landscape and
building the reserve system.[81]
9.85
The Australian Trail Horse Riders' Association, having identified
problems with the usual consultation processes they had encountered in NSW,
went on to describe an alternative model, based on engaging stakeholders prior
to the preparation of a written plan, which had proved more satisfactory:
We actually think that the process is the wrong way around.
Public consultation should take place before the actual drafting of the plan of
management. That way, people have a chance to have an input. The flavour for
that particular area, specific issues and expert opinion from people who are
actually out on the ground and know those areas can then be brought into the
plan of management process. I have been involved in one single park where that
has actually happened. The end result was a much better and more balanced plan
of management without the usual level of antagonism and position-taking that
has been our experience in the past.[82]
9.86
This approach was endorsed by Mr John Harrison, CEO of RecFish Australia:
If you do not engage stakeholders—whether they are recreational,
commercial or whoever—and you simply come up and plonk something on the table,
there is the answer. That is when you are going to get people’s backs up. Bring
people into the debate and into the discussion when it starts and say: ‘This is
what we are trying to achieve. This is the big picture and the long-term
objective. How can you help us in that process? Where is it going to impact on
you? What are the areas that are critical to the long-term requirements for your
particular sector—again, whether it be rec or commercial?’ I think the best way
to get an enemy is to force-feed someone—you know, the carrot and the stick.
But, if you encourage people to contribute and participate, to be involved and
to be part of the solution, you will get a good outcome.[83]
9.87
There was widespread concern about the extent to which stakeholders are
being consulted, particularly in the preparation of park management plans. As a
number of stakeholders pointed out, consultations do not necessarily mean that
every party gets what they want. Effective consultation processes can still
lead to disappointment for some people.
9.88
The committee believes that earlier engagement with various user groups
and neighbours could improve planning procedures. There emerged from the
evidence a sense that there was little flexibility in reserve planning by the
time interested parties got to have a say in the process. This appeared to
emerge partly because conservation agencies' seemed sometimes too strongly
committed to their initial drafts of management plans. The committee is of the
view that stakeholders should be engaged from the very beginning of management
plan development, not just once a draft plan is available for comment. It also
believes that a landscape-based approach to planning should be cognisant of
adjacent land uses, particularly when it comes to opportunities for
recreational use, a topic discussed further in the next chapter.
Recommendation 8
9.89
The committee recommends that best practice preparation and revision of
reserve management plans should ensure that stakeholders, are consulted at the
commencement of planning processes, rather than beginning with seeking comment
on draft plans.
Indigenous Protected Areas
9.90
Indigenous Australians are custodians of significant areas of Australia's
land, important managers of the landscape, and crucial to the future of the
reserve system. The Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA) Programme is part of the
National Reserve System Programme (NRSP) which aims to establish a network of
protected areas which includes a representative sample of all types of
ecosystems across the country.
9.91
The IPA Programme seeks to provide a planning and land management
framework for Indigenous owned lands to be managed as part of the NRSP. It is
funded as part of the Natural Heritage Trust. Incorporated Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) organisations including land management agencies,
community councils, land councils, ATSI land trusts or representative bodies as
well as land management, nature conservation and cultural heritage agencies
that wish to enter into cooperative management arrangements with ATSI
organisations may apply for IPA funding.[84]
In 2005-06, the Commonwealth provided funding of $2.5 million for the IPA
Programme. This will increase to $3.1 million in 2006-07.[85]
9.92
With support from the IPA Programme, Indigenous landowners commit
themselves to managing their lands for the protection of natural and cultural
features in accordance with internationally recognised standards and
guidelines.
9.93
The 22 declared IPAs cover a total of 14.9 million hectares representing
66 per cent of the total area of land added to the reserve system by the
NRSP over the last decade. The land includes some of the most biodiverse and highly
valued of all NRS properties. The IPA Programme funds management and practical
work to protect natural and cultural features and to contribute to conserving
biological diversity.[86]
9.94
Evidence to the committee generally commented favourably on the operation
of the Programme. The ACF noted that:
Indigenous Protected Areas are one Australian example of the
IUCN governance type 'community conserved areas' and can provide another
vehicle for empowering communities through pride in their land; enabling them
to care for country and pass on important traditional ecological knowledge to
successive generations. Moreover, Australia is only just beginning to
appreciate the great value of Indigenous customary knowledge to conservation
and natural resource management, i.e. what Indigenous Australians can teach
non-Indigenous Australians about looking after the land and seas.[87]
9.95
Similarly, The Wilderness Society (TWS) noted that it is critical that Commonwealth
and state governments recognise the important biodiversity, scenic and cultural
heritage benefits which accrue to the Australian community through the
voluntary declaration by traditional owners of IPAs. TWS argued that
governments should provide ongoing support to enable traditional owners to
build and maintain management capacity based on Australian and international
best practice standards.[88]
9.96
The recent Gilligan report into the IPA Programme, which reviewed its
overall effectiveness and its success in meeting the needs and aspirations of
Indigenous participants, found that the Programme was highly cost-effective and
provided significant economic, social and cultural benefits to Indigenous
communities.[89]
9.97
Each of the IPAs have unique land management issues to address, such as
introduced and invasive species such as mimosa pigra, Yellow Crazy Ants
and cane toads. At the same time the landowners' activities help to maintain
spiritual, cultural and natural values of the land by the promotion of
customary practices such as fire management.
9.98
As noted above, the benefits of these projects are much broader than
biodiversity and heritage management. Indigenous communities are linking their
IPA activities to training and employment outcomes and working with the private
sector to develop economic opportunities in remote areas. Mr Gilligan
emphasised to the committee that IPAs 'offer enormous potential to achieve
socioeconomic and community development goals' and are 'recognised as being
very positive and worthwhile.'[90]
The review that Mr Gilligan undertook into the IPA Programme confirmed these
statements.[91]
9.99
Others commented on the importance of IPAs in meeting NRS targets:
If you look at Australia’s land tenure and also start looking at
where the priority bioregions are for consolidating NRS, the Indigenous
Protected Areas program is absolutely critical to achieving the NRS target.
Developing a way to partner with Indigenous organisations is absolutely
crucial. I think the real challenge is that, obviously, it has to be in the
interests of the Indigenous communities; it is their land.[92]
9.100
CALM argued that, while supporting IPAs, they should be seen as
complementary to, rather than substituting for, the formal public system of
conservation reserves.[93]
In other evidence, Mr Allan Holmes, Chief Executive of the SA Department for
Environment and Heritage noted that in the Anangu Pitantjatjara Yankunytjatjara
(APY) lands there are two IPAs – 'not all that successful in many respects;
work is in progress – but out of that has come this very positive story with
the Watarru community'.[94]
9.101
The Kuku Kanyini at Watarru – Caring for Country
project is an innovative project for the protection of biodiversity and the
conservation of a significant Indigenous environment in a remote area of South
Australia. It combines scientific information gathered during a biological
survey of the area with traditional Indigenous knowledge and skills to enhance
biodiversity, utilise traditional land management practices, provide
employment, and improve health outcomes. There is widespread community support
and involvement in the project and it has increased self-esteem, especially
among young men. Positive results of the project include the monitoring of
threatened species, the construction of fences to protect culturally
significant areas; and the establishment of a sanctuary as a breeding ground
for certain species.[95]
Funding for the IPA Programme
9.102
As noted above, in 2005-06, the Commonwealth, under the Natural Heritage
Trust, provided funding of $2.5 million for the IPA Programme. This is
scheduled to increase by $600 000 in 2006-07 to $3.1 million.[96]
The program this current financial year is $2.5 million. It has
been at that level for a year or so but did increase a couple of years ago from
$2 million. So the program has grown, in those terms, significantly over the
last few years.[97]
9.103
Submissions commented that funding under the Programme was inadequate
and that the Commonwealth needed to devote more resources to the Programme. Professor
Jon Altman, Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research,
reflecting much of the evidence, stated that:
The current levels of funding within this program are grossly
inadequate to meet the day-to-day management of the growing number of IPAs.
IPAs are highly dependent on the CDEP program. There needs to be a firm
commitment for on-going recurrent funding (that is not project based) for IPAs
from the Australian, State and Territory governments.[98]
9.104
Mr Andreas Glanznig of WWF-Australia also raised the issue of the need
to provide appropriate resources 'to enable effective management or looking at
how you could put an effective management regime in place to protect the
biodiversity values that are within that IPA'.[99]
Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks, conceded that the Programme
could achieve more with additional resources.[100]
9.105
The Gilligan report noted that at current funding levels, only very
basic management of the lands is possible. The intention of the Programme has
been to provide a planning framework and seed funding for ongoing land
management rather than fully funding management at a level equivalent to state
and territory public reserves.[101]
9.106
The report recommended that funding to at least a minimum base level of
ongoing management of IPAs should be sought. This funding should be sought
within a framework of tripartite agreements between Indigenous landowners, the
Commonwealth and state and territory governments, if their full value to the
NRS is to be realised. The report argued that, depending on the timing of new
IPA declarations, maintenance of the current Programme at a basic level of
operation would require a doubling of the current budget to around $6 million
in 2008-09 and further increases to around $10 million by 2010–11.[102]
9.107
The report argued that it is difficult to estimate the level of funding
required for a fully fledged system of Indigenous managed protected areas, but
if progress can be made in tripartite negotiations for an appropriate funding
of different levels of Indigenous land management activity, $20-30 million
'might be able to be well invested' by 2010-11, increasing to $50 million in
subsequent years. The report noted that increases of this magnitude in the
scale of the IPA budget should be conditional on the achievement of well
defined conservation outcomes by the IPA Programme. The report also recommended
that management funds should be provided on the basis of three to five years
forward estimates and that the recurrent funding formula should be reviewed to
reflect different levels of Indigenous land management activity negotiated in
tripartite agreements.[103]
9.108
Several submissions highlighted the heavy dependence of IPAs on the
Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program (an Indigenous
'work-for-the-dole' program). Professor Jon Altman argued that Indigenous
peoples' efforts to use CDEP to maintain biodiversity over large tracts of land
in the absence of government agency support is an 'unacceptable form of cost
shifting'.[104]
9.109
The committee questioned DEW on the extent of CDEP moneys being used in
the IPA Programme. Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks, stated that
the majority of IPAs draw on CDEP funding in a type of 'partnership'
arrangement:
...most of the IPAs around Australia...are built around either
pre-existing or developing community ranger programs in the communities. Most,
if not all, of those community ranger programs draw on CDEP funding for a core
part of their resources. Therefore, you could see the IPAs as in a bit of a
partnership with the CDEP program in that the community ranger component is
funded by CDEP and the funding that we provide helps with coordination of the
program, management of the program and on the ground activities.[105]
9.110
On a related funding issue, some submissions argued that few mechanisms
exist to ensure ongoing public and private sector funding and management support
for IPAs. The Wilderness Society argued that private sector interests,
including industry, should be encouraged to support and fund management
operations for IPAs.[106]
9.111
DEW commented on the trend towards diversifying funding sources:
Quite an interesting part of the program is the innovation with
which the communities seek resources from a variety of places. We think there
is a great opportunity to continue to build a stronger relationship with state
agencies and get more support from them. I think there is also a small but
growing interest for the philanthropic sector in supporting Indigenous
Protected Areas. They see Indigenous Protected Areas as a very useful framework
in working more closely with Indigenous people in a constructive way that has a
good track record, is a good framework within which to work and has good
government support. So, yes, more resources would help and, along with our
partners in the Indigenous communities, we are constantly looking at ways to
find those resources.[107]
9.112
Dr Michael Looker, Director, Australia Program, The Nature Conservancy
noted that their partner organisations are beginning to provide funding to
IPAs:
As an organisation we have only been here for a couple of years,
so we are in the initial stages of thinking about that. Our partner
organisations are working those managers, though, and essentially we have been
working through them. In recent times, the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, for
instance, has got more involved in Indigenous protected areas and management,
and we have recently provided some funding for some of that work up on the Cape
in particular.[108]
Recommendation 9
9.113
The committee endorses the Gilligan report findings and recommends that
the Commonwealth substantially increase funding to the Indigenous Protected
Areas Programme, and that funding for this Programme also be provided by state
and territory governments.
Conclusion
9.114
A world-class conservation estate can only emerge through effective
planning. The committee heard evidence of planning processes that have emerged
at the national level, particularly through commitments to create a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system. These are supporting
one of the most important parts of conservation planning: setting priorities
and meeting targets for the conservation of under-represented ecosystems.
9.115
The committee also saw first hand some of the country's most spectacular
parks, including a visit to the network of land tenures and reserves that make
up the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in northern Queensland. Here the
committee saw the importance of relationships between neighbours, and the
crucial importance of conservation achieved not in isolation, but as an
endeavour pursued within the social and ecological context of the surrounding landscape.
Both at Uluru, and again in the Wet Tropics, committee members saw evidence of
the benefits of engagement with Indigenous land holders in particular, but also
barriers working against adequate recognition of their skills, knowledge and
rights. Closer involvement of Indigenous stakeholders in management of Parks
and other protected areas, and closer cooperation in planning processes between
park managers and all stakeholders, together with more cross-jurisdictional
cooperation, should deliver the planning necessary to create not only a CAR
reserve system, but to sustain it in the face of the many threats and pressures
that have already been outlined.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page