House of Representatives Committees

CHAPTER 7: GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF WORLD HERITAGE AREAS

Introduction

7.1 World heritage areas require funding for maintenance, development, conservation, presentation, and rehabilitation. There was agreement among witnesses to the inquiry that funding needs should be established with reference to detailed, agreed management plans for each area. DEST's policy on this matter is that:

^[1]

The Tasmanian Government supported statutory management plans as the basis for assessing the needs of world heritage areas. ^[2] So too did the Western Australian Government. It stated that it would finalise a funding agreement with the Commonwealth once management plans for Shark Bay were complete and could be used to calculate the costs of implementation. ^[3] Other groups calling for this approach and its use in reaching funding agreements between the Commonwealth and States included the Conservation Council of Western Australia, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee (TWWHACC), and the South Australian Farmers Federation. ^[4]

7.2 Just as Australia's 11 world heritage areas are very different from each other, so too are the funding needs associated with their management as required by the World Heritage Convention. ^[5] As the WTMA pointed out, 'there is no case for a simplistic formula approach based on area, number of visitors ... a small and threatened area could have greater funding needs than a large area where threats are minimal'. ^[6] On the basis of their experience, the Tasmanian Government and the TWWHACC detailed a number of factors that affect the level of expenditure that is needed for world heritage management. They include:

the number of significant features to be protected and the complexity of the research and management required for this - for example, the Tasmanian Wilderness meets all the natural criteria for world heritage listing and three of the cultural criteria, which is more than in most other Australian world heritage areas;
the extent to which the area is to be presented and the acceptable level of change permitted for presentation purposes;
the size of the area -the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area is bigger than Tasmania and Victoria put together and the Tasmanian Wilderness covers almost 1.4 million hectares compared with Lord Howe Island with an area of 1540 hectares;
the range of topographic, soil and climatic conditions, which influence the range of habitats in the area - the latter factor is recognised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its use of species richness as a measure of the impact of the physical environment on the funding needs for national parks; ^[7]
the fragility of the area that is being protected;
the number of visitors;
the number of major access points;
external influences such as adjoining land use;
problems associated with fire management;
the demands made by the range and type of recreational activities undertaken - for example, there are 1,000 kms of walking trails to maintain in the Tasmanian Wilderness;
the demands made by using the area for activities unrelated to its world heritage status; and
the remoteness of, and difficulty of access to and within, the property. ^[8]

7.3 Funds for the ongoing management of world heritage areas come from several sources. Over the years, the Commonwealth and State Governments have provided the bulk of the funds for most world heritage areas, and continue to do so. These funds have been supplemented in more recent times by the introduction of levies on visitors and other beneficiaries of the areas. In the face of dwindling budgets and larger demands for establishing and maintaining protected areas, new sources of funds for world heritage areas are also being sought.

The Commonwealth's responsibilities for funding

7.4 The Commonwealth has a responsibility under the Convention to ensure that, as far as possible, appropriate financial measures are taken to protect the world heritage areas in Australia. The Department of Finance put this interpretation on the Commonwealth's responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention:

^[9]

In the view of the Department, the obligations 'initially fall on the Commonwealth as signatory to the Convention'. ^[10] The New South Wales Government contended that the Commonwealth's 'ultimate responsibility for World Heritage preservation incorporates a financial responsibility' for, among other things, the management of that world heritage. ^[11] The Western Australian Government agreed. ^[12]

7.5 In cases where a State fails to deal adequately with its world heritage areas, the ultimate responsibility for these properties lies with the Commonwealth. Legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department, cited by DEST, makes clear that:

^[13]

7.6 In addition to the Commonwealth's international obligations, it is also possible to argue on equity grounds, as the Royal Australasian Ornithological Union did, that the Commonwealth, rather than other levels of government, should bear the prime responsibility for providing adequate funding for world heritage areas:

^[14]

7.7 As described in Chapter 1, the arrangements for world heritage management and funding vary from site to site. The Commonwealth's role ranges from being wholly responsible for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu world heritage areas to making only minor contributions in the case of some of the State-managed areas, such as Fraser Island, Shark Bay and Lord Howe Island. Yet others, such as the Great Barrier Reef and Tasmanian Wilderness world heritage areas, receive considerable funds from both the Commonwealth and State Governments. Information about the funding of the 11 Australian world heritage areas is provided in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1—Funding to Australia's World Heritage Areas

		Environment portfolio
Properties	Year(s) of listing	Funds to 1994-95^a	Expenditure 1995-96^b	Estimated expenditure ^c1996-97	Commonwealth Dept of Tourism funds^d	State funding	Funds from cost recovery
Willandra Lakes	1981	$749 708	$122 375	Not yet known		$377 000 in 1993-94 from NPWS funding $530 000 in 1994-95 for Mungo NP $350 000 since 1981 from Dept. of Land and Water Conservation^e	$42 882 in 1994-95 from Mungo NP^e
Great Barrier Reef	1981	$132 182 238	$16 633 000^f (net cost: $15 086 000)	$18 600 000^f (net cost: $14 600 000)	$39 424 in 1993-94 Sites of National Tourism Significance - moorings in GBRMP $48 015 in 1993-94 Regional Tourism Development Program - Tropical Island Coast Tourism Strategy $43 900 in 1993-94 National Ecotourism Program - study on recreational scuba diving in marine protected areas and a study on the status of fringing reefs at Brampton Island	$23 783 714 1981-82 to 1994-95^g	$3 699 000 in 1993-94 $4 485 000 in 1994-95 GBRMPA cost recovery from Environmental Management Charge, Permit Application Assessment Fee, External Services Section, Industry/DEST funded projects, Aquarium Revenue, Interest, Educational/publicity material^h
Kakadu NP	1981, 1987, 1992	$112 675 699	$12 480 000^f (net cost: $9 011 000)ⁱ	$11 812 000^f	$40 000 in 1993-94 National Ecotourism Program - CSIRO for monitoring the effect of boat tours		$2 562 000 in 1995-96 Park use fees^j
Lord Howe Island	1982	$494 788	$60 000	Not yet known		$864 597 in 1994-95 NSW Government subsidies provided to for electricity, hospital and public works. The bulk of the funding comes from Lord Howe Island commercial business.^e	$136 000 in 1994-95 from charge on tourists prior to departure. Some of the income from departure tax, and sales of alcohol and Kentia palm seeds are used for world heritage management (unknown amount).^e
Tasmanian Wilderness	1982, 1989	$48 046 358	$5 177 000	$5 260 000	$8 000 in 1993-94 Sites of National Tourism Significance - tour operator training at Gordon River $46 300 in 1993-94 National Ecotourism Program - Ecological Sanitation Strategies	$13 922 000 1987-88 to 1994-95^g
CERRA	1986, 1994	$1 420 000	$175 000	Not yet known	$15 000 in 1992-93 $13 400 in 1993-94 Forest Ecotourism Program - Walk Interpretation in Washpool NP & Gibraltar Range NP and Coffs Harbour/New England Forest Wildlife Research $230 000 in 1993-94 Regional Tourism Development Program - North Coast Regional Ecotourism Plan	NSW $1 685 000 in 1993-94 $2 018 000 in 1994-95 Expenditure on world heritage areas estimates only. Includes recurrent expenditure, resource package allocation, capital works and salaries^e QLD $846 650 in 1993-94 $859 100 in 1994-95 Includes wages, operations and state capital works^k	$405 000 in 1994-95 for Dorrigo Rainforest Centre $57 000 in 1994-95 for tour operator takings, cabins, camping and entry fees^e
Uluru-Kata Tjuta	1987, 1994	$38 166 284	$7 141 000^f (net cost: $3 961 000)ⁱ	$5 530 000^f			$3 065 000 in 1995-96 Park use fees^g
Wet Tropics	1988	$26 000 000	$4 060 000	$2 825 000	$32 000 in 1993-94 Forest Ecotourism Program - Bare Hill Aboriginal Rock Art Preservation & Presentation and Aboriginal Walking Trail, Goldsborough Valley $10 000 in 1993-94 Sites of National Significance - Boulders Scenic Reserve $266 800 in 1993-94 Regional Tourism Development Program - Cape York Peninsula Tourism Strategy, Injinoo Tourism Strategy and Cairns Region Tourism Strategy $100 000 in 1993-94 National Ecotourism Program - Ecotourism Implementation Strategy and Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research	$32 460 761 1990-91 to 1994-95^g
Shark Bay	1991	$1 956 608	$169 000	Not yet known	$34 000 in 1993-94 Sites of National Tourism Significance - interpretation facilities at Hamelin Pool and for information video and panels at Monkey Mia Reserve	$861 400 in 1990-91- 1994-95 in consolidated funds $15 000 in 1992-93- 1994-95 for management plan preparation $79 100 in 1993-94- 1994-95 for biological survey, threatened species research, recovery plans $500 000 in 1994-95- 1996-97 for `Project Eden: feral animal control, reintroduction of threatened species on Peron Peninsula^l	$300 000 per annum Monkey Mia Reserve fees^l
Fraser Island	1992	$300 700	$317 500	Not yet known		$10 800 000 1991-92 to 1994-95 The Great Sandy Region Management Plan has been allocated: $4 700 000 in 1995-96 $5 200 000 in 1996-97 $5 800 000 in 1997-98^k
Fossil Mammal Sites	1994	$213 233	$170 000	Not yet known	$56 000 in 1993-94 Sites of National Tourism Significance - Bat Cave video system at Naracoorte Caves $200 000 in 1993-94 Regional Tourism Development Program - Mount Isa Riversleigh Visitors Centre	Riversleigh, QLD $363 000 in 1993-94 $619 000 in 1994-95 This is expenditure for Lawn Hill NP which can not be separated from Riversleigh^k

Sources:

Nicholls, W. and King, D., Consistent Management Arrangements, paper presented at AIUCN workshop, Richmond, NSW, 7-9 August 1995.
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, letter dated 25 August 1996; Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97: Environment, Sport and Territories Portfolio, Budget related paper no. 15, p 6.
Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97: Environment, Sport and Territories Portfolio, Budget related paper no. 15, p 6; Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 91), pp 1-2. The total funding for those world heritage properties for which funds have still to be allocated is $1 965 000, part of which will go towards meeting the Commonwealth's commitment to to the Tasmanian Government for the Tasmanian world heritage area.
Department of Tourism, submission (number 68), appendix D.
New South Wales Government, exhibit (number 2).
Includes revenue from non-Budget sources.
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), attachment J.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, submission (number 59), p 13; Annual Report 1994-95, pp 115, 119.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, submission (number 90), p 1.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, submission (number 37), p 22.
Queensland Government, submission (number 47), pp 4-5.
Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), p 7.

7.8 In addition to funds from Commonwealth and State conservation departments or agencies which are responsible for world heritage, smaller sums of money were forthcoming from other departments under the previous Government. Labour market programs, such as the Local Environmental Action Program (LEAP) and the Regional Environmental Employment Program (REEP), were run in some world heritage areas. ^[15] The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism made grants for world heritage area management through its programs for Sites of National Tourism Significance (directed at sites under pressure or emerging pressures), the National Ecotourism Program (set up under the National Ecotourism Strategy with $10 million to spend over four years on research, planning and infrastructure up to $250 000), the Forest Ecotourism Program (set up under the Forest Policy Statement), and the Regional Tourism Development Program (for building new developments or promoting new areas). ^[16] Other sources of funds were grant programs administered by the Australian Heritage Commission and ANCA. Commonwealth-funded research institutions, such as the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and some of the Cooperative Research Centres, also expended funds in world heritage areas on projects that assist management.

7.9 As at September 1996, full information was not available about the provision by the new Government of funds of the type listed in the previous paragraph. However, the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has announced that $10 million will be spent over two years to develop new tourism products and facilities in rural and regional areas. ^[17]

Shared funding responsibilities between the Commonwealth and States

Principles

7.10 Although the Department of Finance noted the responsibility of the Commonwealth under the Convention, it did not consider that this necessarily extended to the provision of all the resources necessary to manage and protect world heritage areas:

^[18]

The implications of this division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States is that the Commonwealth and State Governments have been required to develop and establish collaborative arrangements' which cover, among other matters, 'agreement as to the budget required to implement management priorities'. ^[19]

7.11 DEST, which is responsible for disbursing Commonwealth funds for world heritage areas, maintained that:

^[20]

At a public hearing, the officers of the Department expanded on departmental views:

^[21]

^[22]

7.12 The Premier of Tasmania agreed with DEST's view of its 'topping up' role to the extent that he believed that 'all costs, beyond those that would have been spent in the TWWHA [Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area] prior to World Heritage area listing are the responsibility of the Commonwealth'. ^[23] This approach appeared to be the basis of the practice of the New South Wales Government, which stated that it was spending no more money on areas that are world heritage listed than those that are not. ^[24] The corollary of this position is that world heritage areas that were protected before listing should be jointly funded, while the Commonwealth should assume sole responsibility for those that were not previously managed by the States. The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) espoused this view, ^[25] and the MCA stated clearly that:

^[26]

On this argument, management of the Wet Tropics world heritage area would be substantially funded by the Commonwealth because only 29% of the area is composed of land that was national park before listing. However, the Commonwealth has never accepted the concept that it should have prime responsibility for capital expenditure and running costs for world heritage areas, except in cases where it had prior jurisdiction. ^[27]

7.13 The costs associated with protected areas increase after world heritage listing, not only because of the added requirements of presentation, preservation, monitoring and reporting, but also because of the larger numbers of visitors expected after listing. ^[28] The New South Wales Government suggested that:

^[29]

Funds for consultation and research which assist management may also be needed. ^[30]

7.14 The Tasmanian Government believed that no distinction should be made between capital and recurrent funding in relation to cost sharing between the Commonwealth and the States. ^[31] On the other hand, Mr Dutton from Southern Cross University suggested establishing the same general types of funding arrangement which are working well in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Here, initial capital costs are borne by the Commonwealth and recurrent costs jointly with the State agencies, with the potential to move towards a sustainable level of cost recovery from park users over time. ^[32]

7.15 The Committee takes the view that it is reasonable for the Commonwealth to meet a share of the additional costs incurred by the State-managed world heritage areas as a result of world heritage listing. In the light of the Commonwealth's obligations under the Convention, it is appropriate for the Commonwealth's funding to emphasise raising standards of management and improving interpretation and visitor facilities. The Committee noted the experience of some agencies that acquiring funds for maintenance is more difficult than acquiring them for capital costs, ^[33] and considers that Commonwealth funding should be available for both capital and recurrent expenditure. A further suggestion was that funds should be on call in the case of emergencies, such as cyclones, disease outbreaks or bush fires in world heritage areas. ^[34]

7.16 The Committee recommends that:

(42) Commonwealth Government funding for State-managed world heritage areas be provided to improve facilities and standards of management but only as a supplement to that provided by the States.

The Committee's view is that State Governments should continue to fund world heritage areas at least at the levels that existed prior to world heritage listing, and the Commonwealth Government's role should be to supplement State funding.

7.17 It is to be hoped that no more nominations of areas for world heritage listing will go forward to the World Heritage Committee without State Government approval. The Committee notes that the present Government has undertaken to pursue further nominations 'in close cooperation with States and affected local communities' and to provide for 'broadbased community involvement in every step on the path to world heritage nomination'. ^[35]

Funding agreements

7.18 To date, a small number of funding agreements have been reached between the Commonwealth and the States.

A five year funding agreement for capital and recurrent expenses was finalised by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments in 1986-87, for the period 1987-88 to 1991-92. It was renegotiated until 1993-94 with the expansion of the world heritage area in 1989, and the current four year agreement was negotiated in 1994. ^[36] As Table 7.1 shows, substantial sums have been spent by both Governments on the Tasmanian Wilderness.
The Environment Ministers of the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments signed an agreement in 1992 for matching expenditures of $950 000 by both Governments, to be spent by March 1995. ^[37] A new funding agreement will be negotiated once the management plan for the Shark Bay world heritage area is concluded.
Agreements are under negotiation with the New South Wales Government for its world heritage areas, and with the Queensland Government for the Wet Tropics. ^[38]

No agreements have been concluded for the Fossil Mammal Sites, and the agreements concluded for Fraser Island in 1991 and 1993 focussed on structural adjustment assistance rather than having support for world heritage values as their primary aim. ^[39]

7.19 In Chapter 4, the Committee endorsed the view of many witnesses to the inquiry, that finalising agreed management plans before properties are world heritage listed contributes to the efficiency with which these properties are managed subsequently and the backing that they receive from the community. The same argument can be made in support of concluding funding agreements for world heritage areas before they are listed. In its submission, the MCA called for 'a negotiated arrangement, forming an integral part of the management plan agreed to prior to nomination of a property' rather than a mixture of ad hoc payments with one-off allocations dependent on matched funding from the States and fixed term specific purpose grants. The current arrangements, the MCA claimed, 'are unlikely to inspire confidence and trust in a process which is supposed to provide for the conservation and protection of Australia's unique natural and cultural values'. ^[40] The Premier of Victoria also supported the need for funding agreements to be concluded before areas are nominated for listing. ^[41]

7.20 The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention specify that 'inscriptions of sites shall be deferred until evidence of the full commitment of the nominating government, within its means, is demonstrated'. Among the evidence of the government's commitment that is expected is relevant funding arrangements. ^[42] DEST acknowledged that 'ideally prior to nomination', management plans should be prepared for each property with 'costings attached to them at a fairly detailed level' (italics added). ^[43] This ideal position has yet to be reached. Even with the most recent nominations, funding agreements were not automatically concluded before the areas were listed. ^[44] Other witnesses also commented on the necessity of finalising agreements before areas are listed, ^[45] as did the 1995 review of the IGAE. ^[46]

7.21 The Committee regards the finalisation of formalised funding arrangements for all world heritage properties as essential. It is important, as DEST suggested, that the Commonwealth and States should agree to these plans 'with legislative force on how those costs will be shared'. ^[47] The Committee recommends that:

(43) the Commonwealth Government ensure that, with all future nominations of properties for world heritage listing, funding agreements are finalised before the properties are nominated for listing.

(44) the Commonwealth Government move immediately to finalise financial agreements or memoranda of understanding for the world heritage properties in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and New South Wales, with the governments of these States.

7.22 The Committee also endorses the view that funding must be related to the requirements established by agreed management plans. It noted with approval a recommendation from a recent evaluation of the World Heritage Unit that 'future funding to individual properties should be more directly linked to the achievement of improved, more consistent management arrangements and to agreed management plans' than in the past. ^[48]

A model funding agreement

7.23 The Department of Finance acknowledged that the Commonwealth's approach to world heritage funding had been inconsistent. ^[49] There have been widespread calls from the States for a more consistent and equitable approach to the distribution of Commonwealth funds to world heritage areas and for greater funding certainty to be provided. ^[50] Another feature that has been seen as desirable in the provision of funding is the distribution of funds against transparent criteria, as recommended by a meeting of world heritage area managers in 1993 ^[51] and participants at the Committee's workshop. Following the Prime Minister's 1992 Statement on the Environment, efforts have been directed towards developing better arrangements. ^[52] $2.25 million was provided to DEST for the establishment of the World Heritage Unit and in 1993-94, for the first time, all world heritage areas received some funding from the Commonwealth. The 1996-97 Budget continued funding for the Unit. ^[53] In 1995 the original, comparatively generous agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania with a funding ratio of 3.5:1 was renegotiated at a rate of 1.7:1, thereby reducing somewhat Tasmania's special status.

7.24 In its submission to the inquiry, the Department of Finance advocated 'a uniform and universally applicable process for developing and agreeing funding agreements with each of the States'. It saw the agreement that had been recently concluded with the Tasmanian Government as 'a benchmark for future agreements with other States'. ^[54] The agreement includes the following features:

estimation of budgetary requirements based on priorities and costings established in detailed management plans;
close examination of options for increasing cost recovery in the world heritage area;
ensuring net receipts generated from the world heritage area are included as part of the base funding for the area and are not claimed as part of the State or Commonwealth contribution;
ensuring receipts and levels of base funding available are revised each year to take into account growth in revenue; and
a commitment to maintain the funding agreement and work within the budgetary parameters for a four year period. ^[55]

The Department of Finance also indicated that it was willing to conclude resource agreements with the States such that they would be allowed to borrow for heavy capital costs and pay them off over several years. ^[56]

7.25 DEST listed the above points as 'essential components of a model for future agreements with States' and added to them 'a Commonwealth/State funding ratio in the order of 1:1'. ^[57] The Department of Finance also referred to a basic presumption on the part of the States and the Commonwealth that, particularly in the jointly funded areas, the funding split would be 'more or less one for one, or perhaps a bit more on the Commonwealth['s] part'. ^[58] Finance acknowledged that the 'final detail of what is agreed in each funding agreement will be influenced by the unique circumstances of each State'. ^[59] The extent of Commonwealth contributions depended on factors such as the nature of the areas, how able the States are because of their size to fund the areas themselves, the costliness of maintenance or restoration to world heritage standards, and the possibilities for recovering costs. ^[60] The TWWHACC added that the benefit to the nation of the property being on the World Heritage List and the cost of managing State-based uses of world heritage areas are also relevant considerations. ^[61]

7.26 The Tasmanian Government endorsed Finance's view of the way in which the fine detail of relative State and Commonwealth contributions to each world heritage area should take account of the circumstances that apply in each world heritage area. It commented that:

^[62]

The TWWHACC wrote in the same vein in its submission to the inquiry:

^[63]

Alternatives to agreements

7.27 As an alternative to the form of agreement described above, Mr Dutton suggested that a broad triennial allocation of funds could be made to the States, based on the relative merits of competitive proposals. Such proposals could be reviewed by the Commonwealth against management plans or property status reports. ^[64] Mr Dutton was the only witness to the inquiry to raise this option for distributing Commonwealth funds to the States. The Committee recognises that such a system would give priority to the most important proposals, but considers that it would not provide the same consistency and commitment to ongoing funding that agreements do.

7.28 Another alternative entails a more entrepreneurial approach than that normally espoused by governments, taking a wider view of the role of government funding and focussing on benefit maximisation rather than cost minimisation.

Adequacy of funding

7.29 The Department of Finance felt that it was 'not in a position to comment on the adequacy of funding for management' of world heritage areas. ^[65] However, everyone else agreed that the funds provided were inadequate. As discussed in earlier sections of this chapter, the funds were also deemed to be inequitably distributed. Dr David Kay of DEST's World Heritage and Biodiversity Branch admitted that the Commonwealth's funding of certain world heritage properties had been inadequate:

^[66]

Dr Kay also added that he had been disappointed on occasions by the States' financial commitment to the management of some properties.

7.30 The disparity in funding between different world heritage areas was reflected in some of the comments about the perceived priority given to some areas. One submission, for example, suggested that what had resulted was the appearance of 'A Team WHAs', such as the Reef, Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the Wet Tropics, and the Tasmanian Wilderness, and 'B Team WHAs', which include the three NSW properties. ^[67] Fraser Island, which has been dubbed 'a Third World Heritage' property, appears to be regarded as a B Team member. ^[68] Tony Charters of the Kingfisher Bay Resort on Fraser Island (and President of the Ecotourism Association of Australia) suggested to the Committee that the disparity in funding seemed to reflect a hierarchy of priorities:

From my experience of World Heritage areas, and certainly from direct experience in years gone by with the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, the approach to World Heritage areas seems to be that there are the one-star World Heritage areas and the five-star World Heritage areas. The five-star ones are the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Wet Tropics and Uluru. Then you have some three-star areas like south-west of Tasmania; some two-star areas like Shark Bay and the forests of New South Wales, or what is now called eastern Australia; and the one-star areas like Willandra. It was said to me by a member of that department that this was the approach.

^[69]

7.31 A further criticism of the provision of Commonwealth funds for State-managed world heritage areas was identified in a recent evaluation of the World Heritage Unit's operation. The evaluation found that funds have tended to be 'directed to major problem areas or obvious bottlenecks rather than supporting model approaches'. ^[70] The report foreshadowed that the latter approach will be more extensively used in future in line with the priorities that have been established for improved management at each world heritage area.

7.32 On the pages that follow, the funding for individual world heritage areas is considered in the light of the comments of witnesses and in terms of the needs of the areas that were brought to the Committee's attention.

Commonwealth managed world heritage areas - Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu

7.33 Dr Peter Bridgewater, ANCA's Chief Executive Officer told the Committee in 1995 that:

^[71]

In the 1996 Budget, ANCA's funding for Uluru and Kakadu was reduced. ANCA also reported that considerable pressure for funds for Kakadu and Uluru comes from threats to biodiversity, such as weeds, feral animals and changed fire regimes, the needs associated with maintaining assets, meeting the Aborigines' aspirations in park management, and coping with natural disasters. ^[72]

7.34 The Committee noted the claim by the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory that Kakadu could be managed more cheaply than at present. It pointed out that the funds available for salaries and the operational budget at Kakadu in 1992-93, expressed as dollars per employee, were 20% greater than at Commission parks. ^[73] ANCA argued, however, that expenditure per staff member is not a reliable benchmark for measuring costs. Other factors should be considered as well, such as the area managed, the significance of the heritage features to be protected, the number of visitors, the effectiveness of management outcomes, and the management and financial obligations under leases, legislation and international conventions. ANCA observed that:

in 1994-95 the recurrent gross cost per hectare was $3.80 for all ANCA parks and $4.07 for Commission parks;
nearly a third of ANCA's costs are recovered from park users;
the standard of park management is high as evidenced by such items as the management awards received by ANCA, its success in controlling the highly invasive weed, Mimosa pigra, and the cultural information available to visitors; and
annual payments of the order of $1 million are made annually to traditional owners at Uluru and Kakadu, while payments are not generally made to owners of Northern Territory parks.

Great Barrier Reef

7.35 The Chairman of the GBRMPA advised the Committee that:

From inception in 1975 until 1986/87, it can be said that the Marine Park Authority received an appropriate level of funding given its responsibilities and the levels of demand for its services. ....

^[74]

An analysis carried out by consultants for the GBRMPA showed that, while visitor numbers have increased at a rate of 10% per annum, the resources available per visitor in 1994 was slightly less than half that available in 1987-88. ^[75] This point is illustrated in Figure 7.1 with respect to broader management tasks, such as planning, environmental impact, and education activities. ^[76]

Figure 7.1—Visitation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and appropriations for planning and management, environmental impact management and education activities, 1987-88 to 1994-95

NOTE

The graph featured in the version of the report presented to the House of Representatives
on 4 November 1996 has not been reproduced in this version.

Source: S Driml & P O'Clery, 'Resources for management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park', October 1994, p 2, Figure 2.

Figure 7.2—Visitation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and appropriations for day-to-day management, 1987-88 to 1994-95, and projected requirements 1993-94 to 1997-98

NOTE

The graph featured in the version of the report presented to the House of Representatives
on 4 November 1996 has not been reproduced in this version.

Source: S Driml & P O'Clery, 'Resources for management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park', October 1994, p 2, Figure 1.

7.36 A 1992 estimate of the shortfall in the GBRMPA's budget for day-to-day management indicated that $25 million more was needed over the next five years than was anticipated on the basis of current levels of funding at that time. This is shown in Figure 7.2. A 1995 review by an intergovernmental, interdepartmental committee appointed bySenator Faulkner came to a more conservative conclusion. It concluded that an additional $2 million was needed each year for the period 1995-96 to 1998-99, plus $500 000 a year for the Aquarium. ^[77] The GBRMPA received an increase of $1.5 million in the 1995-96 Budget, which is substantially less than the reviews of the Authority's operations recommended. Commonwealth funding for the GBRMPA has been decreased in 1996-97, but the effect of increasing user charges is expected to outweigh the effect of reduced Government funding by $1.5 million. ^[78]

7.37 In recent years, new management challenges have emerged which make added demands on the Authority's resources.

With increasing numbers of reef users, adjudicating between uses becomes more difficult .
Increasing the involvement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in management requires time consuming education and consultation.
In the absence of control over adjacent land uses, the Authority is putting resources into cooperative planning and educational programs in its attempt to minimise impacts from those sources on the Reef. For better management of the Reef, a more precise definition of its world heritage values is being sought through consultancies and in the course of case by case examination of applications for permits for development or activities. ^[79]

Additional funding is also needed to manage continuing needs, such as coping with the backlog in permit assessment, reviewing zoning and planning, and continuing long term research projects. ^[80]

Queensland's world heritage areas

7.38 The Queensland Government commented that:

^[81]

The Queensland Government felt that 'the present Commonwealth funding formula does not adequately recognise the additional costs directly associated with World Heritage listing'.

a) The Wet Tropics

7.39 In its submission, the WTMA pointed out that it is now able to make 'considered estimates of the funding needs to reasonably "ensure the protection" of the Area'. Its view is that 'perceived funding needs presently exceed projected funding availability'. Furthermore, at no time have funding allocations to the Wet Tropics been based solely on an analysis of funds needed. ^[82] The funding falls short in a major way of what is required to provide essential protection for world heritage values with respect to:

purchasing land and developing cooperative agreements with landholders in order to protect world heritage values outside the world heritage area and ensure the integrity of the area;
rehabilitating degraded areas, especially obsolete roads;
controlling and eradicating invasive weeds and feral animals, such as pigs; and
providing the infrastructure to manage and present the area. ^[83]

7.40 All the Queensland world heritage properties have been poorly funded by both the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments, but the Wet Tropics world heritage area has been less poorly funded than the rest. However, the WTMA's Executive Director noted in the Authority's 1994-95 annual report that:

^[84]

These views were shared by the Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau. ^[85]

7.41 In 1994 the then Commonwealth and Queensland Governments established the Daintree Rescue Program. Funds totalling $23 million over three years were contributed by the two governments for improved visitor facilities and protecting rainforest areas by purchasing them or finalising cooperative management agreements with their owners. In the 1996 Budget, the present Government announced that it would continue funding the program but would spread out the remaining Commonwealth payment over a longer period of time. The funds available to the WTMA are thus even less adequate now. ^[86]

b) Fraser Island

7.42 As is clear from Chapter 4, there was a widespread view that the management of Fraser Island was not of a standard appropriate for a world heritage area. Residents of the island complained that maintenance was inadequate, the management complement for the island was understrength, ^[87] and there were insufficient 'amenities, toilet facilities, watering points and the like for the hundreds of backpackers who come there every day'. ^[88]

7.43 It appears that much of the blame for this situation lies in the absence of adequate funding. A management plan was prepared in 1994 for the Great Sandy Region, which includes Fraser Island as well as Caloola National Park on the mainland and the waters between the island and the mainland. The indicative cost of implementing the plan over 16 years was put at $220 million, ^[89] or approximately $13.75 million per year. As Table 7.1 shows, far less than this latter sum has been contributed by the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government to date. The Commonwealth's contribution has been, and continues to be, particularly paltry. Furthermore, there was a perception in the local community and among visitors to the island that Commonwealth funding was being withheld because of disagreements between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments over the management arrangements for the island. ^[90]

c) Riversleigh Fossil Site

7.44 The Riversleigh Fossil Site did not, prior to its listing, have protected status and so had not received any Government funding for its management. Having been listed as recently as December 1994, there has been little time for work to be carried out on the site. Unfortunately, no agreement on a management plan or funding was finalised before listing occurred. This omission is delaying progress in meeting Australia's obligations to protect the world heritage values of the site.

7.45 Professor Mike Archer, Head of the Riversleigh Research Project, warned that there was an urgent need for funds to purchase an access route to the Riversleigh site and establish management infrastructure so that the site is accessible, and can be protected and interpreted to visitors. At present the site boasts a roadside sign and fencing round a nearby part of the site. The sign dates from 1988, is partially damaged, and covers only one period of the fossil record. For about $950 000, Professor Archer estimated that housing for resident rangers, toilet and interpretation facilities, a camp ground, sheds and a power supply could be provided. ^[91] The cost of installing a guided walkway, repairing the existing sign and providing further signs, and securing the site and some of its special features would require an additional $54 500. ^[92]

7.46 Professor Archer pointed to the expected increase in the number of tourists to the Mount Isa region and expressed his fears that, in the absence of on-site managers at Riversleigh, damage may be done to the fossils:

Well-meaning ecotourists (as well as deliberate vandals) will: 1, pick up fossils from one site and discard them at another all too easily, thereby destroying the integrity of what are often very different aged sites; 2, collect exposed parts of an object thereby removing what may be a key element required for the identification of the part of the object that remains; 3, desecrate exposed fossils in efforts to remove keepsake fragments; 4, collect fossils with incorrect locality information, eventually passing back into the research community bogus specimen/data associations; 5, collect fossils from new locations but be unable to provide details about the location of the new site; ...

^[93]

In addition, without improved interpretation, visitors will leave the site uninformed about its significance and possibly disappointed, which will do nothing to promote support for the concept of world heritage. ^[94]

d) Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves

7.47 During a visit to the Queensland section of the reserves less than a year after they were listed as part of the world heritage area, the Committee gained the impression that only very limited funding had being provided by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments for the capital works and maintenance needed to deal with the increasing numbers of visitors to the reserves.

7.48 Being close to Brisbane and the Gold Coast, visitation to some of the reserves is overwhelming, and access to the reserves must be managed through the provision of parking areas and the construction of suitable roads, paths and trails. The costs here are considerable; for example, the Committee was told that it would cost $1.7 million to provide tracks to benefit all visitors to the New England National Park, which is within the CERRA but over the border in New South Wales. In addition to managing visitors, both Queensland and the New South Wales NPWS require funds to deal with problems associated with the scattered nature of this world heritage area, such as eradicating weeds, liaising with communities and landholders outside the reserves, and purchasing land to rationalise boundary management and extend the coverage of vegetation types and their protection. The purchase of land is not only expensive but often requires much negotiation. ^[95] Officers of both the Queensland and New South Wales NPWS commented to the Committee on the need for more staff as their off-park duties have increased in recent years, more protected areas have been added to their responsibilities, and tasks have been devolved downwards.

Tasmania - The Tasmanian Wilderness world heritage area

7.49 It can be seen from Table 7.1 that large sums have been made available by the Commonwealth for the management of the Tasmanian Wilderness. Mr John Sinclair, who as an ecotourist operator is familiar with Australia's world heritage areas, commented that 'there is no doubt that the site has benefitted from tied grants from the Commonwealth Government'. ^[96]

7.50 The Tasmanian Premier complained, however, that his State is currently receiving less from the Commonwealth than in earlier years and is therefore unable to fully implement its agreed management plan for the world heritage area. ^[97] The Tasmanian Government's submission pointed out that the current management plan was completed in 1992, taking into account the agreed levels of State and Commonwealth funding available at that time. It was assumed that funding would continue at the same level, but the new agreement provides for less. ^[98] The TWWHACC supported the Tasmanian Government's complaint and asserted that it is 'important that funding exists for those actions necessary to fulfil legal obligations [as set down in plans and] all committed actions should be adequately funded'. ^[99]

New South Wales world heritage areas

a) Willandra Lakes

7.51 The New South Wales Government pointed out that its world heritage areas have received significantly less Commonwealth funding than those in other States, and drew attention to the consequent problems that had arisen in the Willandra Lakes Region. It claimed that inadequate funding of world heritage areas by the Commonwealth, as in the Willandra Lakes Region, jeopardised cooperative relationships with State Governments and might degrade areas such that they become 'World Heritage in Danger'. ^[100] The ACF also saw a clear connection between the inadequate funding of the Willandra Lakes Region and the management failures there. Mr Robert Hadler, Deputy Director of the NFF provided a specific example of damage to cultural values that stemmed from a lack of resources:

^[101]

As indicated in Chapter 4, a management plan for the Region is now in place and the New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments are negotiating funding arrangements for all the New South Wales world heritage areas. In addition, the 1996-97 Budget provided $2 million for payment as compensation to the landholders in the Willandra Lakes area. ^[102]

b) Lord Howe Island

7.52 The Lord Howe Island Board is responsible for the care, control and management of the island, which includes matters relating to the island's world heritage status. It has received intermittent, small grants from the Commonwealth for world heritage management, and obtains a regular subvention from the New South Wales NPWS. Some of the revenue that the Board obtains from departure taxes and the sale of alcohol and Kentia palm seeds is also directed to environmental services. The Board's earnings provide a variable income that reflects the demand for palm seeds, and there is competition with other island activities for the funds available.

7.53 The New South Wales Government's assessment of the Board's performance was that:

^[103]

At a public hearing, Mr Howard of the New South Wales NPWS was more definite about the effect of funding shortfalls on the treatment of the world heritage area:

^[104]

7.54 When Members of the Committee visited Lord Howe Island, the residents expressed the view to them that it was unfair that the 300 residents should have to carry the major burden of preserving and presenting the world heritage values of the island. They pointed out that it would be more appropriate for the funds to be spent on the Board's core functions of providing community infrastructure and services. Under these circumstances, additional funding would be needed from State and Commonwealth sources for world heritage management.

7.55 During its visit the Committee also learnt of the threats to the island's world heritage values from feral animals, contamination of ground water by sewage and, particularly, the problem of weed infestation by asparagus grass and bitou bush. It was suggested to the Committee that the invasion by weeds is sufficiently serious for the island to be identified as World Heritage in Danger. It is thought that eradication, or at least control, of the weeds would be possible with a long term, continuous effort, but establishing a suitable eradication program in the present funding circumstances is difficult. A weed eradication program was established but was later curtailed when a downturn in the palm seed industry reduced the Board's operating budget and therefore its capacity to pay the 10 workers involved. Commonwealth funding was provided in 1993-94 and 1994-95 for weed control, including funds for the development of a weed control strategy, but no more has been made available since then.

c) Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves

7.56 The Committee received few comments that related specifically to the funding provided for the rainforest reserves managed by the New South Wales Government. Like the other New South Wales properties, relatively little Commonwealth funding has been made available for the rainforest reserves. Yet these reserves, like those in Queensland, have the same pressures on them. It was the Committee's impression, however, that, despite facing problems in common with the Queensland NPWS, the New South Wales rainforest reserves were more adequately funded than those in Queensland.

South Australia - Naracoorte Fossil Caves world heritage site

7.57 From a visit paid to the caves, the former Chairman of the Committee gained the impression that the managers of the Naracoorte Caves were coping as well as possible with limited funding. The most pressing need identified then, an extension to the visitor centre and the facilities available to researchers, is being met with the provision of Commonwealth\State funding.

Western Australia - Shark Bay world heritage area

7.58 The evidence provided to the Committee with respect to Shark Bay did not identify any specific funding deficiencies. It is possible that no mention of funding problems by the Western Australian Government reflected the fact that the area's management plan and management agreement were under discussion.

The need for additional Commonwealth funding

7.59 During the public hearings held in 1995, the Committee found that the only world heritage management agency that considered its funding to be satisfactory was ANCA. All others, to a greater or lesser degree, appeared to be in urgent need of significantly increased funding. Since then the 1996 Budget has delivered cutbacks to the majority of world heritage areas. Of particular concern is the effect that this will have on the 'B team' world heritage areas, which have been historically very poorly funded by the Commonwealth. Slightly less than $2 million will be contributed in 1996-97 to assist with the management of Willandra Lakes, Shark Bay, the Fossil Mammal Sites, Lord Howe Island, CERRA, and Fraser Island, and some of this amount will be used to meet the Commonwealth's commitment to the Tasmanian Wilderness.

7.60 The deficiencies in funding should be a matter of serious concern given the Commonwealth's responsibilities for world heritage. The Committee's view is that more funds should be provided by the Commonwealth for world heritage management and development; and this should be accomplished without reducing Commonwealth funding to the more generously supported areas, as seemed to have happened to the Tasmanian Wilderness world heritage area when its funding agreement was renegotiated. Most of the additional funding is required to meet world heritage obligations above the requirement to generally manage the areas in question, and should therefore be provided mainly by the Commonwealth. The Committee notes that, even if all world heritage areas were to be funded in accordance with the 1:1 State/Commonwealth funding principle espoused by DEST and the Department of Finance, substantially more funds would be required.

7.61 The amount of additional funding required is difficult to prescribe because the management authorities, while quick to assert that they were under-funded or that recent allocations were insufficient, ^[105] did not specify the additional amounts required. The ACF proposed a global figure of $20 million for developing and implementing management plans. ^[106] However, it did not indicate how it arrived at this figure, and it is clear that the need for additional funding can only be quantified by assessing specific needs in each of the world heritage areas. The Committee agrees with the WTMA that the adequacy of funding needs to be based on an examination of the merits of each case:

^[107]

7.62 Subject to a detailed assessment of funding needs as proposed in recommendation 45, the Committee has come to the conclusion that significant increases in funding are required. Assuming that the State Governments would contribute half the additional funds needed for State-managed areas, the Committee estimates on the basis of information provided to it that an aditional $20.6 million are needed for recurrent and capital costs in the first year, and $16 million in subsequent years. The Government has indicated that it will be providing $12 million dollars over four years from the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia. These additional funds are welcome but will be insufficient to adequately meet the needs of world heritage management. The Committee recommends that:

(45) the Commonwealth Government provide additional funds for the protection, conservation and presentation of world heritage areas.

$20.6 million should be provided in the first year and $16 million per annum thereafter.

(46) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in consultation with world heritage area management authorities, identify and quantify specific additional funding needs in each of the world heritage areas as a basis for allocating the additional funds.

7.63 The major part of the additional funds will be needed for management and capital works in the Wet Tropics, the Tasmanian Wilderness and the CERRA and on Fraser Island, with lesser amounts for works at Riversleigh and on Lord Howe Island and general expenditure in other world heritage areas. The Committee identified Fraser Island and the Riversleigh Fossil Site as areas of particular concern with respect to the funding they receive in relation to their needs and the absence of financial agreements. The Committee acknowledges that the Queensland Government has provided some additional funding for Fraser Island but much more needs to be supplied. With the management plan for the Great Sandy Region now in place, there is a basis for the two Governments to draw up an agreement along the lines of the model agreement described in paragraphs 7.23-7.26. The Committee recommends that:

(47) the Commonwealth Government give a high priority to working with the Queensland Government to finalise a financial agreement for the Fraser Island world heritage area.

7.64 As indicated earlier in this Chapter, the Committee considers that the world heritage values of the Riversleigh Fossil Site are in danger for want of adequate protection, a situation that can only be rectified if funds are available. An injection of funds is urgently required to secure and staff the site. It should be provided by the Commonwealth Government in keeping with its obligations under the Convention, if the Queensland Government is unable to make funds available. The next steps that must then be taken to provide world heritage standard management for Riversleigh are the completion of the management plan, costing of its implementation, and finalisation of a funding agreement. The Committee recommends that:

(48) the Commonwealth Government:

a) make funds available without further delay to provide adequate protection to the world heritage values of the Riversleigh Fossil Site; and

b) give high priority to finalising a funding agreement with the Queensland Government for the management and development of the Riversleigh world heritage area.

7.65 While Fraser Island and Riversleigh appeared to the Committee to be most in need of additional funding, other state-managed world heritage areas would also benefit from more generous funding. The Committee noted that negotiations are well advanced over a management plan for Shark Bay, with the Western Australian Government having indicated that it will then seek to reach agreement with the Commonwealth on joint funding of the area. Similarly, arrangements are being put in place for the Willandra Lakes Region. However, no such steps have yet been taken for Lord Howe Island and the CERRA. As pointed out in Chapter 4, dealing with both these areas presents special difficulties, with the CERRA being under two jurisdictions and Lord Howe Island under the control of a Board and not the New South Wales NPWS. In both cases additional funding is required, particularly for weed control on Lord Howe Island. Finalisation of agreements regarding the management of these areas would facilitate the identification of additional funding needs.

7.66 With the intention of having funding agreements between the Commonwealth and State Governments cover four year periods, there is built into the system the possibility of regularly reviewing both the management plans and the funding to support them. No such automatic review is built into the arrangements for the world heritage areas for which the Commonwealth has prime responsibility. The Committee considers that, not only should all management plans be regularly reviewed as recommended in Chapter 4, but so should the funds provided. The Committee recommends that:

(49) the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, in cooperation with world heritage managing agencies, regularly review the adequacy of funding provided for each world heritage area.

Other funding issues

Regional issues

7.67 There is an expectation that funds allocated to a particular world heritage area will be spent within the area on its management and development. A case can be made, however, for using them outside the area because expenditure outside the area can reduce impacts within it. For example, upgrading walking tracks in less sensitive areas outside the Tasmanian world heritage area would attract some of the current users of tracks in the more sensitive wilderness area. ^[108] The Committee considers that it is acceptable for world heritage funds to be spent on development and management outside world heritage areas where this can be clearly seen to improve conditions within the area.

7.68 When world heritage listing greatly increases visitation to otherwise sparsely populated regions, facilities within those regions may be overwhelmed. Yet it may be beyond the capacity of local governments to provide adequate facilities, because they tend to be funded in relation to the permanent population of the area; tourist numbers are excluded when funding needs are being established. ^[109] The New South Wales Government drew attention to the effect on local services of visitors to adjacent world heritage areas. It suggested that the Commonwealth should make funds available to local governments to help them deal with the increased demands placed on them by visitors. ^[110] The problem of local road maintenance adjacent to world heritage areas was highlighted during the Committee's inspection of the Wet Tropics area near Cairns. The local government authorities there are facing increased maintenance costs due to the additional traffic using regional roads to access the world heritage area. The then Commonwealth Department of Tourism pointed out that road funding could be regarded as a joint responsibility between local residents, world heritage managers and the private sector. ^[111]

7.69 Another case of cost impost on local government was mentioned to the Committee by the GBRMPA. This related to inadequate sewage treatment plants along the Queensland coast where tourist boats discharge their holding tanks. ^[112] It is the Committee's view that issues such as these should be considered in the context of planning for the regions of which world heritage areas are part and, where appropriate, partnerships between different agencies and the private sector be sought to provide funds.

Compensation

7.70 The question of compensation for those affected by world heritage listing of property on which they depended for their livelihood has been one of the major issues in the history of establishing world heritage areas. It has been, and continues to be, hard fought. As noted in Chapter 3, several submissions identified the lack of compensation as a matter that needs to be addressed by legislative amendment. The Commonwealth has an obligation to compensate land owners when it acquires property and has acknowledged its moral obligation to compensate affected people and businesses by providing ex gratia payments and payments through the structural adjustment packages for the Wet Tropics and Fraser Island. Payments will also be made to landholders in the Willandra Lakes Region.

7.71 Many regard existing compensation practices as unsatisfactory and would like to see a statutory obligation to provide compensation in all cases, not just when property acquisition is involved. On the other hand, the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia (WWF) and the National Parks Association of New South Wales, commenting on compensation arrangements for landholders in the Willandra Lakes Region, questioned the wisdom of setting this precedent for landholders. WWF also argued that funds spent on compensation could be used more profitably for purchasing part, if not all, of that world heritage site. ^[113] The Committee considers, however, that the payment of compensation in such cases is appropriate.

7.72 Ideally, the payment of compensation is a matter for consideration at the time when an area is nominated for world heritage listing, and any compensation that is due should be made around the time of listing. The issue of major compensation payments should not therefore be a concern to this inquiry which is dealing with the management of existing world heritage areas. Two points, however, need to be made, one relating to the past failures by the Commonwealth or the States to pay compensation at the time of listing, and the other to the question of the need for ongoing compensation.

7.73 The most glaring failure by the Commonwealth to address the payment of compensation to people affected by world heritage listing is in the Willandra Lakes Region. Despite the Region's having been listed as long ago as 1981, funds for compensation were not made available until the 1996-97 Budget. This situation has caused immense economic hardship and emotional stress to the landholders; the Uniting Church in Australia referred to the people's:

1. Uncertainty about future viability of businesses in the area.

2. Frustration caused by the difficulty of finding out information.

3. Stress on families due to not knowing what the future holds.

^[114]

7.74 In the Committee's view, this situation is most reprehensible. The Committee therefore welcomes the efforts that are now under way to make just recompense to these people, but notes that claims have been made that a similar situation exists for the pastoralists in and abutting the Shark Bay world heritage area, which was listed in 1991. ^[115]

7.75 Quite apart from the moral necessity to provide compensation at the time when world heritage listing begins to affect individuals and businesses, there is the practical consideration that future management of any world heritage area will be much easier if the local community at the very least does not feel too negative about that area's world heritage status. As is clear from Chapter 4, support from the local community can greatly assist development of the area and promote its smooth management.

7.76 The Committee views the payment of compensation at the time of listing as essential. It was pleased to note that the previous Government had established that:

^[116]

7.77 Calls have also been made for compensation payments to be required by statute in cases where the Commonwealth does not acquire the land, notably by five peak industry bodies. These bodies proposed that compensation rights should be recognised through an appropriate statutory instrument, and financial harm should be recompensed as soon as the harm and its value are established. ^[117] AMEC and the Western Australian Government also called for a statutory requirement for the payment of compensation. ^[118]

7.78 The Committee anticipates that, once listing has occurred and compensation has been paid, there should be no further need for compensation. However, there may be the odd occasions when further extreme and unanticipated impacts result from ongoing management of world heritage areas and the payment of compensation might be appropriate. The Western Australian Government called for 'compensation and/or structural adjustment funding in the event of [the Commonwealth] taking action which causes a diminution in otherwise lawful use of the Property'. ^[119] Fishing in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area was mentioned to the Committee by workshop participants as an example of a case where compensation might be considered. However, DEST was clearly hopeful that such situations would not arise:

^[120]

7.79 It is the Committee's view that, just as the Commonwealth and States have accepted responsibility for providing compensation and structural adjustment packages at the time when world heritage areas are listed, so they should be open to considering the need, in certain exceptional circumstances, for funds to recompense for later management decisions. The Committee recommends that:

(50) the Commonwealth Government, in cooperation with the State Governments where appropriate, provide compensation in cases of substantial disturbance to individuals and businesses as a result of the ongoing management of world heritage areas.

Use of world heritage funds for non-world heritage purposes

7.80 The Committee observed that, in rare cases, funds have been used in world heritage areas for purposes for which they were not originally intended. At Uluru, for example, ANCA bears costs associated with house maintenance and the provision of power in the local Mutitjulu Aboriginal community. ^[121] While appreciating the need for basic services for the Aboriginal community if members of that community are to contribute to park management, the Committee considers that it is inappropriate for ANCA to be providing services which are properly the responsibility of other government agencies. The WTMA told the Committee about the situations it has encountered in which its neighbours are experiencing difficulties in ensuring their own welfare. It has dealt with such situations by acting as a broker or a one-stop shop to involve the appropriate government agencies. The Committee's view is that the WTMA's approach is a better method of dealing with such situations than for world heritage managers to fund the services themselves.

Footnotes

[1] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 332.

[2] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 9.

[3] Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), pp 9-10.

[4] Conservation Council of Western Australia, submission (number 51), p 3; South Australian Farmers Federation, submission (number 6), p 4; Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee, submission (number 25), p 4.

[5] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 79.

[6] Wet Tropics Management Authority, submission (number 77), p 2.

[7] In its 1993 report, the Commission ranked Tasmania third behind Western Australia and the Northern Territory in terms of its funding needs on this criterion (Tasmanian Government, submission, number 63, p 10).

[8] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), pp 9-12; Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee, submission, number 25, p 5.

[9] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 2.

[10] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 3.

[11] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 2.

[12] Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), p 8.

[13] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), p 21.

[14] Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, submission (number 19), p 1.

[15] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), p 19.

[16] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, submission (number 68), p 3; transcript, 31 August 1995, p 114.

[17] The Hon John Moore, MP, 'Tourist industry gains full access to EMDG scheme', media release, 20 August 1996.

[18] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 2.

[19] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 4.

[20] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), p 22.

[21] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 79.

[22] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 98.

[23] Premier of Tasmania, letter transmitting the submission from the Tasmanian Government (number 63). The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee shared this view too (submission, number 25, p 4).

[24] New South Wales Government, transcript, 1 November 1995, p 143.

[25] The National Trust of Australia (Victoria), submission (number 48), p 15.

[26] Minerals Council of Australia, transcript, 30 November 1995, p 339.

[27] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 90.

[28] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), pp 4-5; Queensland Government, submission (number 74), p 5; Western Australian Government, transcript, 13 July 1995, p 13.

[29] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 4.

[30] Australian Nature Conservation Agency, submission (number 37), p 28; New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 6; S Kidman & Co., submission (number 13), p 10.

[31] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 14.

[32] Mr Ian Dutton, submission (number 1), p 7.

[33] For example, the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 103.

[34] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 14.

[35] Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, 'Investing in our natural heritage', Budget statement, 20 August 1996.

[36] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), pp 5-6.

[37] Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), pp 5-6.

[38] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), p 23.

[39] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 78), p 7.

[40] Australian Mining Industry Council, submission (number 28), pp 10, 35.

[41] Premier of Victoria, submission (number 58), p 1.

[42] UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, February 1996, paragraph 6(v).

[43] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 80.

[44] South Australian Government, submission (number 60), p 2.

[45] For example, Tourism Council Australia, submission (number 73), p 10.

[46] Intergovernmental Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development, Report to the Council of Australian Governments on the Review of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, July 1995, quoted by Ben Boer & Robert J Fowler, The Management of World Heritage Properties in Australia: Report to the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Part II, undated, issued in May 1996, p 29.

[47] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 80.

[48] Evaluation Report: World Heritage Management Arrangements, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, November 1995, p 30.

[49] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 4.

[50] Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), p 9; Premier of Victoria, submission (number 58), p 1; New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 2; Queensland Government, submission (number 74), p 5.

[51] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 13.

[52] P Keating, Australia's Environment: a Natural Asset. Statement on the Environment, December 1992, pp 23-4.

[53] Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97: Environment, Sport and Territories Portfolio, Budget related paper no. 15, pp 9, 22.

[54] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 4.

[55] The Western Australian Government proposed that Commonwealth financial assistance arrangements should be entered into for periods of at least five years, to provide an appropriate level of certainty and security (submission, number 56, p 9). The Queensland Government also called for funding over longer periods than at present (submission, number 74, p 5).

[56] Department of Finance, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 107.

[57] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, submission (number 62), p 23.

[58] Department of Finance, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 107.

[59] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 4.

[60] Department of Finance, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 105.

[61] Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee, submission (number 25), p 5.

[62] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 13.

[63] Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Consultative Committee, submission (number 25), pp 3-4.

[64] Mr Ian Dutton, submission (number 1), p 7.

[65] Department of Finance, submission (number 9), p 2.

[66] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 332.

[67] Mr Ian Dutton, submission (number 1), p 2.

[68] Eurong Beach Resort, submission (number 10), p 2.

[69] Mr Tony Charters, transcript, 15 November 1995, pp 213-14.

[70] Evaluation Report, p ii (see footnote 48, Chapter 7).

[71] Australian Nature Conservation Agency, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 98.

[72] Australian Nature Conservation Agency, submission (number 37), pp 25-8.

[73] Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, submission (number 33), p 16.

[74] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, submission (number 59), pp 3-4.

[75] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, submission (number 59), p 12.

[76] As Figure 7.2 shows, a less serious situation pertains to day-to-day management.

[77] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Review of Funding Arrangements for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, January 1995, pp 27, 36.

[78] Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97: Environment, Sport and Territories Portfolio, Budget related paper no. 15, pp 6, 9.

[79] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, submission (number 59), pp 12-15.

[80] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Review of Funding Arrangements for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, January 1995, p 27.

[81] Queensland Government, submission (number 74), p 5.

[82] Wet Tropics Management Authority, submission (number 77), p 4.

[83] Wet Tropics Management Authority, submission (number 77), pp 7-8.

[84] Wet Tropics Management Authority, Annual Report 1994-95, pp 2-3.

[85] Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau, submission (number 85), p 1.

[86] Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, 'Investing in our natural heritage', Budget statement, 20 August 1996.

[87] Mr Tony Charters of the Kingfisher Bay Resort and Village, transcript, 15 November 1995, p 204; Eurong Beach Resort, submission (number 10), pp 3-5; Fraser Island Association, submission (number 46), p 3.

[88] Fraser Island Association, transcript, 15 November 1995, p 251.

[89] Queensland Government, Great Sandy Region Management Plan 1994-2010, p 1.

[90] Eurong Beach Resort, submission (number 10), p 2; Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, submission (number 44), p 2.

[91] Professor Mike Archer, submission (number 70), pp 14-15.

[92] Professor Mike Archer, submission (number 70), p 20.

[93] Professor Mike Archer, submission (number 70), p 19.

[94] Professor Mike Archer, submission (number 70), p 16.

[95] New South Wales Government, transcript, 1 November 1995, p 143.

[96] Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, submission (number 44), p 3.

[97] Premier of Tasmania, letter transmitting the submission from the Tasmanian Government (number 63).

[98] Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 12. At current funding levels, the Commonwealth is providing about $1.8 million per annum less than the Tasmanian Government had anticipated ('Submission to the Commonwealth Government by the State of Tasmania for a joint five-year funding program, 1994-95 to 1998-99', Tasmanian Government, submission, attachment 2)

[99] Tasmanian World Heritage Area Consultative Committee, submission (number 25) p 3.

[100] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), pp 4-5.

[101] National Farmers' Federation, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 318.

[102] Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97: Environment, Sport and Territories Portfolio, Budget related paper no. 15, p 9.

[103] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 8.

[104] New South Wales Government, transcript, 1 November 1995, p 137.

[105] For example, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service claimed that the additional $12 million over four years included in the Coalition's election policy for world heritage management was inadequate (submission, number 87, p 1).

[106] Australian Conservation Foundation, submission (number 79), p 7.

[107] Wet Tropics Management Authority, submission (number 77) p 2.

[108] Dr Ralph Chapman, submission (number 5), p 5; Tasmanian Government, submission (number 63), p 14.

[109] Tourism Council Australia, transcript, 27 November 1995, pp 309-10.

[110] New South Wales Government, submission (number 66), p 9.

[111] Commonwealth Department of Tourism, transcript, 31 August 1995, p 119.

[112] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, transcript, 27 November 1995, p 288.

[113] National Parks Association of New South Wales, submission (number 86), p 1; World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, submission (number 83), p 1.

[114] Uniting Church in Australia, submission (number 50), p 4.

[115] The Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, submission (number 22), p 3.

[116] Department of Finance, transcript, 28 August, p 105.

[117] Australian Mining Industry Council, Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Business Council of Australia, National Association of Forest Industries & National Farmers' Federation, World Heritage in Australia: Proposed Management Reforms, December 1994, p 6.

[118] Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, submission (number 42), p 28; Western Australian Government, submission (number 56), pp 3-4.

[119] Western Australian Government, submission (number 56) p 12.

[120] Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, transcript, 28 August 1995, p 80.

[121] Australian Nature Conservation Agency, submission (number 37), attachment E.