The future of Australian National Parks

[Pteropus]

There is no doubt Australia has missed many opportunities and a national debate about the way we manage our natural resources, including National Parks, is probably long over due. One of the biggest management challenges would be (and currently is) convincing either state or federal governments to act on the advice presented to them by scientists and other land management experts. For this reason I’m not convinced that standardised legislation governing National Parks would change much without a huge paradigm shift in government thinking, and could put all the parks resources into the hands of a federal government that behaves like our current one (the horror!). Anyhow, management should be conducted at a regional and landscape scale rather than national. Speaking of regional differences, I don't think Tasmania is doing things better than Queensland, just differently because they cover very different biogeographic regions.

[Hallu]

There is no doubt Australia has missed many opportunities and a national debate about the way we manage our natural resources, including National Parks, is probably long over due. One of the biggest management challenges would be (and currently is) convincing either state or federal governments to act on the advice presented to them by scientists and other land management experts. For this reason I’m not convinced that standardised legislation governing National Parks would change much without a huge paradigm shift in government thinking, and could put all the parks resources into the hands of a federal government that behaves like our current one (the horror!). Anyhow, management should be conducted at a regional and landscape scale rather than national. Speaking of regional differences, I don't think Tasmania is doing things better than Queensland, just differently because they cover very different biogeographic regions.

Haha everything concerning Australia today and its parks is what the US were dealing with 50 years ago it's uncanny... Scientists weren't being heard too, until some told them we should save the Everglades because it's an important ecosystem even thought it's got no striking landscape feature. But the most hard decision was to stop shooting predators. Adolph Murie's studies proved that wolves increase the strength of deer and elk hers, it was wildly believed as rubbish at first. Now we know predators are essential to the balance of an ecosystem.

Now Australia needs to hear scientists on the current and future dangers of global warming. Yes the Great Barrier Reef could disappear during our lifetime. Yes the increased frequency of bushfires in Australia is linked to climate change and will get worse in the future. They also need to hear them on tough decisions : yes we need to shoot all horses and deers in the Aussie Alps. Yes we need a huge expensive program to erradicate the cane toad. Sell it as a food delicacy with a national campaign (which it is...) and you could even fund this program or make money with it... The same could be done with camels or goats.

Regarding Queensland, I don't know much about their policy, but I know they have too many national parks, and that at one point they had close to a thousand, and couldn't tell guidebooks where they were or how big they were, it was ridiculous. They also put money before conservation as a general rule. Had they not, the Reef would be more protected, and we'd have a much needed Cape York national park from Cohen or even Laura to the Cape itself. Instead, they keep most of this area unprotected in case the rich minerals and timber in them need to be exploited on an industrial scale in the future.

[peregrinator]

This is a really interesting topic Hallu, and obviously ties into several other conservation related topics posted on this forum in the past (and equally divisive!). I think an important question that needs to be asked is: what is the purpose of National Parks? Are they for conservation purposes and/or for recreational use by the public? Obviously they are currently supposed to be for both these reasons, but as pointed out in the article, in many cases the conservation value of National Parks is somewhat lacking and more needs to be done in that respect. As to recreational use, different groups regularly feel they are left out of the use of parks. And of course there are the increasing discussions about commercial use of National Parks. Recreational and commercial use is more often than not going to come into conflict with conservation, but conversely is often seen as the only way to achieve conservation.

On the point of conservation, and as you are acutely aware, political will and funding are major constraints on proper conservation (not just in Australia but globally). Also, National Parks are not the limit of conservation, whether it be conserving biodiversity, cultural history, or just a pretty landscape. Private land is where most conservation actions need to be applied. But buying land or compulsory acquisition is understandingly controversial among land owners, especially if they have a strong attachment to their land, so both funding constraints and political will generally struggle to gain traction. And buying land for conservation requires getting the getting your money’s worth, or best bang-for-buck, so to speak, which is problematic if areas that have a high value for conservation are also areas that have high monetary value, which is often the case. Reserve designers can use software such as MARXAN, which can accommodate effect conservation outcomes at minimal cost. But it is rare for a government to apply tools such as MARXAN in practice, because of the aforementioned political will and funding issues.

Personally, I’d like to see better funding for National Parks as they stand, but I think that the biggest solution for conservation would be to increase protection of ecosystems on private land. Obviously this approach to conservation also requires a great deal of political will and funding, and faces many other hurdles such as competition from the powerful resources industry. A stronger Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and tougher land clearing laws that are enforceable would be required. Furthermore, private land is genuinely “locked up” for access, so many people who think of National Parks as their playgrounds or want to view a pretty landscape might not be so happy with land owners getting greater funding to protect patches of habitat at the expense of funding for National Parks as we traditionally know them. It gets harder if all conservation funding comes from the same pool of money. One might ask if we should fund more National Parks at the expense of conservation on private land? The situation is complicated. While a solution requires government and communities that are less likely to be beholden to commercial interests, it is often likely that these commercial interests are where funding will come from. Try and reconcile that one and our environment will be better off!

There are success stories though. Conservation wise, both governments and private organisations have bought or acquired properties for the purpose of conservation. For example, the WA government’s Lorna Glen, or the Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s sanctuaries. Also, as mentioned in the posted article, the Indigenous Protected Areas are an important part of the National Reserve System. As long as funding is maintained I think they are a reasonable baseline to move forward from. But we can do better.

Pteropus, I'm glad you've pointed out that individuals and organisations other than Parks services are getting some things done. This is perhaps at a level where it is relatively invisible compared to a (hypothetical) overarching plan for integrated and truly National Parks such that Hallu contemplated in the original post.

However, in addition to those groups Pteropus mentions, there are quite a few others: e.g. Bush Heritage Australia, Trust for Nature, Landcare Australia, Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species. In Victoria, the Victorian National Parks Association and bushwalking club members are actively involved in weed eradication, ecological monitoring programs, and so on. Further volunteer work comes from school students, farmers and other members of the public. Then there are numerous conservation covenants on private land, along with donations to various groups and bequests of property or money. At long last, even the whitefella is learning that country goes on existing long after the temporary custodians have died.

While there is limited (or nil) funding provided for these conservation services, without them our environment would be in an even more disastrous position than it is. What I think is important to note is that volunteers can get results. Perhaps it will be too little, too late. But it is better than doing bugger all. While entrenched power structures might be difficult to overthrow in the immediate future, one can act as an individual or in a local collective to create some positive effects.

jdeks wrote:

I guess we're lucky in that we're a massive country with only a handful of people, so even if we try to ruin it, we can only ruin so much at a time.

The ruination is also caused by a handful of people who don't live in this country but find it open for business and adopt a capitalist business model where you sweep the mess under the rapidly-fraying carpet while counting the personal profits.

[Hallu]

I've asked around what happens in French National Parks, because it has been quite obscure to me for some time. I learned that track management and cairns aren't done by anyone connected to the parks. In fact, there is 0 park service in France. We don't even have rangers. It's up to what you would call counties or shires to maintain the tracks and signs, and the cairns are often done by bushwalking clubs... So it's even worse than Australia. Australia has a limited number of rangers, but at least has some, plus some visitor centres, maintained campgrounds. In France you don't even have campgrounds in parks, they just thought that existing refuges in the mountains would be enough, and forget about visitor centres, tourist info centres in nearby towns are supposed to do that job. In other parks not in mountains, there's nothing. In some you can bushcamp, but there's no pit toilet anywhere. It is as in the early days on NPs in the USA : the ones who maintain it are the locals or volunteers but otherwise the government who's supposed to take care of the parks doesn't do anything. In Australia you have calls for volunteers to help in track building and weed/pest removal etc... In France I looked for something similar and couldn't find anything. Even the park official contact lady couldn't help me. Apparently even bushwalking clubs don't do such things, and nature foundations and such only want money and don't offer volunteer programs...

[Lophophaps]

There is growing community concern about global warming, assisted by the feral government's foolish stance that ignores science. This stance is creating an unlikely alliance of conservation and business interests. The economic costs of the Great Barrier Reef disappearing are almost beyond comprehension. Tidal and storm surges will inundate coastal infrastructure, causing major loss of amenity. Many major towns around the world are on the coast, on a river or both.

This has led to more mention of matters conservation in the business pages, where the costs can be quantified, if with uncertainty. To simplify matters, looking after natural landscapes is advantageous for the economy. As illustrated quite nicely in China, if the environment is treated as a rubbish dump the community suffers. My understanding is that Chinese air is being cut into blocks to expand atolls in the South China Sea.

Whilst I'm all for the preservation of species, biodiversity, and native forests, to make the environmentally unwashed come onside, economic reasons should be more fully utilised. To hammer this message, keep pushing the cost for our grandchildren. These reasons are much more likely to succeed than citing the possible extinction of Raptor Disapearus.

[Hallu]

Don't worry it's been the message for a while now. The Dutch for example know it's gonna cost a ton of money if the sea rises to build more seawalls. The thing is they haven't done anything to reduce their emissions and just got judged by an international court on the matter and lost. Basically they know they're gonna have to build walls so they don't care about whether the sea rises by 1 m or 1.2 m... The Germans have almost no shoreline so they don't give a *&%$#! either, they've been building coal power plants like maniacs to keep up with energy demand due to their nuclear plants closing down... The Americans can't do anything because of the Republicans, the Chinese government don't care if their people die as long as they rise as the #1 economic superpower, and Australia, well it's worth a thousand words : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3IaKVmkXuk

[photohiker]

Expectations of our governments are changing slowly. A few years ago we would not have expected an alliance like this to appear:

An unprecedented alliance of business, welfare and environmental groups and trade unions is demanding an end to Australia’s decade of political paralysis and division on climate policy, insisting the Abbott government make credible emission reduction commitments and the major parties agree on how the pledges should be implemented.

In an attempt to reset the bitter political debate on climate policy, the powerful lineup of interest groups has reached a historic agreement on “principles” that should guide Australia’s climate policy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... table-says

[Hallu]

Well Australia did take drastic measures in the past on other issues. Their way of saying "stop" after Port Arthur with a strong gun control law that took only 3 months to be put into action was baffling. Of course it took the worst mass massacre ever done by a single man to put this into motion, but some politicians weren't afraid to comit career suicide. Maybe once the reef is utterly destroyed we'll finally see the same spirit again to save what's left...