We need a new paradigm for national parks

The sacrifices in the quality of life of recreational and commercial users of public land and local communities, and their sense of identity and worth, might be easier to reconcile if they thought decisions had in fact been about the environment and the greater good of the broader community.

However, a number of decisions in recent years to create more parks have shown that green politics has been the driving force, rather than good environmental outcomes.

This is certainly the fear in the NSW Riverina where the NSW Environment Minister this month has declared the transfer of 107,000 hectares of red gum forest into the parks estate at a cost of $80 million to the NSW taxpayer. Previous park creations have adversely affected the economies of Balranald and Coolah (PDF 65KB) just as they have on the Victorian side of the Murray around the townships of Echuca, Picola and Barmah where sawmills have already closed after 80 per cent reductions in harvestable area.

The NSW decision has been announced without any cost benefit analysis on the regional economy or analysis of tourism impacts on an area that already has 500,000 visitor days per year in the forests. This contravenes the obligation of the NSW government under national agreements to create new reserves with least cost to communities. Visitor surveys over the last two years indicate that most visitors come to these river forests precisely because they are not national parks, which means they can bring the family dog and undertake their holiday with little restriction. In the Victorian decision it was noted by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, responsible for making recommendations to the government, that “intergenerational welfare dependency” in local communities may result from the new parks created there. Indeed.

From an important environmental perspective, these Ramsar listed state forests were turned into parks without any analysis of what advantages, if any, to biodiversity might flow from a change of land tenure, but park creation still proceeded at significant social and economic cost to communities.

Certainly the difference between what is promised when new parks are promoted and what is delivered is miles apart. It was agreed by all that the Victorian red gum forests were stressed from drought; environmental water was promised. The first promised environmental water is now available in the form of 12,000 mega litres, but this has been recently “qualified” by the Water Minister and will now be diverted to Melbourne to enable announcement last week of the easing of strict water restrictions in the capital - ahead of the state election in November.

Similar has happened in the Riverina decision (PDF 81KB) where the Environment Minister has claimed to be following the key recommendations of the Natural Resources Commission, even quoting from their report:

The river red gum forests and the industries and social systems they support are in decline due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought.

However, he has only allocated 265GL of water to save the forests instead of the NRC recommended 1,200GL, no doubt keeping the rest for a rainy day. In either case, the minister states the problem is water and provides the solution as a change in land tenure to national park!

In both of the above decisions and many others, it is not the local community that drives the creation of new national parks, but city based environment groups with the result tied to green preferences in inner city seats or power struggles within cabinet as per the premature announcement by Premier Rees on the Riverina forests three hours before a decisive cabinet meeting that saw him deposed. Similar occurred in south west Victoria ten days before the 2006 state election, following campaigning by Melbourne based Environment Victoria, when the Premier and Deputy Premier arrived in Portland unannounced to declare the creation of the Cobboboonee National Park pre-empting four years of consultations with the local community. Recently revealed are a string of sweetheart deals, unannounced prior to the last Queensland state election, which have left indigenous Cape York communities disenfranchised from traditional lands.

Almost without exception, where a perceived political imperative drives an environmental decision, it is the environment and local communities that suffer because the funding commitment does not match the political zeal to add to the national park hectare scoreboard to appease the green vote.

These are some of the reasons why the Australian Environment Foundation argues that a new paradigm in national park creation and management is needed.