tsrs opportunities for national protection and funding for management
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSR) Network
Opportunities for national protection and
funding for management
1 March 2010
Report to the National Parks Association of NSW (NPANSW) Protecting The Links - Wildcountry Project
Cecile van der Burgh Ph: 04 2118 8975
2
Table of Contents
List of tables, figures and appendices 5
Executive Summary 6
Introduction 9
Chapter 1 - Overview of the TSR Network: definition, values and threats 10 1.1 - Defining the TSR Network_____________________________________ 10 1.1.1 - Definition of the network 1.1.2 - Location and extent 1.1.3 - Management 1.1.4 - Use of the TSR Network 1.2 - Values of the TSR network_____________________________________ 11 1.2.1 - Why so extensive and persistent in Australia? 1.2.2 - Stock routes in other parts of the world 1.2.3 - Snapshot of the multiple values of the traveling stock route network 1.3 - Threats to the values of the TSR Network_________________________ 18 1.4 – Conclusions_________________________________________________ 21
Chapter 2 - National frameworks for TSR protection 23
2.1 – Introduction_________________________________________________ 23
2.2 - The EPBC Act________________________________________________ 23 2.2.1 - What is it and what does it protect? 2.2.2 - How does the EPBC Act protect? 2.2.3 - EPBC Act under review 2.2.4 - The EPBC Act and the TSR Network 2.3 - Commonwealth-listed threatened species and ecological communities_24 2.3.1 - Threatened species and EEC’s on the TSR Network 2.3.2 - Recovery Plans 2.3.3 - Other species and functions 2.4 - National Heritage List _________________________________________ 28 2.4.1 - Introduction 2.4.2 - The protection National Heritage Listing offers 2.4.3 - Management of National Heritage sites 2.4.4 - The National Heritage listing process
3
2.4.5 - State Government support for a heritage listing 2.4.6 - Emergency listings of National Heritage 2.5 - Commonwealth Heritage_______________________________________ 39 2.6 - Register of the National Estate: „The Frozen Register‟_______________ 40 2.6.1 - What is the Register of the National Estate and what is its status? 2.6.2 - How will places in the Register be protected? 2.6.3 - TSR network on the Register for the National Estate 2.7 - Caring for Our Country_________________________________________42 2.7.1 - The goal, priorities and timelines 2.7.2 - The National Reserve System 2.7.3 - Biodiversity and natural icons 2.7.4 - Other relevant Caring for Our Country priorities 2.7.5 - Summary and Conclusions
2.8 - The National Biodiversity Strategy_______________________________ 45
2.9 - Summary and Conclusions_____________________________________ 46
Chapter 3 – International frameworks for TSR protection 47 3.1 – Introduction_________________________________________________ 47 3.2 - World Heritage_______________________________________________ 47 3.2.1 - Introduction: what is World Heritage? 3.2.2 - The World Heritage Convention 3.2.3 - The World Heritage List 3.2.4 - Managing World Heritage places 3.2.5 - Nomination process 3.2.6 - The criteria for selection 3.2.7 - Tentative List process 3.2.8 - The World Heritage Fund 3.2.9 - Global Strategy 3.2.10 - Summary and conclusions 3.3 - Protected areas - IUCN Categories ______________________________ 56 3.3.1 - Introduction: What is a IUCN category of protection? 3.3.2 - Definition of a protected area 3.3.3 - Applying IUCN protected areas definition to the TSR network 3.3.4 - The NRS and IUCN Categories 3.3.5 - Applying IUCN protected areas categories to the TSR network 3.3.6 - IUCN Category IV - Habitat Species management area 3.3.7 - IUCN Category V - Protected Landscape/seascape 3.3.8 - IUCN Category VI - Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources 3.3.9 - Summary and conclusions 3.4 - Other Important Binding International Agreements_________________ 67 3.4.1 - Introduction
4
3.4.2 - Migratory species: Bonn Convention, JAMBA, CAMBA, 3.4.3 - Ramsar agreement 3.5 - Biosphere Reserves __________________________________________ 68 3.5.1 - Introduction: what is a Biosphere Reserve? 3.5.2 - International Significance of Biosphere Reserves 3.5.3 - The EPBC Act and Biosphere Reserves 3.5.4. - Nomination, management and funding issues in Biosphere Reserves 3.5.5 - Examples of Biosphere Reserves in NSW 3.5.6 - Biosphere Reserves applicable to the TSR Network? 3.6 - Important Bird Areas__________________________________________ 70 3.6.1 - Introduction: What is an Important Bird Area? 3.6.2 - IBA’s are non-governemental and non-statutory 3.6.3 - The value of IBA’s 3.6.4 - Summary and conclusions 3.7 - Summary and conclusions _____________________________________ 71
Chapter 4 – Conclusions and recommendations________________________72
4.1 – Introduction_________________________________________________ 72
4.2 - What future is envisaged for the Travelling Stock Route Network?____ 72
4.3 - What protection frameworks can deliver the vision?________________ 75
4.4 - Recommendations for future directions __________________________ 79
References_______________________________________________________ 81
Appendices______________________________________________________ 85
5
List of tables and figures Table 1.1: National TSR Network values and types of values______________________ 16 Table 1.2: Threats to TSR values and ‗drivers of threat‘__________________________ 20 Table 2.1: EPBC-listed threatened fauna recorded on the TSR network______________ 25 Table 2.2: EPBC-listed flora recorded on the TSR network________________________ 26 Table 2.3: EPBC-listed threatened ecological communities recorded on the TSR network 27 Table 2.4: NSW Stock Routes on the Register of the National Estate________________ 41 Table 2.5: NSW Stock Reserves on the Register of the National Estate______________ 42 Table 3.1: Explanation of the IUCN protected area definition_______________________ 56 Table 3.2: The six categories of IUCN protected areas____________________________ 59 Table 4.1: Comparison of national and international protection frameworks ____________75
List of appendices Appendix 2.1: EPBC Act Environment Assessment Process. DEWHA Factsheet Feb 07 Appendix 2.2: Ask first – A Guide to Respecting Indigenous Heritage Places and Values Appendix 2.3: What do the National Heritage Management Principles mean in practice? Appendix 2.4: Members of the Australian Heritage Council Appendix 2.5: The National Heritage Nomination cycle Appendix 2.6: Garrett Media Release: Tarkine Emergency Nat. Heritage Listing Dec 09 Appendix 2.7: Details of TSRs listed on the Register of the National Estate Appendix 3.1: Strategic Plan Shark Bay Property WH area Appendix 3.2: Garrett Media Release: WH Nomination for Ningaloo Jan 2010 Appendix 3.3: National Reserve System map 2010 for each IUCN category
6
Executive Summary This report outlines the national opportunities for protecting and managing the unique values of the Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSR) network. The discussion paper is part of Protecting the Links, a WildCountry project by The National Parks Association of NSW (NPANSW) that aims to highlight the significance of the remnant vegetation in the TSR network in NSW as a public resource and linking critical habitats across the landscape. The project is raising awareness in the community and informs natural resource managers and government agencies of the opportunities for building landscape resilience by protecting and improving existing values in the TSR network. The TSR network connects Australians through time and history, through space and the natural landscape and through identity and culture. Well-resourced management of these values is a desired project outcome. The terms of reference for this report are as follows: The development of a discussion paper identifying opportunities for national protection and funding for the TSR network management. This will fill a current gap in conservation activities and will assist in identifying a way forward to protect the TSR network as a national asset. The paper will consider possible models for federal listing/recognition for the TSR Network, comparing National Heritage Listing, IUCN category VI, Biosphere reserves, National Reserve System and any other possible options. It will identify opportunities and recommendations on direction. Chapter 1 highlights that the TSR network is a unique Australian pastoral institution with many important environmental values, an uncommon geographical extent and unique institutional features. It is a network of relatively poorly studied linear strips of government-owned (Crown) land and stretches across vast distances in multiple Australian states. Its environmental values are under imminent threat. Whilst NPANSW interest is primarily in safeguarding the unique environmental values of the TSR Network it is nearly impossible to look at these values in isolation because:
o The TSR network in its current form was ‗institutionalized‘ in state law mainly because of its economic values (roads for animal transport with controlled intermittent grazing) and key decision makers are not necessarily interested environmental outcomes;
o There are relatively strong connections of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians with this land and associated tangible and intangible values (emotional, spiritual, associations in songs, stories and songs, folklore).
o There is a large spectre of stakeholders and users who have relatively strong interests in the network, which pose opportunities and threats with regard to the protection of the natural values of the TSR network;
7
To protect the natural values of the network successfully, it is essential take a holistic approach to reviewing the national protection mechanisms and funding opportunities with the networks broader values and uses in mind. Chapter 2 and 3 describe the myriad of national and international protection frameworks, funding streams and relevant policies that potentially apply to the TSR network. Nationally, there is a range of conservation frameworks that apply or could be applied to the TSR Network. The network hosts a large variety of endangered ecological communities that are listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and management strategies are defined for the ones for which a (draft) recovery plan has been developed. The TSR Network is a likely candidate for National Heritage Listing. However such a listing requires detailed information about the geographic extent and boundaries of the network. Such a listing would also assume some solid state government cooperation but this is not necessary. Several TSRs are listed on the Register for the National Estate but their listing is no longer federally relevant unless they have been nominated on one of the newer national lists. Caring for our Country offers funding opportunities to increase the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes and again the TSR network would be a candidate for this funding, however as this stream of funding focussses on management regimes, the support of the managers of the TSR network are a necessity. The TSR Network is recognised in the national biodiversity strategy, and this is an important political lever to obtain Federal government support for its improved management, although no actions have been identified in the strategy to achieve this. There are several international frameworks available that could be applied to help protect the values of the TSR network. Some of these have a statutory status and legal implications, like a World Heritage Listing, and some do not. Some require a certain threshold in conservation values and are subject to a very competitive and thorough assessment, like a World Heritage nomination. Some require a certain threshold in management standards before they can be applied, eg the TSR Network currently is not a protected area per IUCN definition, because there are too many critical elements unresolved, notably the security of the land tenure. Some protection frameworks are part of an active program or international agreement, actively supported by the Australian Government, such as the Ramsar Convention, some are older, like the Biosphere Reserve, and appear to have been superseded by other frameworks. Several effective initiatives are driven by non-government organisations and the community, such as Important Bird Areas. Ultimately, support is required from key decision makers and land managers to secure progress in protecting the natural values of the TSR network. In chapter 4 the following recommendations are presented:
1) Continued articulation of a big picture (ecological) vision for the NSW and QLD TSR networks. For example: a ‗glossy‘ map with a mosaic of public land tenures, individual values, and management regimes, initiatives (eg bird routes, IBA‘s).
8
2) Develop a national heritage nomination as a tool to present a big picture case for protecting TSRs as a national public land network icon, to invite an active role for the federal Minister for the Environment, and to highlight the need to compile solid data regarding extent and accurate geographical locations of the TSR network;
3) The high number of federally threatened species and endangered ecological communities on the TSR network and the mention of TSRs in the Commonwealth Biodiversity strategy confirm a federal government interest in this land tenure, however they appear unable to change management regimes without the lead and cooperation of the state government. It will be important to start where there are key opportunities involving TSR land managers: eg develop a leading Caring for Our Country (CforC) project proposal with TSR‘s at the core, linking the CforC project to the big picture vision, this is a typical project that could maximize collaborations in the landscape;
4) Explore where formal conservation reserves can be achieved for parcels of the TSR network and work with NSW DECC to achieve long-term outcomes without causing disruptive opposition;
5) Evaluate the pilot Hunter TSR assessment: did it provide for any solid conservation or improved management outcomes for TSR lands or did it gather appropriate key data?
6) Explore the benefits of a NRC crown land assessment process that secures improved environmental outcomes for crown lands (including TSRs) and takes regional landscape connectivity into account. What are the benefits to conduct such an assessment at the CMA scale?
7) ‗TSR survey blitz‘: community data gathering led by local ecologists and other experts to ‗fill in the gaps on the map‘ and inform future studies as well as build local community support for the protection of remnant vegetation and historic cultural values of the TS network.
9
Introduction This report is concerned with the national opportunities for protecting and managing the unique values of the Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSR) network. The discussion paper is part of Protecting the Links, a WildCountry project by The National Parks Association of NSW (NPANSW) that aims to highlight the significance of the remnant vegetation in the TSR network in NSW as a public resource and linking critical habitats across the landscape. The project is raising awareness in the community and informs natural resource managers and government agencies of the opportunities for building landscape resilience by protecting and improving existing values in the TSR network. Chapter 1 will present a concise overview of the TSR network, its unique national values and threats. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the national protection frameworks and mechanisms and the processes involved to implement these. It also identifies possible federal funding streams and other opportunities for improving funding for TSR network management. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the international protection frameworks available and how they could apply to TSR management. Chapter 4 provides an analysis comparing the different national and international management and funding options available. This chapter will also make recommendations for the future direction of the project.
10
Chapter 1 Overview of the TSR Network: definition, values and threats 1.1 Defining the TSR Network 1.1.1 - Definition of the TSR network Travelling Stock Routes are livestock driveways that are designed for the overlanding of stock, mainly cattle and sheep, from one area to another. The actual land occupied by the routes is ‗crown land‘ (State Government-owned) (Mc Knight, 1977). The TSR Network in this report refers to the combined network of TSRs (traveling stock routes and reserves) in NSW. Information about the Stock Route Network (SRN) in Queensland is also included in this report, where deemed desirable and possible. 1.1.2 - Location and extent Australia‘s TSRs are both numerous and extensive, forming a veritable maze throughout many of the pastoral districts, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland. In other districts there is a looser network, and in some regions there are only a few remnants of a once larger system: they are least prominent in Western Australia and South Australia and most of the TSR network in Victoria has been pre-empted by the superimposition of motor roads. A basic framework is still maintained in the Northern Territory. It is difficult to delimit with precision their extent because in most states the roads and even the highways are gazetted TSRs, used frequently or at least occasionally by traveling stock. The contemporary TSR networks comprise of a mixture of routeways that are designed for vehicular traffic (with an ancillary stock driveway function) and those designed solely for livestock overlanding (Mc Knight, 1977). The width of TSRs is also variable. As a generalization: routes are narrowest in the more densely settled areas and are widest in the extensive pastoral districts. Another variable in the spatial extent of the TSRs involves areas set aside as overnight holding paddocks. These paddocks, located on or adjacent to the stock routes are normally identified as Travelling Stock Reserves, although the words routes and reserves are often used both in verbal language and often interchangeable. These reserves are designed for overnight camping of the traveling mob, and are usually wider than the route itself. The total area of land involved is unrecorded, but in 1977 amounted to well over ten million acres (4 million ha) in Australia (Mc Knight, 1977). By the mid-1890s, the NSW TSR network in the Eastern and Central Divisions of New South Wales was calculated to occupy almost 1,254,570 ha (Legislative Assembly, 1896). The first comprehensive map of stock routes in NSW was prepared about this time based in part on unsurveyed and generalized information. In 1975, the figure of land dedicated as a TSR (or similar reserve) was 2.27 million ha, including the Western Division (Department of Lands, 1975, referred to in Hibberd 1978). While the annual report of State Council for Rural Lands Protection Boards said there were 600,000 ha of TSR‘s in 2006 (Council for RLPB‘s, 2006), the current LHPA website
11
states there are 500,000ha (Livestock Health and Pest Management Authorities, 2010). We don‘t have a reference to confirm the extent of stock routes and watering places in the Western Division. In 2006, five boards withdrew control of 49 reserves totaling 416 ha. These reserves were assessed by the boards as having ―no value for walking or grazing stock or low conservation value.‖ The Department of Lands becomes responsible for the reserve‘s management after the withdrawal is completed (Council for RLPB‘s, 2006). 1.1.3 - Management The land on which TSRs are laid out is Crown land. In the more densely settled pastoral areas the route is specifically excluded from the adjacent private lands or leaseholds (Central Division and Eastern Division). The management and administration of the routeways here is vested either in regional pastoral associations (NSW), in local government bodies (QLD), or in the state department of agriculture. Normally any grazier may utilize the stock routes, providing he abides by the gazetted state regulations and pays fees according to an established schedule. In the less densely settled areas, the TSR is wider and usually unfenced; in such locations the route is normally included with the adjacent leasehold, with the lessee paying rent on the area and being allowed to pasture his stock on it, providing sufficient feed is maintained for the use of legitimate travelling stock (Mc Knight, 1977). 1.1.4 - Use of the TSR network In the past the Travelling Stock Routes were used primarily for moving livestock to market, or for shifting stock from one property to another. For more than a century the great majority of all Australian livestock movements were accomplished by droving along Travelling Stock Routes. Now that road transport has become widespread, however, it may be that TSRs are more important as supplemental grazing areas than as access ways to market. During time of drought, this function may be of critical significance. Thus the routes are a unique part of working and living history of rural Australia (Mc Knight, 1977). Whilst the routes were established primarily for economic use, its broader environmental, cultural and recreational ‗uses‘ have become more prominent. For example, the NSW Government published a guide and directory of stock routes and reserves in 2001 that states: ―the diversity of these areas in the different climatic areas and landforms across the State, provides a special range of environments which can now be shared with the whole community. You will find pockets of near-pristine native vegetation, scenic bushwalking sites, idyllic picnic spots and plenty of places where our native flora and fauna of all kinds can be seen.” (NSW Agriculture and Rural Lands Protection Boards, 2001).
1.2 Values of the TSR network
1.2.1 - Why so extensive and persistent in Australia? Stock routes or livestock trails are by no means unique in Australia. In other countries where pastoralism of an extensive nature is a widespread for of land use, overland droving has been a prominent method of moving stock, and more or less well defined routeways have been developed. However, in no other country has such an extensive and formalised system of stock routes developed, and nowhere else do stock routes have such contemporary prominence as in Australia (Mc Knight 1978).
12
What are the attributes of Australia that have led to such a development and to its persistence to the present day? Mc Knight mentions the following reasons:
The physical landscape of the country: apart from scarcity of water or forage and the occasional occurrence of poisonous plants, very few topographic or vegetational (eg no dense forests but relatively open woodlands and grasslands) hindrances;
The initial development of overland stock routes was largely uninhibited by human interference;
There were very few impeding areas of closer agricultural or pastoral settlement (fences etc) that restricted cross country travel. Pastoral pioneers often followed right on the heels of the explorers, and in some areas they were themselves the first Europeans there. They were the initial European settlers in most areas of the country – overlanding was the only practical method for them to bring their stock to or beyond the settlement frontier;
Once an important stock route was established, there was usually a demand for the provision of reliable water supplies along it, state governments began relatively early to provide artificial watering points (tanks, dams, bores) and this led to regulation and administration of the use of these watering points and often the routes themselves;
Longer and more famous stock routes were for cattle, it was the prevalence of sheep raising that led to the ―filling in‖ of the pattern, the establishment of a relatively dense network of droving routes;
The heavy reliance on traveling stock routes was largely due to a lack of satisfactory alternatives;
The systems became well established, a bureaucracy of administration was founded, droving became a ―way of life‖ for many men, and the stock route became entrenched as an essential element in Australian pastoralism.
The network of Australian Stock Routes and Reserves is arguably the most extensive, most prominent and formalised network of live stock routes and reserves on earth (McKnight 1977). 1.2.2 - Stock routes in other parts of the world Stock routes developed in other areas of the world where pastoralism was prevalent but dense networks were rarely, if ever, established, and their usage has long since died out in most cases. Below is an excerpt from Tom Mc Knight‘s report (Mc Knight, 1975, p 4-6) which presents a succinct overview of the presence of stock routes worldwide: ―The most notable historical development of formalized stock routes was in Spain, where for the better part of 600 years (beginning toward the middle of the 13th Century) there was a regular seasonal movement of transhumante sheep flocks from their winter pastures in the North to their summer pastures in the South. In order to counteract frequent tolls and trespass charges, the Castillian sheepmen banded together in into an association , the Honourable Assembly of the Mesta, which received royal support. Routes were recognized, regulations were codified, tolls were standardized, the whole
13
system was institutionalized. The result was that traveling shepherds could move their sheep flocks along well-established sheepways called canada, cordels and veredas, that were left in grass for widths of approximately 84,42, or 21 yards (76, 38 or 19 m) even through the best farmlands and vineyard country. The canada system eventually dissipated however, and there are only a few vestiges remaining today. Similar seasonal migrations of sheep, and occasionally cattle, were commonplace in other areas around the rim of the Mediterranean Basin for long periods of time, especially in Italy where fixed sheep walks, called calles and later tratturi, were in existence at least by the first century BC. Distinct livestock routeways were also established in Southern France (where they were called carraires), Portugal, Algeria, and parts of the Balkans. However in these areas there apparently never developed an institutionalized system of stock routes. Livestock driveways were integral in the pastoral industry of the British Isles from the latter part of the Middle Ages. ―Common ways for driving cattle‖ were widespread in England and Ireland, but were even more significant in Scotland and Wales, where they were also used for sheep. They reached a peak of use in the early 1800s, and then rapidly dropped off as railways were established. By 1900 they essentially faded from the picture. Droving trails were widespread and heavily used orlimited time spans in the United States, but in most cases their development was not systematic or formalized, despite direct British influence penetrating from the east and relatively direct Spanish influence coming from the south. Although the eastern part of the country was most forested and not extensively used for pastoralism, livestock trails became well established, primarily as marketing routes for cattle, sheep and hogs. They existed from the establishment of the so-called Bay State Cow Path (Massachusetts) in the late 1600s until the mid-1800s. In the Western United States trail droving got its start along the Osage Trace (Texas-Missouri) in the 1830s. A number of long cattle and sheep trails were in use during the remainder of the 19th century, but there was no formalized infrastructure or codified regulations associated with them, and almost all overlanding of livestock ceased by the beginning of the 20th century, except for relatively short transhumance movements between lowland ranches and mountain pastures. There was a revival of interest in developing recognised livestock driveways in the intermontane West in the 1930s. Stimulated by the establishment of a new Federal government agency, the Bureau of Land Management, to administer unallocated public domain lands, a number of stock routes were reserved in several western states, particularly Nevada and Utah. Although usage has declined significantly and many of the routes have since been revoked, some are still in existence and experience occasional travel of sheep and cattle. There was considerable interest among pastoralists in northern Nigeria to establish stock routes ―on the Australian model‖ during the early decades of the 20th century, but the government never acceded to their frequent requests. In Kenya, on the other hand, the government took the lead in establishing more than 5,000 miles (8,000 km) of stock routes in the drier eastern and northeastern parts of the country by drilling bores and providing other watering places. These few examples are indicative of the relatively unformalised nature of stock routes in most parts of the world. Moreover, whatever droving trails or droving roads there were in the past are mostly no longer in existence or without contemporary significance.‖
14
1.2.3 - Snapshot of the values of the traveling stock route network The TSR network holds a plethora of historic, natural, cultural, spiritual, recreational and economic values unique to Australia. The combination of these shared values have made this unique piece of bush heritage an Australian icon, celebrated in Australian literature, music, film, tourism and in science. General value of the network The network of Australian Stock Routes and Reserves is arguably the most extensive, most prominent and formalised network of live stock routes and reserves on earth (McKnight 1977). Although stock routes have been established in all of the states of mainland Australia, the network is most extensive and most formalised in NSW and Queensland (Mc Knight 1977; Rural Lands Protection Boards 2001). Recently, the unique combination of values of the network was also recognised in Australian and international media as it featured in all major Australian papers, television and radio. Stock routes were described by The Telegraph (UK) as ―the sinews of a continent - mythologised in poetry and song and, they also wrote, ―the criss-crossing trails known as the Long Paddock have been at the heart of a frontier way of life which shaped a nation‖ (Malkin 2008). Travelling Stock Routes are an integral part of Australia‘s rural history. The image of the Australian drover is linked intrinsically with the stock route network and the significance of droving on the Travelling Stock routes is reflected in its place in the works of some of the nation‘s best known writers and poets. Travelling stock routes commonly follow culturally important Indigenous pathways culturally important for trade and travel as well as spirituality, and represent important Indigenous cultural heritage values. These pathways were often followed by early settlers. Natural values The extraordinary natural significance of the TSR network is highlighted by the large number of threatened fauna and flora recorded on the network that is listed on the EPBC Act. There has never been a comprehensive field-based assessment of natural values of NSW‘s TSR Network. Studies have been localized and ad hoc, with methodologies varying for each study. However, they give an idea of the plethora of natural values the network harbours. Studies that have been conducted include:
o Hibberd, J. et al (1978), The Future of the Long Paddock: a study of Traveling Stock Reserves, Routes and Roadside Verges in the Southern Tablelands of NSW. Nature Conservation Council of NSW.
o Austin, J.R. (2002), The Conservation and Identification of Biodiversity on Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves of North West New South Wales. North West Rural Land Protection Board.
o Several reports associated with the NSW Department of Lands assessment of the TSR‘s in the Hunter Region.
o Several reports put together by the Grassy-Box Woodland Conservation Management Network.
o TSR field assessments by Phil Sparks and Rick Webster.
15
The role that Travelling Stock Reserves and Routes have in maintaining ecological processes and landscape/ecological connectivity has not been widely studied. It has been suggested that Stock Routes may play in important role in woodland bird migrations. It can be argued that for some species, the network is critical to ongoing species viability, eg Swift Parrots need remnant woodlands to allow annual bird migration (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). There are also studies about the importance stock routes play for the survival of arboreal mammals, such as squirrel gliders (Fenner School at ANU). In the South-west Slope Region, clearing of box woodland has been extensive, and suitable habitat for the Superb Parrot now exists only in wooded roadside reserves, travelling stock routes and camping reserves, and other small remnant patches of woodland, many of which are on freehold land (Christie 2004; Webster 1998). It is notable that, in the South-west Slope Region and around Goolgowi, the foraging habitat also serves as breeding habitat (Webster 1998). The Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves provide some of the best networks of native vegetation in largely cleared country landscapes in the least protected bioregions. These connections maintain migration and genetic health of a range of species while many routes and reserves provide important examples of poorly protected nationally-listed threatened ecological communities, flora and fauna. The network also provides a seed-bank for native species and a unique and positive opportunity for natural landscape restoration projects. The magnitude of the Stock Route and Reserve Network system is enormous. In many agricultural and pastoral sections of the country there is a veritable maze of routes. In other districts there is a looser network, and in some regions there are only few remnants of a once larger system. These fragments present an opportunity as the core of landscape restoration efforts. Over 500 Australian scientists recently wrote to the NSW and Queensland Government to ensure long-term protection for the unique collection of values that the travelling stock and reserve network holds, a network that they describe as a national heritage asset under threat (Possingham, Nix et al 2008). The open letter was one of the most strongly supported scientific statements ever delivered to politicians in Australia. A major value of the network is in its integrity and geographical extent. Without the entire network, the particular value of some of the parts cannot be fully realised – the value of the whole network is greater than the sum of its individual parts (Possingham, Nix et al 2008) Cultural values Apart from limited studies, stock routes heritage is a much neglected aspect of the heritage of Australia (Cole, 2008). The most recent compilation of cultural heritage on the QLD stockroutes was a report commissioned by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water (2008) by Noelene Cole: Cultural Heritage of Queensland‘s stock routes. Cole states that the QLD Indigenous Cultural Site Database describes some 220 sites located on or near stock routes, but that the quality and quantity of data is variable. The records indicate a variety of cultural material and intangible cultural heritage values in association with stock routes, including stone artifact scatters, camp sites, stone arrangements, Aboriginal rock art, burials, wells, grinding hooves and scarred trees but fails to list ‗aboriginal pathways‘. Nole states this
16
omission indicates a gap in the formal records, since it is well known that many stock routes follow Aboriginal lines of travel. Cole also consults other QLD heritage databases that confirm cultural values associated with the stockroutes, such as pastoral sites, including homesteads, stock yards, loading ramps, wool washes, station dams and bores, a wooden cattle grid, a shepherd‘s hut, fencing, dips, a windmill and gates.
NSW has similar databases containing heritage sites, including the Aboriginal Heritage Inventory Management System at the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the State Heritage Register. It has also been suggested that other connections to TSR places should be explored in detail, for instance by researching the database for Native Title Claims (Native Title Services of NSW ph 1800640501). At the time of writing this paper the author is not aware that a cross-check of these databases with the TSR Network locations has occurred.
A large part of the cultural values are associated with a lifestyle associated with the traditional use of the stock routes, the story of the drover, the story of survival, stories from country Australia. These are values that resonate strongly in country Australia. Tourism values There is a myriad of local and regional tourism initiatives that are associated with Travelling Stock Routes. The many Bird Routes that have been developed including (parts of) Travelling Stock Routes are a point in case. A map of their locations can be viewed at: http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/the-organisation/where-to-go-birding.html. Opportunities exist for a concerted approach to these locally developed initiatives. The Long Paddock tourist route along the Cobb Highway in western NSW has regular interpretation signs of historic and natural interest and a promotional information brochure available at major tourist information centres in the region. The following table presents an overview of values that have been identified in the course of the project. Table 1.1 – National TSR Network values and types of values National TSR value
Natural Cultural Historic Economic “Way of life”
/lifestyle
Habitat for listed threatened species, ecological communities, migratory species and places which contain other matters of National Environmental Significance (NES)
x
Contains many places that are listed on the Register of the National Estate (not items of NES)
x
Contains many (not formally recognised) species that may be listed in future on nationally and internationally relevant agreements and in legislation
x
17
Recognised in the new Draft National Biodiversity Strategy (2009) as important environmental assets.
X
the largest and most formalized system of stock routes on earth (extent, connectivity and integrity)
x x X X X
Nowhere else on earth do stockroutes have such contemporary prominence as in Australia
x X X
Scientific and research value x x X X X
Containing seed-banks for threatened native plants and opportunity for landscape restoration projects
x
Unique conservation network taking in large tracts of native vegetation on public lands in the least protected bioregions in Australia
X
Regional tourism driving routes, bird routes, bushwalks, places for outdoor recreation
x X X
Aesthetic values x x X X
Life style of locals: nature-based recreation, camping.
x x X X
Intangible values in associated history, stories, poems, songs, traditions, folklore
x X X x
Transport of stock and intermittent grazing of this stock
X X
Grazing by local landholders X X
Drought relief X X
18
Climate change adaptation: globally unique system of public land to help mitigate the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in fragmented rural landscapes (interview Possingham)
x X
Regional employment (rangers, droving) X X
Landscape health and resilience and other ecosystem services
x X X
Indigenous cultural heritage values x x x
Indigenous traditional uses x x x X
Non-Indigenous cultural heritage values x x
Spiritual values x x x X
Holding a collection of ecosystems and species on public land that have been decimated and have not been formally protected anywhere else in the country (productive soils, productive ecosystems)
x
Industries that rely on stock routes for resources and use: apiary, forestry, firewood collection
X X
People that reply on stock routes for extractive uses and non-nature based recreation: firewood collection, shooting, dog walking, 4WDs, etc.
X
1.3 - Threats to the values of the TSR network
In the course of the project to safeguard the TSR network for the future, many threats to the values of the network have been identified. When identifying national frameworks for protection, it is necessary to take these in consideration. Is there a suitable national framework to protect the TSR Network that would mitigate these threats?
There are many current threats to the values and integrity of the network. These include inadequate records, everyday activities and a lack of or inadequate management,
19
privatisation of parts of the network, illegal absorption into neighbouring properties, industrial scale logging operations and poor grazing management. Some of these threats are further explored below
Inadequate records As explained in paragraph 1.3.4, gaps in records are prevalent for natural values of the stock routes. Gaps in the records (incomplete, biased and out of date records, absence of records or inaccurate interpretations of significance) also pose a significant risk to stock routes cultural heritage. This conclusion is based on the principle that assessment of the cultural significance of a place is the most fundamental and important step in heritage management (Burra Charter, 1999). Further to this principle, significance assessments must not privilege one value at the expense of the others (Burra Charter, 1999 article 5) (Cole, 2008).
Everyday activities and management In the absence of an environmental and cultural heritage assessment and management plans, everyday activities on stock routes such as trampling by walking and grazing stock, vegetation clearing, operation and maintenance of infrastructure (e.g. roads, access roads, loading yards, bores, pumps and dams) pose threats to natural and cultural heritage, particularly when features have not been recorded. It is also possible for previously buried cultural materials to be exposed by disturbance caused by stock movements, land clearing, road and dam construction, floods etc.
Austin (2002) identifies the following list of threats to the natural values of the network:
o Overgrazing – including increased pressure by electric fenced ‗sections‘; change of pasture composition through overgrazing; frequent grazing of fenced reserves by local landholders
o Weed invasion – both environmental an noxious weeds o Linear reserve (e.g. roadsides, TSR‘s) management issues such as
fragmentation, disturbance and weeds o Broadscale regional tree health decline and loss/simplification of the understorey o In-situ fragmentation of vegetation remnants through vehicular track
establishment, track braiding, road widening, irrigation channel construction and driveway entrances
o Degradation of groundcover through the removal of fallen timber and the impact of grazing upon leaf litter levels
o Tree regrowth issues – predominantly Callitris (cypress pine) and Eucalypt regrowth
o Eucalypt dieback
Development activities The extent to which past development works on stock routes (e.g. road upgrading, construction of infrastructure) have required survey and assessments of natural and cultural heritage is not clear. It is likely that stock routes heritage has already been lost, and continues to be lost, as a result of these types of activities.
Industrial logging There are certain agreements between states and federal government that ‗certify‘ activities under set legislation. Some regional forest agreements are certified by the
20
Commonwealth Government for the state to manage. Others are the sole state responsibility. The interface between legislative frameworks affecting the environment in NSW deserves dedicated attention, particularly when it concerns Crown Land. TSRs can be designated as Crown Timber Lands in NSW, managed by Forests NSW for timber harvesting.
Mining exploration activities An increasing interest in exploration for gas, coal and other minerals in NSW has a potential to heavily impact on the natural and cultural values of the TSR network.
Tourism The promotion of stock routes as tourist attractions appears to be a recent development. This poses opportunities as well as threats. One shire in Queensland for example has prepared tourist maps of stock routes in the district for the use of 4WD and dirt bike enthusiasts (reported on the internet www.abc.net.au/news). Such activities pose potential risks to cultural heritage, and need to be assessed and managed.
Intangible heritage loss Intangible heritage (stories, knowledge, songs) may be lost when knowledge-holders pass away without leaving records.
The table below presents an overview of all identified threats and the main driving forces‘ of these threats. It appears that with better data collection and management, clear direction for land-use management on TSRs, solid resources for management, an effective institutional and policy framework and the support from decision makers, the future of TSR Network could look very different.
Table 1.2 - Threats to TSR values and „drivers of threat‟
Threat Data collection, study of values, monitoring of values
Land-uses, on-ground threats and management issues
Resources ($) for management of values
Effective Institutional framework/policy to protect values
Political threats to values
Inadequate maps/GIS layers X X X
Inadequate records/baseline data X X X
―Everyday‖ activities, way of life X X X
Poor grazing management (overgrazing, wrong timing of grazing)
X X X
Inadequate leasing for grazing and other uses/activities that threaten values
X X X
Vegetation clearing for a multitude of reasons/fragmentation of habitat
X X
Industrial scale logging operations X X
Weeds and regrowth issues X X X
Development works (infrastructure upgrades and associated works)
X X
No comprehensive monitoring framework in place for values?
X X X
Firewood collection and other uses that potentially damage understorey
X X
Illegal absorption into neighboring properties
X X X X X
Alienation, sell-off or perpetual leasing of land by state departments
X X X X X
Mining exploration X X
21
Indigenous people not resourced to actively identify values and actively contribute to managing cultural values on TSRs
X X X
National values - not many resourced recovery plans in place for NES (find examples, quote)
X X X X X
Inter-governmental working group on TSR‘s in NSW no longer operational
X X
IMC Review recommendations – looks at cost recovery from economic use against cost of TSR network management, disregarding potential sources to manage other public values
X X X
47 RLPB restructure 14 LHPA‘s X X
Department of Lands – old culture of alienating land, inadequate resourcing for management of crown lands
X X X X X
Funding for management of TSR network is generated by licensing for (sometimes inappropriate) uses not by public funding
X X – $ raised too little to manage broader values
Ministerial agenda‘s – Agriculture, Lands, Planning, Mining and Forestry, Environment and associated hierarchy of NSW Legislation
X X
State budget and funding streams X X X
Natural attrition X X
Federal budget and funding streams X X X
Intangible heritage loss X X
Tourism impacts on values X
Governance structure of TSR networks (both in NSW and QLD) and administrating acts
X
1.4– Conclusions
To answer the question: what is the most appropriate national framework to protect the Travelling Stock Routes Network of NSW, it is vital to identify what values are present on the network, to clarify which of these values one wants to protect and to identify the main threats to these values.
As discussed in this chapter, TSR values are varied and sometimes in conflict. There is a spectre of threats that can broadly be summarized in five categories:
o Issues with knowledge and data collection and data management o On-ground management issues and use o Lack of or ‗biased‘ funding for management o Dysfunctional institutional and policy framework o Politics and decision-making
These threats need addressing in order to protect the networks‘ natural values.
There are many strategies to mitigate these threats possible but broadly there are two pathways that need close consideration:
22
o A strategy that seeks to protect the broad values of the TSR Network, including the natural and cultural values. This approach is likely to receive support from a wide spectre of stakeholders. Negotiation is needed where values are in conflict;
o A Strategy that focuses on protecting the natural values of the TSR Network alone, with little support from other stakeholders but environment groups.
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. However in the light of the TSR Network‘s many historic and cultural values, and in the light of the threats to the integrity of the network as a whole, a collaborative approach appears the more viable option. The key question is how can environmental outcomes be secured along the way?
23
Chapter 2
National frameworks for TSR protection
2.1 - Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 1, the NSW an QLD Stock Route Network is a unique Australian environmental and cultural heritage asset, as well as an economic asset, with an unusual geographic extent - a network rather than a place-, highly diverse land-uses and complex management arrangements. At the same time, its integrity and unique values are under threat because of a lack of base-line data and monitoring of values, unresolved conflicting management issues, issues with funding for management, issues with state legislation, issues with the institutional frameworks and politics. Currently, the TSR network does not receive optimal protection.
How can we ensure the threats are managed in a way that the TSR Network remains there to be seen, experienced and looked after by future generations? This warrants a closer look at possible national management models for protection.
There are several national frameworks to protect Australia‘s unique heritage for the long-term. Responsibility for environmental matters in Australia is split between the States1 and the Commonwealth. Although primary responsibility rests with the States, over the past decade the Commonwealth has played an increasingly active role in environmental matters (EDO, 2008a). This chapter will examine the range of national models for statutory (defined in legislation) protection available in Australia, how they provide protection for a place and the process to receiving such protection. Finally, the main national funding streams and strategies will be explored. Chapter 3 will discuss the available international frameworks for protection.
2.2 - The EPBC Act 2.2.1 - What is it and what does it protect? The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the Act as matters of national environmental significance. The EPBC Act provides protection for the following types of heritage places and items, commonly referred to as items of National Environmental Significance (NES):
Commonwealth-listed threatened species and communities Commonwealth-listed migratory species Ramsar wetlands of international importance Commonwealth marine environment National Heritage places
24
World heritage properties The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Nuclear actions
And other matters including:
the environment, where actions proposed are on, or will affect Commonwealth land
the environment, where Commonwealth agencies are proposing to take an action.
Other matters of national environmental significance can be added, by regulation, without the agreement of the States, although the States must be consulted.
EPBC Act, s 25. As at 3 September 2008, no new matters of national environmental significance have been added by regulation. Regulations can also provide that a specific action is to be treated as a ―controlled action, EPBC Act, s 25A (EDO, 2008b) 2.2.2: How does the EPBC Act protect? Under the EPBC Act you need approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for any proposed action, including projects, developments, activities, or alteration of these things, likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected by the EPBC Act. For a detailed description of the EPBC referral process, please see Appendix 2.1. Also, recovery plans may be developed for federally-listed endangered ecological communities and threatened species. Management plans are developed for certain matters of national environmental significance, such as National Heritage and Commonwealth Heritage. 2.2.3 - EPBC ACT under review The EPBC Act has recently been subject to a comprehensive review in 2008-2009 and amendments to the Act are anticipated. The final report with recommendations and all public submissions to the review are available online: Review of the EPBC Act – Final Report: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/review/publications/final-report.html
2.2.4 - The EPBC Act and the TSR Network Five categories of the above listed categories of national environmental significance are potentially relevant to the TSR Network: Commonwealth-listed threatened species and communities (2.3), Commonwealth-listed migratory species (see chapter 3.4.2), Ramsar wetlands of international importance (see chapter 3.4.3), National Heritage places (2.4) and World Heritage places (see chapter 3.2).
2.3 - Commonwealth-listed threatened species and endangered ecological communities
2.3.1 – Threatened species and endangered ecological communities on TSRs The extraordinary natural significance of the TSR network is highlighted by the large
25
number of threatened fauna and flora recorded on the network that is listed on the EPBC Act. Threatened fauna and flora may be listed in any one of the following categories as defined in Section 179 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act): Extinct Extinct in the wild* Critically endangered* Endangered* Vulnerable* Conservation dependent * Only species in those categories marked with an asterix are matters of national environmental significance (protected matters) under the EPBC Act. From a limited literature review of two research projects on TSR‘s in the Narrabri, Moree, Northern Slopes and Tamworth RLPB (Austin, 2002) and in Lachlan CMA area (Sparks, undated), the following lists of nationally-listed fauna, flora and threatened ecological communities can be derived. The lists below are by no means comprehensive, as the literature review was very limited in scope and large parts of the network have never been surveyed. However, they provide an initial insight into the plethora of nationally recognised environmental values that can be found on land comprising the TSR network. Table 2.1: EPBC-listed threatened fauna recorded on the TSR network Common name Latin name Status References –
record on TSR in NSW
Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii vulnerable Webster, R. (1998), Christie, P. (2004), ACT Government (1999), Sparks (undated)
Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor endangered Department of Environment Heritage and Water, SPRAT (2010)
Grassland Earless Dragon
Tympanocryptis pinguicolla endangered Department of Environment Heritage and Water, SPRAT (2010)
Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia Endangered and listed as migratory under the JAMBA agreement
Department of Environment Heritage and Water, SPRAT (2010)
Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinobolus dwyeri vulnerable Habitat associated with several EPBC listed EEC‘s that occur on TSR‘s. Department of Environment Heritage and Water, SPRAT (2010)
Greater Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis vulnerable Distribution associated with
26
woodland belt. Department of Environment Heritage and Water, SPRAT (2010)
Five-clawed Worm Skink Anamalopus mackayi vulnerable NPWS Wildlife Atlas (via Austin 2002)
Koala Phascolarctus cinereus under assessment Austin 2002, Personal observation
Table 2.2: EPBC-listed flora recorded on the TSR network Common name Latin name Status References
Lobed-Red Grass Bothrriochloa biloba vulnerable Austen (2002)
Ooline Cadellia pentastylis Vulnerable (also listed as EEC)
Austen (2002)
Creeping Tick-trefoil Desmodium campylocaulon endangered Austen (2002)
Dichanthium setosum vulnerable Austen (2002)
Digitaria pooecta endangered Austen (2002)
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis
vulnerable Austen (2002)
Sida rohlenae endangered Austen (2002)
Slender Darling Pea Swainsona murrayana vulnerable Austen (2002), Sparks (undated)
Austral Toad Flax Thesium australe vulnerable Austen (2002)
Tricolor Diuris Orchid Diuris tricolour vulnerable ? (pers. comm.)
Hoary Sunray Leucochrysom albicans var tricolour
endangered ? (pers. comm.)
Spiny Pepper-cress Lepidium aschersonii
Vulnerable Sparks (undated)
Tylophora linearis
Endangered Sparks (undated)
A type of Leek Orchid Prasophyllum petilum
Endangered Sparks (undated)
27
Table 2.3: EPBC-listed threatened ecological communities recorded on the TSR network Threatened ecological community
status References – record on TSR in NSW
White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland
critically endangered – The Register of the National Estate listed Somerton Rd (Lori) TSR in Tamworth RLPB is an outstanding example of this community
Austin (2002), Sparks (undated),
Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland
critically endangered Austin (2002)
Weeping Myall woodlands endangered Sparks (undated)
Natural Temperate Grassland of the Southern Tablelands of NSW and the Australian Capital Territory
endangered Environment ACT (2005)
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)
endangered Austin (2002)
Inland Grey Box Woodland Nominated by HSI, currently under assessment
Sparks (undated), HSI (2010)
Bluegrass dominant grassland of the Brigalow Belt Bioregions
endangered Austin (2002)
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions
endangered Austin (2002)
Ooline (remnant dry rainforest), only found on Berrygil Ck TSR adjoining Gamillaroi NR
Vulnerable Austin (2002)
Many studies highlight the critical importance of the TSR network for species in decline, whether they are formally listed or not. Species listed on this list only represent those nominated by someone who cared enough about their survival. There are many more fauna and flora that are listed as endangered in state legislation (or not listed at all) for which protection under this legislation is warranted and for which nominations could be prepared. The following excerpt illustrates this: TSR’s are often the best and most important refugia for threatened and endangered wildlife including Bush Stone-curlew, Superb Parrot, Brolga, Grey-crowned Babbler and Squirrel Glider in southern NSW. The nationally endangered Regent Honeyeater is dependent on TSR’s for its survival in northern NSW. Apart from the threatened wildlife and vegetation communities mentioned previously, other significant populations of threatened flora were also found on TSR’s, including Red Swainson-pea and Chariot Wheels (Davidson 2008). Studies conducted on individual parts of the network identify high biological values. However, there is a need for a comprehensive review of the ecological functions of the entire network. It would be unwise for major decisions on future management of the network to be made before such information is available (Possingham, Nix et. al 2008).
28
Additional useful resources include:
Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/
Species profiles and threats database http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl 2.3.2 - Recovery plans The Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts may make or adopt and implement recovery plans for threatened fauna, threatened flora (other than conservation dependent species) and threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. Recovery plans set out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, listed threatened species or threatened ecological communities. The aim of a recovery plan is to maximise the long term survival in the wild of a threatened species or ecological community. Recovery plans should state what must be done to protect and restore important populations of threatened species and habitat, as well as how to manage and reduce threatening processes. Recovery plans achieve this aim by providing a planned and logical framework for key interest groups and responsible government agencies to coordinate their work to improve the plight of threatened species and/or ecological communities (DEWHA 2010a). 2.3.3 – Other species and functions The TSR network also contains native habitat and vegetation considered important to the long-term persistance of EPBC Act listed species or endangered ecological communities. One can assume that some of the unique flora and fauna of the TSR network is affected by several nationally listed key threatening processes, such as firewood collection. There are also a range of state-listed species and endangered ecological communities recorded on the TSR network. There is a myriad of other ecosystem services that are not protected by any legislation. 2.4 National Heritage List 2.4.1 – Introduction This entire section is an abstract of information from the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website (as of February 2010). Heritage is all the things that make up Australia's identity - our spirit and ingenuity, our historic buildings, and our unique, living landscapes. Our heritage is a legacy from our past, a living, integral part of life today, and the stories and places we pass on to future generations (DEWHA 2010c) From the places that define who we are and tell the story of our country‘s past, to the places that reflect our revolving heritage and where we are going, the national heritage list is representative of Australia. The National Heritage list is Australia‘s list of places with outstanding heritage value to our nation. The places in the National Heritage List are those that are so special to us all that they are considered to have national heritage values. To qualify for this list they must meet one or more statutory criteria. The list compromises natural, historic and indigenous places that are of outstanding significance to Australians (DEWHA 2010d)
29
2.4.2 - The protection National Heritage Listing offers Once included in the National Heritage List a place becomes a matter of National Environmental Significance (NES) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, joining: • World Heritage places; • Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands); • Nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities; • Migratory species; • commonwealth marine areas; and • nuclear actions. The federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is responsible for administering these heritage items under the EPBC Act. Under this act, National Heritage will be protection through two mechanisms: management plans and the regulation of actions. Management plans The Minister must make a management plan to protect each National Heritage place which is within a Commonwealth area. The Minister must use their best endeavours to make plans for places that are in State or Territory areas. Management plans must not be inconsistent with National Heritage Management principles. Prohibited actions A person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the heritage values of a listed National Heritage place without approval. It is an offence to do so. Under these provisions, it is the heritage values, rather than the site itself, which are protected (DEWHA 2010e). Developments that may have a significant impact on places that are listed as a matter of NES trigger an EPBC assessment (EDO 2008b). 2.4.3 - Management of National Heritage sites Once a place is included in the National Heritage List, the owner and/or manager should aim to protect and conserve the national Heritage values of the place, along with its other heritage values. A management plan must be prepared for every commonwealth-owned national Heritage place. For places not wholly in Commonwealth ownership, the Commonwealth Government must use its best endeavours to ensure that a plan for managing a place included in the national Heritage List is prepared and implemented, in co-operation with the state or territory jurisdiction where the place is located. The plan should be consistent with the national Heritage management principles (DEWHA 2010f). Content of a management plan A management plan is a tool intended to provide sufficient information for managers to protect and manage the heritage values (local, state and national) of heritage places. It is in an owner‘s interest to prepare a management plan to guide day-to-day management, assist in decision-making and to support local, state and commonwealth approval processes. A management plan should comprehensively describe the place, state its official national heritage values and identify any other heritage listings. It should
30
specify the objectives, policies and principles that will govern the management of the place‘s heritage values and provide guidance on the preparation of project proposals to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on heritage values. It may also identify areas and items that do not embody heritage values or that are intrusive, and allow these to be removed or altered without affecting the values of the place. A management plan for a national heritage place should meet the standards of the EPBC Act. A management plan which was prepared prior to the introduction of the national heritage List in 2004 may not provide adequate consideration of, or protection for, the official national heritage values as it would predate the introduction of the List. It may, however, be possible to amend an existing plan to provide for the management of the national heritage values of the place. The existing plan will need to undergo a review process to assess if the plan meets the EPBC Act requirements and to identify those areas which may require updating. Place owners and managers commonly engage a heritage consultant to undertake this task. Should the review of the management plan conclude that the plan is sufficient to protect the national Heritage values it can be retained. If the existing plan is deemed insufficient in protecting national heritage values it will be necessary for a new management plan to be developed or amendments made to the existing plan. A management plan should be reviewed every 5 years (EPBC Act s342W). The review needs to assess if the management plan is consistent with the national heritage management principles and if it is effective in protecting and managing the national heritage values of the place. Particular events that should also trigger a review of the management plan are: • Any changes to the official national heritage values of the place; and • Any major changes to the place. The day-to-day management is the responsibility of the land-owner or manager of the site. The booklet: Working Together: Managing National Heritage Places has been developed to assist owners and managers of national Heritage places to better understand the management requirements for these places as set out under the EPBC Act and its regulations. The department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts can provide advice about management matters, works proposals, funding, and promotional materials. Heritage management principles provide a framework for excellence in managing properties. They set the standard and the scope for the way places should be managed in order to best protect heritage values for future generations ahead. The national Heritage management principles as set out in schedule 5B of the EPBC regulations should be used when preparing and implementing management plans and management arrangements for a National Heritage place. These plans are statutory on Commonwealth land but not on state land. In the absence of a management plan the principles can also guide the management of heritage values (DEWHA 2010f). What are the national heritage management principles? The national Heritage management principles are set out in the regulations (schedule 5B) of the EPBC Act and are as follows:
31
1. The objective in managing national heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their national heritage values.
2. The management of national heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their national heritage values.
3. The management of national heritage places should respect all heritage values of the place and seek to integrate, where appropriate, commonwealth, state, territory and local government responsibilities for those places.
4. The management of national heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their national heritage values.
5. The management of national heritage places should make timely and appropriate provisions for community involvement, especially by people who:
a) Have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place; and b) May be affected by the management of the place.
6. Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage. The active participation of indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of indigenous heritage values.
7. The management of national Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review and reporting on the conservation of national Heritage values.
When should the national heritage management principles be used? These principles should be used when preparing, implementing and reviewing management plans. In the absence of a management plan, they should guide the management of heritage values of a place. Where a national heritage place is owned by the Commonwealth, the agency responsible is required to manage the place in accordance with the national heritage management principles. For other owners, the Commonwealth Government will use its best endeavours to assist place managers and owners to reflect the national heritage management principles in a management plan and existing management practices (DEWHA 2010f). Where can I find the requirements for a management plan? The requirements of a management plan for a national Heritage place and the fundamental principles for appropriate heritage management are contained in the EPBC regulations (schedules 5A and 5B). These are broadly consistent with the Burra Charter (Australia icoMos, 1999) and the Australian Natural Heritage Charter (Australian Heritage commission, 2002). These publications are among a number of best practice documents that provide guidance when developing a management plan. The publication Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values (Australian Heritage Commission, 2002) should also be used as a reference for consultation with indigenous stakeholders on issues relating to the identification, management and use of places with indigenous heritage values and is include as Appendix 2.2 with this report. The Burra Charter is available from Australia icoMos or may be viewed on their website at: www.icomos.org/australia A copy of the Australian Natural Heritage Charter is available from: www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/list.html#heritage A detailed description on how to write a management plan are provided online on the Australian Government website:
32
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/protecting/pubs/national/working-together-management.pdf The Department has also published an overview of what the national heritage principles mean in practice. The overview is included as Appendix 2.3 with this report. Accreditation of the plans A management plan may be accredited by the Federal Environment Minister as part of an approvals bilateral agreement between the Australian government and a state or territory government. The management plan and the law of the state or territory under which the management plan is (or will be) in force, must meet the criteria prescribed by the EPBC Act. This includes ensuring that actions that may have a significant impact on the national Heritage values of the place and those that are inconsistent with the management plan cannot be approved. Through an accredited management plan and an associated approvals bilateral agreement, the Federal Environment Minister in effect delegates his approval powers under the EPBC Act to the relevant state or territory minister. In these circumstances any action proposed to be undertaken in accordance with an accredited management plan will not need to be referred to the Federal Environment Minister for a decision. Before the management plan can be accredited, the Minister must cause it to be put before each House of the Australian Parliament for a disallowance period of 15 sitting days. Following accreditation of the plan, the approvals bilateral agreement may be signed. Further information on bilateral agreements is available from the Heritage division of the department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA 2010f). Excerpts from the EPBC Act that apply to managing National Heritage and management plans For National Heritage Listed Places on Commonwealth Land: S 3 2 4 S Requirement to prepare management plans for places within commonwealth areas S 3 2 4 S ( 4 ) ( a ) Management plan to be prepared according to the regulations S 3 2 4 S ( 4 ) ( b ) Management plan must be consistent with the National Heritage management principles S 3 2 4 ( 6 ) ( a ) ( b ) the Minister must seek and consider public and Australian Heritage Commission comments on a management plan S 3 2 4 V Integrating management plans within existing documents S 3 2 4W
33
Five year review of management plans For National Heritage Listed Places in states and territories S 3 2 4 X Commonwealth to use best endeavours to ensure a management plan is prepared and implemented in co-operation with the state or territory. S324X(2): Commonwealth must use its best endeavours to ensure that a plan is prepared that is not inconsistent with the National Heritage management principles: S324X(3): Commonwealth must act in a way that is not inconsistent with the National Heritage management principles. EPBC Regulations Reg 10.1c, Schedule 5a Content requirements of management plans for National Heritage places. Reg 10.01e, Schedule 5B: The National Heritage management principles (DEWHA 2010g) 2.4.4 - The National Heritage listing process There are currently 79 national Heritage places which are located throughout Australia and its external territories. These include a variety of historic, indigenous and natural places. Nominating a place for the National Heritage List. The Australian government cites on its website that: the nomination and assessment processes for including places in the National and Commonwealth Heritage lists are open and consultative. The nine National Heritage List Criteria Heritage criteria, thresholds, and statutory listings are devices for identifying and protecting places we wish to keep. They are the primary means by which the heritage values of such places are articulated, and for guiding the management of these places. The National Heritage List is a list of places with outstanding natural, Indigenous or historic heritage value to the nation. The Australia Heritage Council assesses if a National Heritage List-nominated place is considered to have heritage value and is required to advise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (the Minister) if the place meets one or more of nine National Heritage List criteria. The National Heritage criteria against which the heritage values of a place are assessed are as follows. The place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of:
A. the place's importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history;
B. the place's possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's natural or cultural history;
34
C. the place's potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history;
D. the place's importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of: o a class of Australia's natural or cultural places; o or a class of Australia's natural or cultural environments;
E. the place's importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group;
F. the place's importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;
G. the place's strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;
H. the place's special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia's natural or cultural history;
I. the place's importance as part of Indigenous tradition. (DEWHA 2010h) Note: The cultural aspect of a criterion means the Indigenous cultural aspect, the non-Indigenous cultural aspect, or both. Thresholds As well as assessing a place against criteria for its heritage value, the Council is also required to apply a 'significance threshold'. This test helps the Council to judge the level of significance of a place's heritage value by asking: 'how important are these values?‘ To reach the threshold for the National Heritage List, a place must have 'outstanding' heritage value to the nation. This means that it must be important to the Australian community as a whole. To determine whether a place has 'outstanding' heritage values, it is compared to other, similar types of places. This allows the Council to determine if one place is 'more' or 'less' significant compared to other similar places, or if it is unique. The degree of significance can also relate to the geographic area, for instance, the extent of a place's significance locally, regionally, nationally or internationally. The Australian Heritage Council The Australian Heritage Council is the principal adviser to the Australian Government on heritage matters. The Council assesses nominations for the National Heritage List, and the Commonwealth Heritage List. The Minister may ask the Council for advice on action that he may take in relation to the List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia. The Council also maintains the Register of the National Estate. Once a nomination is received, the delegate for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (the Minister) decides:
o whether the nomination is vexatious, frivolous or not in good faith or o whether the nomination complies with the Regulations under the Act in relation to
the manner, form and content required. Nominations that do not pass these tests may be rejected. Nominations that pass these tests will be given to the Australian Heritage Council (the Council). Once a year, the Council must prepare a priority assessment list for consideration by the Minister. This list, when approved by the Minister, sets the work program for the Council for the next 12 months. The final assessment list is published on the internet.
35
The Council must invite public comments on whether the places under assessment have heritage values for inclusion in the heritage list for which they were nominated and whether they should be included in this list. The Council must also consult owners and occupiers of any place that it finds, during assessment, might have heritage values. The Council then gives the Minister an assessment report on the place together with copies of all comments it has received from its statutory consultations. The Minister must consider the assessment report and comments and decide whether to list or not to list the place. The nominator is advised of the decision and, if listed, the owners and occupiers of the place are advised. A list of Australian Heritage Council members is included as an appendix with this report (Appendix 2.4). The nomination process step-by-step 1. Check if the place is already listed Is the place that you are planning to nominate already on a heritage list? Review the National Heritage List at: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/index.html And review the Commonwealth Heritage List at: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/commonwealth/index.html It is also advisable to consult the database with all nominations, assessments and listings for the National Heritage List at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/heritage_ap.pl 2. Request a nomination form Each year, the Minister will invite nominations to the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists in accordance with the assessment cycle. If you would like to receive a nomination form you can complete the online ‗request for nomination kit‘ or write to: The Nominations Manager Heritage Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Tel: (02) 6274 2149 3. Review what information you will need to provide in your nomination Nominations must set out the qualities or values of the place that makes it outstanding to the nation by indicating how the place meets one or more of the heritage criteria. National Heritage List criteria Heritage criteria, thresholds, and statutory listings are devices for identifying and protecting places we wish to keep. They are the primary means by which the heritage values of such places are articulated, and for guiding the management of these places. 4. Submit the nomination form Nominations can be submitted in electronic form, eg on a computer disc.
36
Nominations must include all attachments along with a completed and signed nomination form. Nominations should be sent to the Nominations Manager in the Heritage Division. 5. What next? The Environment Minister ultimately decides whether to include a place on the List, although the Minister must follow the consultation process set out in the EPBC Act. On 19 February 2007, the EPBC Act was amended to adopt a new process (for both the National Heritage and Commonwealth Heritage Lists) which requires the Minister to consult with the public and the Australian Heritage Council before listing a place (DEWHA 2010i). Under this process, there is an annual 12-month cycle (known as assessment periods). (See for visual overview Appendix 2.5: The Annual National Heritage Nomination Cycle) 2.4.5 – State Government support for a heritage listing The state has no power to veto a National Heritage listing, but will be consulted as part of the process. However, as National Heritage Management Plans are the responsibility of the land manager (eg the NSW Government) it is difficult to see how a National Heritage nomination is going to change the on-ground management of the TSR network to the benefit of nature conservation in the short term. However, a listing could be a useful tool when looking at the big picture: to potentially slow down an anticipated further shrinking of the network caused by handing back management of parts of the TSR network to the Department of Lands who potentially sell parts off to private landholders. Nominally, a change of management that is likely to have a significant impact on the national heritage values of a nominated item triggers the EPBC Act. 2.4.6 - Emergency listings of National Heritage Under Schedule 341F of the EPBC Act, an item can be nominated for emergency listing on the National Heritage List.
The following excerpt is from the EPBC ACT SECT 341JK: Minister may include place in Commonwealth Heritage List if under threat: (1) If the Minister believes: (a) a place has or may have one or more Commonwealth Heritage values; and (b) any of those values is under threat of a significant adverse impact; and (c) that threat is both likely and imminent; the Minister may, by instrument published in the Gazette , include in the Commonwealth Heritage List the place and the Commonwealth Heritage values the Minister believes the place has or may have. Note: For which places can be included in the Commonwealth Heritage List, see subsection 341C(2). (2) If: (a) the place is included in the Commonwealth Heritage List under subsection (1); and (b) before that inclusion of the place, the place was being considered for inclusion in the List under the process set out in Subdivision BA; that process ceases to apply to the place when it is included in the List under subsection (1). Note: Subsection (2) does not prevent the process in Subdivision BA again starting to apply to the place if (for example) the place ceases to be listed because of subsection 341JP(1) or (4) and a person subsequently nominates the place under that Subdivision. (3) If the place is included in the Commonwealth Heritage List under subsection (1), the Minister must: (a) in any case--within 10 business days after the inclusion of the place, publish a copy of the instrument under subsection (1):
37
(i) on the Internet; and (ii) in accordance with any other requirements specified in the regulations; and (b) if the place is within the Australian jurisdiction--take all practicable steps to: (i) identify each person who is an owner or occupier of all or part of the place; and (ii) advise each person identified that the place has been included in the Commonwealth Heritage List. (4) If the Minister is satisfied that there are likely to be at least 50 persons referred to in subparagraph (3)(b)(i), the Minister may satisfy the requirements of paragraph (3)(b) in relation to those persons by including the advice referred to in that paragraph in one or more of the following: (a) advertisements in a newspaper, or newspapers, circulating in the area in which the place is located; (b) letters addressed to "The owner or occupier" and left at all the premises that are wholly or partly within the place;
(c) displays in public buildings at or near the place.
Australian Legal Information Institute (2010) Emergency Heritage listings have only been approved three times since the enactment of the EPBC Act (pers. comm.) The last time was in late 2009 and inscribed the Tarkine Wilderness in Tasmania on the list (Appendix 2.6: Garrett Media Release: National Heritage Emergency Listing for the Tarkine Wilderness).
Case study
National Heritage Emergency Listing for the Tarkine Wilderness 11 December 2009
From the Tarkine Coalition website: http://www.tarkine.org/
The Tarkine is one of the world‘s great wild places. It is an expansive 447,000 hectares wilderness area of recognised World Heritage significance in the North-Western corner of Tasmania, Australia‘s island state. The Tarkine contains remarkable natural and cultural values, including one of the world‘s most significant remaining tracts of temperate rainforest On 11 December 2009, The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett used emergency provisions under national environment law (EPBC Act) to include the Tarkine in the National Heritage List. This is a significant milestone in the campaign to protect the Tarkine, and dictates that the proposed Tarkine Road by Forestry Tasmania and any future developments in this region will now have to be assessed against the National Heritage Listing. The boundary of the 447,000 hectare listing follows the boundary for a proposed Tarkine National Park. From research and pers. comm:
The Tarkine was nominated in 2004 for a National Heritage Listing. It‘s been waiting in the pool of nominations for the last 5 years. The press release issued by the Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, on 11 December 2009 stating the reasons for the emergency listing, is included as an appendix with this discussion paper. For an item to be emergency-listed there are three conditions: 1) The Minister has been satisfied that the place has one or more National Heritage values, and: 2) that any one or more of those values are under significant adverse threat 3) that this threat is likely and imminent. The proponent of the proposed, highly controversial Tarkine Road is Forestry Tasmania - an arm of the Tasmanian State ALP Government. But until there was a formal referral made it was impossible to prove that the threat was likely or imminent. It is difficult to halt this type of development as a federal ALP Minister, even if under pressure by the general public to do so. It was probably easier for the Minister to wait until the development (Tarkine Road) would be
38
officially referred to the Federal Government for EPBC assessment to determine whether it was a deemed a controlled action or not. The referral by Forestry Tasmania of the proposal for the Tarkine Road (action that may have significant impact on items of NES) proved to the public and to the Federal government proved that the threat was imminent. The Tarkine Coalition thus put in a nomination for emergency National Heritage listing. The Minister then, by instrument published in the Gazette, included the place in the National Heritage priority assessment list. Such places are subsequently referred to the Australian Heritage Council for assessment – similar to a normal National Heritage Listing assessment process, albeit with amended timelines. The Minister made a final decision to inclue the Tarkine Wilderness on the National Heritage List. There is further verbal information available on the nature of some of the further factors affecting the Minister‘s decision.
The following article is an example of an emergency National Heritage nomination that was rejected in 2006.
Case study
Rejected: National Heritage Emergency nomination for The Burrup Peninsula
22 December 2006 Australian Government rejects listing for ancient site
Australian Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has turned down an application for emergency heritage listing of the Burrup Peninsula rock art site, which is under threat from a major gas installation. Senator Campbell said that while he regarded the site extremely significant, he did not believe the threat was sufficient to warrant emergency listing. The application was made by Australian Greens senator Rachel Siewert, Labor MP Carmen Lawrence and independent MP Peter Andren. The Burrup site contains hundreds of thousands of rock carvings, said to date back thousands of years. Woodside Energy Pty Ltd wants to build an onshore facility for its Pluto liquified natural gas project. The National Trust of Australia says the Burrup site, in north-west Australia, contains one of the world's largest and most important collections of petroglyphs. It says the collection of standing stones may be the largest in the world. "On the basis of evidence presented to me, which includes advice from the Australian Heritage Council, I do not consider that the perceived threat to national heritage values of the area warrants an emergency heritage listing," Senator Campbell said in a statement. Senator Campbell said he had been advised there was one standing stone within the disturbance footprint which might have national heritage values, but that Aboriginal groups in consultation with the WA government agreed the stone could be removed. "I am further advised that the values that such stones represent are found in a number of sites on the Burrup and some islands in the Archipelago," he said. "Following advice from representatives of each of the five traditional owner groups, the disturbance footprint was designed by Woodside to ensure that no engravings of high archaeological significance would be impacted by development activities." Senator Campbell said there were believed to be up to one million pieces of rock art in the Dampier Archipelago, including in the Burrup area. "Other motifs and archaeological material within the footprint will be relocated by Woodside in accordance with a cultural heritage management plan," he said. He described the whole area as a significant place, but said the perceived threat to national heritage values of the Dampier Archipelago did not warrant an emergency listing. Consequently, he had given approval to Woodside for initial preparation works at Site A, including engineering works and fencing. Professor John Mulvaney from the University of Melbourne said it was crazy the government was considering giving up the ancient carvings for the sake of development. Prof Mulvaney said the carvings
39
were very important historically. "Some date from around the time sea level got back to where it is at, six or seven thousand years ago," he said. At least 20 of the carvings, he said, are of the Tasmanian Tiger which has been extinct on the mainland for at least 3,000 years. Others were even older and extremely striking, he said. "They include human faces, very strange looking human faces, some of them look almost like medieval knights in armour."
Source: TheAge.com.au (21 December 2006), The West Australian (22 December 2006)
2.5 - Commonwealth Heritage On 19 February 2007, amendments to the EPBC Act came into force which allow heritage on Commonwealth land to be listed, managed and protected. The purpose of this type of listing is to give the Commonwealth greater control over heritage places which are located in the areas that the Commonwealth owns or controls. Commonwealth Heritage listing does not offer as much protection as National Heritage listing because, unlike National Heritage, Commonwealth Heritage is not listed as a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act (EDO 2998 c). The Commonwealth Heritage List records natural, Indigenous and historic places that:
o Have significant, rather than outstanding, heritage values; and o Are in Commonwealth areas or owned by the Commonwealth Government
In order to be listed, a place must satisfy at least one of the Commonwealth Heritage criteria as set out in the EPBC regulations. These criteria are identical to the criteria for the National Heritage List, except that they refer to the place having significant heritage value rather than outstanding heritage value. The full list of Commonwealth Heritage places can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/commonwealth/index.html A place can only be included on the Commonwealth Heritage List if it is:
o On land owned or leased by the Commonwealth (or a Commonwealth agency), o On land in an external Territory (including Antarctica, Christmas Island and
Norfolk Island) or the Jervis Bay Territory, o In Commonwealth waters, o Is outside Australia, but is owned or leased by the Commonwealth.
A Commonwealth agency must make a management plan to protect and manage the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place it owns or controls. The plan must address the matters set out in Regulations, and must not be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Heritage Management principles. The plans are binding on the Commonwealth (EDO 2008c). In NSW and QLD, sites listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List include army barracks and training sites, old post offices, lighthouses, several islands. No listed site appears to correspond with the location of the TSR network.
40
2.6 – Register of the National Estate - „The Frozen Register‟ 2.6.1 - What is the Register of the National Estate and what is its status? Register of the National Estate is a list of natural, Indigenous and historic heritage places throughout Australia. It was originally established under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Under that Act, the Australian Heritage Commission entered more than 13,000 places in the register. In 2004, responsibility for maintaining the Register shifted to the Australian Heritage Council, under the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (AHC Act). Following amendments to the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003, the Register of the National Estate (RNE) was frozen on 19 February 2007, which means that no new places can be added, or removed. The Register will continue as a statutory register until February 2012. During this period the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (the Minister) is required to continue considering the Register when making some decisions under the EPBC Act. Places on the register are not regarded as a matter of national environmental significance. This transition period also allows states, territories, local and the Australian Government to complete the task of transferring places to appropriate heritage registers where necessary and to amend legislation that refers to the RNE as a statutory list. From February 2012 all references to the Register will be removed from the EPBC Act and the AHC Act. The RNE will be maintained after this time on a non-statutory basis as a publicly available archive. On 1 January 2004, a new national heritage system was established under the EPBC Act. This led to the introduction of the National Heritage List, which was designed to recognise and protect places of outstanding heritage to the nation, and the Commonwealth Heritage List, which includes Commonwealth owned or leased places of significant heritage value. The establishment of this national system was in line with a 1997 agreement by the Council of Australian Governments that each level of government should be responsible for protecting heritage at the appropriate level. The Australian Governments role in relation to heritage is to focus on protecting places of world and national heritage significance and on ensuring Commonwealth compliance with state heritage and planning laws. Each state and territory government, and local government, has a similar responsibility for its own heritage. As a result, there is a significant level of overlap between the Register of the National Estate, and heritage lists at the national, state and territory, and local government levels (DEWHA 2010j). 2.6.2 - How will places in the Register be protected? Many places in the Register are already included in other statutory lists, such as the state heritage lists, or local government heritage registers. As a result, those places receive protection under the relevant federal, state or territory legislation, or under council bylaws. In the case of places of national or Commonwealth significance that are in the Register, some of these places are already included in the National Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage List, and therefore receive protection under the EPBC Act. The
41
Australian Government will, over the next five years, assess whether there are further places in the Register that should be included in the Commonwealth Heritage List. Registered places receive some protection under the EPBC Act if they are also included in another Commonwealth statutory heritage list or are owned or leased by the Commonwealth or an action is undertaken by the Commonwealth Government. For example, registered places owned or leased by the Commonwealth are protected from any action likely to have a significant impact on the environment. There is no provision in the EPBC Act for Register of the National Estate places to be transferred to the National Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage List. (DEWHA 2010j). This effectively means that for places to be ‗protected‘ under the EPBC act, a new nomination has to be written for the item or site for the appropriate category of protection. The Register for the National Estate is still accessible but mainly used as a reference (pers.comm). 2.6.3 - TSR network on the Register for the National Estate A comprehensive overview of places listed on the register is not available on the Government website, however the Register for the National Estate database can be searched at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl When inserting the search terms ‗stock route‘, the following results are found: The datasheets of each place have been included as an attachment with this report. Appendix 2.7. Table 2.4: NSW Stock Routes on the Register of the National Estate Name of place
Location Status of listing Class Details
Bala Travelling Stock Route Remnant Vegetation Site
Boorowa, Taylors Flat Rd, NSW
Registered* Natural See appendix 2.7, p.1
Cobb HighwayTravelling Stock Route Grasslands
Cobb Hwy, Moama NSW
Indicative Place** Natural See appendix 2.7, p.4
Newell Highway Travelling Stock Route Grasslands
Newell Hwy, Jerilderie, NSW
Indicative Place** Natural See appendix 2.7, p.5
Somerton Road Travelling Stock Route (part)
Lower Somerton Rd, Manilla, NSW
Registered* Natural See appendix 2.7, p.7
South Coree Road Grassland Site
South Coree Rd, Jerilderie, NSW
Indicative Place** Natural See appendix 2.7, p. 10
Urana - Jerilderie Road Travelling Stock Route
Jerilderie Road, Urana, NSW
Indicative Place** Natural See appendix 2.7, p. 11
* Status: Registered
Definition: The place is in the Register of the National Estate. Although some places may be legally registered because they are within a larger registered area they may not necessarily possess intrinsic significance.
42
** Status: Indicative Definition: Data provided to or obtained by the Australian Heritage Council or the former Australian Heritage Commission has been entered into the database and the place is at some stage in the assessment process. A decision on whether the place should be entered in the Register has not been made.
When searching for stock reserve, the following listed places are found: Table 2.5: NSW Stock Reserves on the Register of the National Estate Name of place
Location Status of listing Class Details
Adaminaby Saleyards Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Snowy Mountains Hwy, Adaminaby, NSW
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 13
Adaminaby Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Bolaro Rd, Adaminaby, NSW
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 14
Bondo Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Cooma, NSW Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 16
North Brother Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Cooma Dalgety Rd, Cooma, NSW
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 17
Ravensworth Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Cooma Dalgety Rd, Cooma, NSW
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 19
Rock Flat Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Monaro Hwy, Cooma, NSW, Australia
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 20
Round Plain Travelling Stock Reserve Grassland
Rocky Plains Rd, Berridale, NSW
Indicative** Natural Appendix 2.4, p. 22
** Status: Indicative Definition: Data provided to or obtained by the Australian Heritage Council or the former Australian Heritage Commission has been entered into the database and the place is at some stage in the assessment process. A decision on whether the place should be entered in the Register has not been made.
DEWHA (2010j) 2.7 – Caring for Our Country Caring for our Country is the way the Australian Government funds environmental management of its natural resources. The Australian Government is investing $2 billion to ―achieve a real and measurable difference to Australia‘s environment.‖ Caring for our Country funds projects across the country to achieve national targets - projects that improve biodiversity and sustainable farm practices. This funding supports regional natural resource management groups, local, state and territory governments, Indigenous groups, industry bodies, land managers, farmers, Landcare groups and communities (DEWHA 2010 k).
43
2.7.1 - The goal, priorities and timelines Caring for our Country aims to achieve an environment that is healthy, better protected, well-managed, resilient and provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate. In its first five years, from July 2008 to June 2013, Caring for our Country is investing funds to improve strategic outcomes across six national priority areas:
The National Reserve system
Biodiversity and Natural Icons
Coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats
Sustainable farm practices
Natural resource management in northern and remote Australia
Community skills, knowledge and engagement
Five-year outcomes have been identified for each priority and strategies that will be funded are summarized in the business plan. Hard copies of the business plan and CDs containing the business plan, site investment guides and maps will be available from Thursday 28 January 2010. You can place orders for either of these products by contacting the Caring for our Country information line on 1800 552 008 or emailing [email protected]. Information sessions regarding the business plan were held in January 2010. For a powerpoint presentation on the business plan visit: http://www.nrm.gov.au/business-plan/10-11/pubs/info-session-presentation.ppt#21 – this gives a good overview of the type of thing they fund, format of proposals, deadlines for proposals (from early Feb to early April).
2.7.2 - The National Reserve System Building the National Reserve System is one of six national priorities under the Australian Government's Caring for our Country environmental initiative. The National Reserve System is Australia's network of protected areas, conserving examples of our natural landscapes and native plants and animals for future generations. Based on a scientific framework, it is the nation's natural safety net against our biggest environmental challenges. The reserve system includes more than 9,000 protected areas covering more than 11 per cent of the country. It is made up Commonwealth, state and territory reserves, Indigenous lands and protected areas run by non-profit conservation organisations, through to ecosystems protected by farmers on their private working properties. By 2013, Caring for our Country will:
Expand the area that is protected within the National Reserve System to at least 125 million hectares (a 25 per cent increase), with priority to be given to increasing the area that is protected in under-represented bioregions.
Expand the contribution of Indigenous Protected Areas to the National Reserve System by between 8 and 16 million hectares (an increase of at least 40 per cent).
Increase from 70 per cent to 100 per cent the proportion of Australian Government-funded protected areas under the National Reserve System that are effectively implementing plans of management.
44
In 2009, a national strategy for the National Reserve System (2009-2030) was prepared. The strategy will fully guide the work on the National Reserve System in the years ahead. Each state and territory will now prepare a five-year plan to implement the strategy. These plans will support the strategy and reflect the regional differences in conserving biodiversity across the landscape and the conservation challenges they pose (DEWHA 2010k).
The NRS strategy is available on: http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/publications/nrs/nrsstrat.html The IUCN protected area management categories are a global framework, recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity, for categorizing the variety of protected area management types. There are six IUCN protected area categories, although only the first four are generally funded by Caring for our Country for the National Reserve System. The IUCN protected management categories are further explored in Chapter 3. As will be explained in this chapter, the TSR network as currently managed and defined cannot be regarded as a protected area.
In addition, it is unlikely that this years funding round for Caring for Our Country will focuss on purchasing any TSR land to add to the National Reserve System. Management of the TSR Network remains mainly a state matter but a key question for the federal government is: how can outcomes for EPBC listed EEC‘s, flora and fauna be improved by better management and how can this be achieved (pers. comm with Commonwealth Government staff on 12/02/2010).
2.7.3 - Biodiversity and natural icons By 2013, Caring for our Country will:
Increase, by at least 600,000ha, the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes. This is additional to the 125 million hectares that is to be protected within the National Reserve System.
Personal Communication with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Water (12 Feb 2010) confirms that point one under the priority ‗biodiversity and natural icons‘ is the most appropriate category to apply to the improvement of managing non-NRS-land for increased biodiversity outcomes, particularly those that benefit federally-listed endangered ecological communities and species and the improvement of existing habitat and landscape scale resilience in the face of climate change. A key aspect will be to engage managers of the TSR Network and get their support to ensure that the federal government has confidence in the on-ground management results generated by the proposed project. With respect to this category, the Caring for Our Country business plan states: Priority will be given to projects that incorporate the conservation of nationally threatened ecological species and ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act and to native habitat and vegetation considered important for the long-term persistence of EPBC-listed species and ecological communities.
45
We are interested in investing in projects which address the increasing native habitat target through one or more of the following:
- Large scale restoration works that are linked to complementary land uses and vegetation management practices
- Managing and protecting important ecological and evolutionary refugia to strengthen opportunities for adaptation in the face of a changing climate
- linking critical habitat, remnant vegetation and management practices to ensure native wildlife is protected
- creating buffer zones around protected areas - supporting the ecological functions of paddock trees - using systematic approaches to regional conservation planning to identify
priorities and strengthen management of EPBC-listed species or ecological communities
- progressing resilience-based assessments of landscapes and regions to identify critical thresholds and opportunities for adaptation in the face of a changing climate
- using appropriate market-based approaches to achieve the targets (Commonwealth of Australia 2010).
2.7.4 - Other relevant Caring for Our Country priorities
Improving management of critical aquatic habitats with a focus priority sites in the Ramsar estate, particularly sites in northern and remote Australia
Improving management for an additional 25 per cent of (non-Ramsar) priority coastal and inland high conservation value aquatic ecosystems including, as a priority, sites in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Remote and northern Australia, including Far North West NSW (not the NSW Central Division)
Community skills, knowledge and engagement (DEWHA 2010k) 2.7.5 – Summary and conclusions Caring for our Country invests in several strategies that could be applied to the TSR Network: supporting the purchase of lands for the National Reserve System, the expansion of Indigenous Protected Areas and management of those reserves owned and managed by the Commonwealth Government. However, personal communication confirms these priorities are unlikely to invest in purchasing lands from the TSR Network. There are also off-reserve strategies that complement the investment in the reserve system, in particular to increase, by at least one million hectares, the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes. Depending on what protection framework is deemed viable for the TSR Network, funding could be obtained to improve the management of TSR‘s if the on-ground results of federally-listed species can be guaranteed, however these would need support from the current land managers involved. 2.8 - National Biodiversity strategy Australia's first national biodiversity strategy, the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, was prepared by the Australian and New Zealand
46
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in 1996. The strategy fulfills Australia's obligations under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. A review of the National Biodiversity Strategy has been conducted by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and a new draft strategy has been release for comment, a final strategy is expected to be endorsed in April 2010 (DEWHA 2010L). The draft strategy specifically recognises the importance of stock routes, p.9: “We have a lot to learn from the experiences and actions of past stewards of our land. We have learnt lessons, for example, on the use of fire from our Indigenous land managers, the importance of setting aside public lands such as stock routes to help us to deal with the highly variable climate that we live in, and the need to maintain and manage public lands for water conservation, forests, recreation and culture.” (DEWHA 2010m) However, the draft strategy fails to include any action to conserve these important conservation assets that are at great risk of being ‗sold off‘ by State Governments (Greening Australia 2009). The mention of the TSR Network in the National Biodiversity Strategy is an important political lever in obtaining federal government support for projects that will benefit the conservation of the TSR Network. 2.9 – Summary and conclusions Nationally, there is a range of conservation frameworks that apply or could be applied to the TSR Network. The network hosts a large variety of endangered ecological communities that are listed on the EPBC Act and management strategies are defined for the ones for which a (draft) recovery plan has been developed. The TSR Network is a likely candidate for National Heritage Listing. However such a listing requires detailed information about the geographic extent and boundaries of the network. Such a listing would also assume some solid state government cooperation, however this is not necessary. Several TSRs are listed on the Register for the National Estate but their listing is no longer federally relevant unless they have been nominated on one of the newer national lists. It would be good to follow up whether these sites are now formally listed on the appropriate state registers and lists. Caring for our Country offers funding opportunities to increase the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes and again the TSR network would be a candidate for this funding, however as this stream of funding focuses on management regimes, the support of the managers of the TSR network are a necessity. The TSR Network is recognised in the national biodiversity strategy, and this is an important political lever to obtain Federal government support for its improved management, although no actions have been identified in the strategy to achieve this.
47
Chapter 3 International frameworks and agreements for site protection 3.1 - Introduction This chapter explores the international frameworks available for natural heritage protection in Australia and whether they would apply to the TSR Network. Paragraph 3.2 describes the process of a World Heritage listing and explores whether the TSR Network would qualify for such a listing. Paragraph 3.3 explores the IUCN definition of a protected area and the six identified categories of protected areas. This definition and categories are then applied to the TSR network to explore how the network can receive ‗protected area status‘ and which protected area status would be most suited. Paragraph 3.4 describes other relevant international treaties that Australia is a signatory to, such as agreements to protect internationally-listed migratory species and the Ramsar convention on wetlands. Paragraph 3.5 looks at Biosphere Reserves. Paragraph 3.6 explores the concept of Important Bird Areas (IBA‘s). Chapter 4 will compare the frameworks presented in Chapter 2 and 3 and will make recommendations on the direction for the project to protect the values of the TSR Network. 3.2 - World Heritage 3.2.1 - Introduction World Heritage sites are natural and cultural sites of universal significance to mankind. Each has been chosen for their enormous value to the people of the world and represent our greatest natural and cultural treasures. Sites include famous places known to all people, such as the Pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal, the Grand Canyon and the Great Barrier Reef. World Heritage is about recognising these sites and their universal significance. It is also about ensuring that their enormous heritage value is passed on to future generations. Australia was the 7th country to sign the convention which is now ratified by over 180 countries worldwide (Department of Environment and Conservation WA, 2010). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC ACT) provides for the Australia-wide implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Australia World Heritage is categorised as a matter of national significance under the Act.
3.2.2 - The World Heritage Convention Concern for the world‘s significant natural and cultural treasures led the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) to adopt the Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage, or the World Heritage Convention, as it is more commonly known, at its 17th session in Paris on 16 November 1972. The most significant feature of the 1972 World Heritage Convention is that it links together in a single document the concepts of nature conservation and the preservation
48
of cultural properties. The Convention recognizes the way in which people interact with nature, and the fundamental need to preserve the balance between the two. In August 1974, Australia became the seventh of the first countries to ratify the Convention. The Convention came into force in 1975. The convention provides for the establishment of an international list of places of 'outstanding universal natural or cultural heritage value: the World Heritage List (UNESCO 2010a). Aims The World Heritage Convention aims to promote cooperation among nations to protect heritage around the world that is of such outstanding universal value that its conservation is important for current and future generations. It is intended that, unlike the seven wonders of the ancient world, properties on the World Heritage List will be conserved for all time (Australian Government, 2010a). The role and responsibility of participating nations States that are parties to the Convention agree to identify, protect, conserve, and present World Heritage properties. States recognise that the identification and safeguarding of heritage located in their territory is primarily their responsibility. They agree to do all they can with their own resources to protect their World Heritage properties. They agree, amongst other things, as far as possible to:
o 'adopt a general policy that aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programs'
o undertake 'appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of this heritage'
o refrain from 'any deliberate measures which might damage, directly or indirectly, the cultural and natural heritage' of other Parties to the Convention, and to help other Parties in the identification and protection of their properties (Australian Government 2010a).
Administering the World Heritage Convention The World Heritage Convention is administered by a World Heritage Committee, which meets annually and consists of 21 members elected from those States that are parties to the Convention. Elections are held every two years and members are generally elected for four years. Australia has been a member of the Committee on a number of occasions. In October 2007, Australia was elected as a member of the Committee for a four year term. The Committee's main tasks are to:
o decide on the inscription of new properties on the World Heritage List o discuss all matters relating to the implementation of the Convention o consider requests for international assistance o advise State Parties on how they can ensure States meet their obligations under
the Convention to protect World Heritage Properties o administer the World Heritage Fund.
The Committee is supported by a small secretariat, the World Heritage Centre, which is a part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) based in Paris, France (Australian Government 2010a).
49
3.2.3 - The World Heritage List The Convention establishes a list of properties that have outstanding universal value, called the World Heritage List. These properties are part of the cultural and natural heritage of States that are Parties to the Convention. Potential World Heritage Sites are nominated by the national government of the member country. UNESCO assesses each proposed site against a list of ten criteria and to gain World Heritage status the site must meet at least one of the four natural criteria and/or one of the six cultural criteria for selection. Only sites which are deemed to be of outstanding universal significance are awarded World Heritage status. Having a property inscribed on the World Heritage list provides international recognition which promotes local and national pride, and engenders feelings of responsibility to protect the area. World Heritage listing can also promote greater tourism opportunities, accompanying increases in employment and revenue generation. Increased funding to these sites can improve the provision of facilities which enhances the visitor's experience (Australian Government 2010a). As of February 2010 there are 890 sites on the World Heritage List. The list includes cultural properties, natural properties and properties that meet both cultural and natural criteria. The only site ever removed from the World Heritage List was the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) which was de-listed in July 2007. The full list of world heritage sites can be viewed here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The list with Australian properties inscribed on the World Heritage list can be viewed here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/au 3.2.4 Managing World Heritage places The way in which a world heritage place is managed can have an impact on its heritage values. Management arrangements are therefore required for each Australian property included on the World Heritage List. The Commonwealth considers such plans as vital in implementing Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention (Australian Government, 2010b). Management objectives The primary management objectives for World Heritage properties are part of Australia's general obligations under the World Heritage Convention:
o to protect, conserve and present the World Heritage values of the property o to integrate the protection of the area into a comprehensive planning program o to give the property a function in the life of the Australian community o to strengthen appreciation and respect of the property's World Heritage values,
particularly through educational and information programs o to keep the community broadly informed about the condition of the World
Heritage values of the property o to take appropriate scientific, technical, legal, administrative and financial
measures necessary for achieving the foregoing objectives. o In achieving these primary objectives due regard is given to: o ensuring the provision of essential services to communities within and adjacent
to a property o allowing provision for use of the property which does not have a significant
impact on the World Heritage values and their integrity
50
o recognising the role of current management agencies in the protection of a property's values
o the involvement of the local community in the planning and management of a property.
Management arrangements In Australia management arrangements vary from property to property:
o Willandra Lakes Region, Gondwana Rainforests of Australia, Lord Howe Island, Shark Bay, the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte), the Tasmanian Wilderness, Macquarie Island, the Greater Blue Mountains Area, Purnululu, Fraser Island, the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens, and the Sydney Opera House are managed by government agencies in their respective States.
o In the case of the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland, joint State/Commonwealth management arrangements apply. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is the Commonwealth agency responsible for overall management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the World Heritage Area, and the Queensland Government, particularly the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, provides day-to-day management. The Wet Tropics Management Authority was formed to develop policy and carry out planning for the World Heritage Area with day-to-day management being carried out by State government agencies.
o Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is owned by the Aboriginal community, which leases it to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Director manages the property as a national park.
o Parts of Kakadu National Park are Aboriginal land and the remaining Commonwealth-owned land is currently subject to land claims. The Director of National Parks and Wildlife is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Park.
o The Heard and McDonald Islands Group is an Australian Territory with day-to-day management being the responsibility of the Australian Antarctic Division.
(Australian Government 2010c) An example of a WH property strategic plan (Shark Bay, Western Australia) Appendix 3.1 presents the summary of the strategic plan for Shark Bay World Heritage site. The document provides a summary of the comprehensive strategic plan for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. The strategic plan outlines the goals, objectives and strategies that all levels of government and the community have supported for the property‘s future over the next 12 years. It also provides management direction and guidance for agencies, organisations, committees and individuals. The strategic plan provides a planning framework for managing the Shark Bay World Heritage Property and meeting international, national and state obligations. It outlines World Heritage Convention requirements and the legislative framework across the property. The aim of the plan is to help land and marine managers, World Heritage Property committees and community members understand the value of World Heritage and their roles and responsibilities related to it (Department of Environment and Conservation WA, 2008).
51
3.2.5 - Nomination process Only countries that have signed the World Heritage Convention, pledging to protect their natural and cultural heritage, can submit nomination proposals for properties on their territory to be considered for inclusion in UNESCO‘s World Heritage List (UNESCO, 2010b).
1 - Tentative List
The first step a country must take is to make an ‗inventory' of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This ‗inventory' is known as the Tentative List, and provides a forecast of the properties that a State Party (Australian Federal Government) may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which may be updated at any time. It is an important step since the World Heritage Committee cannot consider a nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List unless the property has already been included on the State Party's Tentative List.
2 – The Nomination File
By preparing a Tentative List and selecting sites from it, a State Party can plan when to present a nomination file. The World Heritage Centre offers advice and assistance to the State Party in preparing this file, which needs to be as exhaustive as possible, making sure the necessary documentation and maps are included. The nomination is submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review and to check it is complete. Once a nomination file is complete the World Heritage Centre sends it to the appropriate Advisory Bodies for evaluation.
3 - The Advisory Bodies
A nominated property is independently evaluated by two Advisory Bodies mandated by the World Heritage Convention: the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which respectively provide the World Heritage Committee with evaluations of the cultural and natural sites nominated. The third Advisory Body is the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an intergovernmental organization which provides the Committee with expert advice on conservation of cultural sites, as well as on training activities.
4 - The World Heritage Committee
Once a site has been nominated and evaluated, it is up to the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee to make the final decision on its inscription. Once a year, the Committee meets to decide which sites will be inscribed on the World Heritage List. It can also defer its decision and request further information on sites from the States Parties.
5 - The Criteria for Selection
To be included on the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value
52
and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which, besides the text of the Convention, is the main working tool on World Heritage. The criteria are regularly revised by the Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage concept itself.
Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines, only one set of ten criteria exists (UNESCO 2010b)
3.2.6 - The Criteria for Selection To be included in the World Heritage List, sites must be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. These criteria are explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention which, besides the text of the Convention, is the main working tool on World Heritage. The criteria are regularly revised by the Committee to reflect the evolution of the World Heritage concept itself (UNESCO 2010c). Until the end of 2004, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six cultural and four natural criteria. With the adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, only one set of ten criteria exists.
Cultural criteria Natural criteria
Operational Guidelines 2002 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Operational Guidelines 2005 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (vii) (x)
Selection criteria:
i. to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; ii. to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or
within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
iii. to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
iv. to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
v. to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;
vi. to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);
vii. to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
viii. to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
53
ix. to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
x. to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also important considerations. Since 1992 significant interactions between people and the natural environment have been recognized as cultural landscapes (UNESCO 2010c). 3.2.7 - Tentative List Process Tentative Lists of all States Parties (eg the Australian Government) submitted in conformity with the Operation Guidelines. 2007, out of 186 States Parties to the Convention, 166 have submitted a Tentative List. A Tentative List is an inventory of those properties which each State Party intends to consider for nomination during the following years. States Parties are encouraged to submit in their Tentative Lists, properties which they consider to be cultural and/or natural heritage of outstanding universal value and therefore suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. States Parties are encouraged to prepare their Tentative Lists with the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, NGOs and other interested parties and partners. States Parties should submit Tentative Lists, which should not be considered exhaustive, to the World Heritage Centre, preferably at least one year prior to the submission of any nomination. States Parties are encouraged to re-examine and re-submit their Tentative List at least every ten years. States Parties are requested to submit their Tentative Lists using a Tentative List Submission Format, in English or French, containing the name of the properties, their geographical location, a brief description of the properties, and justification of their outstanding universal value. Nominations to the World Heritage List will not be considered unless the nominated property has already been included on the State Party's Tentative List (UNESCO 2010d). Tentative List in Australia Australia has the following properties inscribed on the tentative list: Australian Convict Sites (16/06/2000) Great Sandy World Heritage Area (04/01/2010) Ningaloo Reef and Cape Range peninsula (01/07/2008) And only on 6 January 2010, the Australian Government, in cooperation with the Western Australian Government, nominated the Ningaloo Coast for World Heritage listing. Appendix 3.2 – Press release of Federal Minister Peter Garrett regarding the nomination of the Ningaloo Coast for World Heritage 6 January 2010.
54
3.2.8 - The World Heritage Fund A trust fund, the World Heritage Fund for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value (the World Heritage Fund), is established under the Convention. The Fund is financed by contributions from state parties and contributions from private organisations and individuals. Funds are used when state parties request assistance to protect their World Heritage-listed sites, and to meet the urgent conservation needs of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. State parties can request international assistance from the World Heritage Fund for studies, provision of experts and technicians, training of staff and specialists, and the supply of equipment. They can also apply for long-term loans and, in special cases, non-repayable grants (Australian Government 2010a). 3.2.9 - Global Strategy In 1994, the World Heritage Committee launched the Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List. Its aim is to ensure that the List reflects the world's cultural and natural diversity of outstanding universal value. Twenty-two years after the adoption of the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the World Heritage List lacked balance in the type of inscribed properties and in the geographical areas of the world that were represented. Among the 410 properties, 304 were cultural sites and only 90 were natural and 16 mixed, while the vast majority is located in developed regions of the world, notably in Europe. This section includes the objectives of the Global Strategy, analysis of the need for it, on-going effects and related conferences and studies (UNESCO 2010e). The objectives of the Global Strategy By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage to better reflect the full spectrum of our world‘s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention. This new vision goes beyond the narrow definitions of heritage and strives to recognize and protect sites that are outstanding demonstrations of human coexistence with the land as well as human interactions, cultural coexistence, spirituality and creative expression. Crucial to the Global Strategy are efforts to encourage countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare Tentative Lists and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently not well-represented on the World Heritage List (UNESCO 2010e). Analysis A global study carried out by ICOMOS from 1987 to 1993 revealed that Europe, historic towns and religious monuments, Christianity, historical periods and ‗elitist‘ architecture (in relation to vernacular) were all over-represented on the World Heritage List; whereas, all living cultures, and especially ‗traditional cultures‘, were underrepresented. At its 28th session in 2004, the World Heritage Committee reviewed more recent analyses of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists prepared by ICOMOS and IUCN. Both analyses were carried out on regional, chronological, geographical and thematic basis‘ in order to evaluate the progress of the Global Strategy.
55
ICOMOS‘ study found that the reasons for the gaps in the World Heritage List fall into two main categories: structural – relating to the World Heritage nomination process, and to managing and protecting cultural properties; and qualitative – relating to the way properties are identified, assessed and evaluated. IUCN‘s study pointed out that the natural and mixed sites currently inscribed on the World Heritage List cover almost all regions and habitats of the world with a relatively balanced distribution. However, there are still major gaps in the World Heritage List for natural areas such as: tropical/temperate grasslands, savannas, lake systems, tundra and polar systems, and cold winter deserts (UNESCO 2010e). On-going efforts Since the launching of the Global Strategy, 39 new countries have ratified the World Heritage Convention, many from small Pacific Island States, Eastern Europe, Africa and Arab States. The number of countries around the globe that have signed the World Heritage Convention in the course of the last ten years has risen from 139 to 178. The number of States Parties who have submitted Tentative Lists complying with the format established by the Committee has grown from 33 to 132. New categories for World Heritage sites have also been promoted, such as the categories of cultural landscapes, itineraries, industrial heritage, deserts, coastal-marine and small-island sites. Important conferences and thematic studies aimed at implementing the Global Strategy have been held in Africa, the Pacific and Andean sub-regions, the Arab and Caribbean regions, central Asia and south-east Asia. These well-focused studies have become important guides for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in these regions. In an effort to further enhance the underrepresented categories of sites and improve geographical coverage, the World Heritage Committee has recently decided to limit the number of nominations that can be presented by each State Party and the number of nominations it will review during its session. The World Heritage Committee works in cooperation with every State Party to the World Heritage Convention as well as its three Advisory Bodies: ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, in order to make greater strides in diversifying the World Heritage List and make it truly balanced and representative of the world‘s heritage (UNESCO 2010e). 3.2.10 – Summary and conclusions The first step a country must take is to make an ‗inventory' of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This ‗inventory' is known as the Tentative List. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for this process and works with the respective state Governments. The property must have outstanding, universal value and the values of a place must address at least one of the World Heritage selection criteria. There is a limit on how many places Australia can nominate for the tentative list. Although it is quite possible that the TSR Network would meet some of the world heritage criteria (notably V and X), one must consider that it will have to compete with many other Australian places for nomination on the tentative list, including places like the Tarkine Wilderness. Often state cooperation is necessary for listing a property under state management. Also, extensive, detailed information is required to prepare the nomination and one would assume that this information includes a clear delineation of
56
the property‘s boundaries. This is data that needs to be obtained from the NSW Government and it appears that much of this data is in varied condition or even absent. A National Heritage Nomination may provide a necessary first step to collect the required data for demonstrating the TSR Network‘s national natural and cultural heritage values. It would be a good process to explore how much support the Australian Government and the state Government are willing to provide. It appears that close cooperation with both entities is required to gain this support. 3.3 - Protected areas: IUCN categories 3.3.1 - Introduction The IUCN protected area management categories are a global framework, recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity, for categorizing the variety of protected area management types. Squeezing the almost infinite array of approaches into six categories can never be more than an approximation. For many conservationists, and others, they represent a critical overarching framework that helps to shape the management and the priorities of protected areas around the world (Dudley, 2008). Consistency in comparing protected areas across Australia is achieved by the allocation and use of an internationally defined set of management categories, known as IUCN (World Conservation Union) categories. There are six IUCN protected area categories, although only the first four are generally funded by Caring for our Country for the National Reserve System (Australian Government 2010d). The following information comes from the IUCN document: Guidelines for applying protected area management categories (Dudley, 2008). 3.3.2 Definition of a protected area The new IUCN definition of a protected area (since 2007) is as follows: A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. In applying the categories system, the first step is to determine whether or not the site meets this definition and the second step is to decide on the most suitable category. Table 3.1: Explanation of the IUCN protected area definition
Phrase Explanation Examples and further details TSR Network
Clearly defined geographical space
Includes land, inland water, marine and coastal areas or a combination of two or more of these. ―Space‖ has three dimensions, e.g., as when the airspace above a protected area is protected from low-flying aircraft or in marine protected areas when a certain water depth is protected or the seabed is protected but water
Wolong nature reserve in Chia (category la, terrestrial); Lake Malawi National Park in Malawi (category II, mainly freshwater); Masonic and Oyon Bay Marine Reserve I the Philippines (category la, mainly marine) are examples o areas in very different biomes but all are protected areas
X
Topographic extent has not been fully
mapped (not polygons, but lines)
57
above is not: conversely subsurfaces areas sometimes are not protected (e.g., are open for mining). ―Clearly defined‖ implies a spatially defined area with agreed and demarcated borders. These borders can sometimes be defined by physical features that move over time (e.g. river banks) or by management actions (e.g., agreed no-take zones).
Recognised Implies that protection can include a range of governance types declared by people as well as those identified by the state, but that such sites should be recognised in some way (in particular through listing on the World Database on Protected Areas - WDPA)
Anindlyakwa Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) was self-declared by Aboriginal communities in te Groote Eylandt peninsula, one of the many self-declared IPA‘s recognised by the Australian Government.
Questionable
The TSR Network is recognised as Crown
land for which management is vested
in Livestock Health and Pest Management
Authorities.
Dedicated Implies specific binding commitment to conservation in the long term, through e.g.:
o International convenants an agreements
o National, provincial and local law
o Convenants of NGOs o Private Trusts and
company policies o Certification
Schemes
Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park in Tasmania, Australia Category II, state); Nabanka Fish Sanctuary in the Phillipines (community conserved area); Port Susan Bay reserve in Washington, USA (private) are all protected areas, but their legal structure differs considerably.
X
Conservation activities on TSR land are not
binding
Managed Assumes some active steps to conserve the natural (and possibly other) values for which the protected area was established; note that managed‖ can include a decision to leave the area untouched of this is the best conservation strategy
Many options are possible. For instance Kaziranga National Park in India (Category II) is managed mainly through poaching controls and removal of invasive species; islands in the Archipelago National Park in Finland are managed using traditional farming methods to maintain species associated with meadows.
X
TSR Network is managed by LHPA‘s
but for conflicting uses, including those
that damage the values of the TSR
Network
Legal of other effective means
Means that protected areas must either be gazetted (that is, recognised through an international convention or agreement, or else managed thrugh other effective but non-gazetted means, such as through recognised traditional rules under which community conserved areas operate or the policies of established non-governmental organisations.
Flinders Range National Park in Australia is managed by the state authority of South Australia; Attenborough Nature Reserve in the UK is managed by the county Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust in association with the gravel company that owns the site; and the Alto Fragua Indiwasi National Park in Colombia is managed by the Ingano peoples
X
TSR Reserves are Crown land with a
specific management agreement. Lands can change in crown land status without gazettal
and the area recognised by
Livestock Health and Pest Management
Authorities is shrinking every year (now
500,000ha in NSW)
…to achieve Implies some level of effectiveness – a new element that was not present in the 1994 definition but which has been strongly requested by many protected area managers an others. Although the category will still be determined
The Convention on Biological Diversity is asking Parties to carry out management effectiveness assessments
Questionable
Many issues with conflicting
management issues and resourcing of
management
58
by objective, management effectiveness will progressively be recorded on the World Database on Protected Areas and over time will become an important contributory criterion I identification and recognition of protected areas.
Long-term Protected areas should be managed in perpetuity and not as a short-term or temporary management strategy
Temporary measures. Such as short-term grant-funded agricultural set-asides, rotations in commercial forest management or temporary fishing protection zones are not protected areas as recognised by IUCN.
X
the area recognised by Livestock Health
and Pest Management Authorities is shrinking
every year (now 500,000ha in NSW)
Conservation In the context of this definition conservation refers to the in-situ maintenance of ecosystems and natural and semi-natural habitats and of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species (see definition of agrobiodiversity in the Appendix), in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.
Yellowstone National Park in the US (category II) has conservation aims focused in particular on maintaining viable populations of bears and wolves but with wider aims of preserving the entire functioning ecosystem.
Questionable
The TSR network‘s natural values can be
regarded as accidental values, eg the network was not designed to
protect them and management still
focuses primarily on maintaining the
economic values of the network,
conservation values are protected where
deemed not in conflict with primary economic
use
Nature In this context, nature always refers to biodiversity, at genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda (category II) is managed primarily to protect natural mountain forests and particularly the mountain gorilla. The Island of Rum National Nature Reserve in Scotland (category IV) was set up to protect unique geological features.
Associated Ecosystem services
Means here ecosystem services that are related to but not interfere with the aim of nature conservation. These can include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such s recreational, spiritual, religious and other non-material benefits,
Many protected areas also supply ecosystem services: e.g., Gunung Gede National Park in Java, Indonesia (Category II) helps supply fresh water to Jakarta; and the Sundarbans National Park in Bangladesh Category IV) helps to protect the coast against flooding.
Cultural values Includes those that do not intervene with the conservation outcome (all cultural values in a protected area should meet this criterion), including in particular:
o Those that contribute to the conservation outcomes (e.g., traditional
Many protected areas contain sacred sites, e.g., Nyika National Park in Malawi has a sacred pool, waterfall and mountain. Traditional management of forests to supply timber for temples in Japan has resulted in some of the most ancient forests in the country,
.
59
management practices on which key species have become reliant);
o Those that are themselves under threat.
such as the protected primeval forest outside Nara. The Kaya forests of coastal Kenya are protected both for their biodiversity and their cultural values.
Dudley (2008) 3.3.3 - Applying IUCN protected areas definition to the TSR network A cross-check of the IUCN protected area definition with the TSR Network attributes presents an extra column in table 3.1. As can be derived from this overview, the TSR Network currently does not qualify as a protected area. There are substantial issues with the definition of the network (exact geographic extent), recognition, dedication of the land, management, legal frameworks and effectiveness of the protection of environmental values. In addition, the land is not securely set aside, and may change hands. All these issues have to be considered and addressed before the TSR Network can be recognised, according to IUCN standards, as a protected area. 3.3.4 – The NRS and IUCN Categories The largest portion (40 per cent) of the protected area estate in Australia is categorised as National Park (IUCN Category II). On average the largest size of a protected area is Wilderness (Category IB) averaging more than 100,000 hectares, which is more than twice the size of the next largest category National Parks at 43,000 hectares. The large size of these protected area categories indicates they are sufficiently large to meet management objectives of protecting wilderness values and landscape scale biodiversity values. The smallest category is IUCN category III, Natural Monuments, averaging just under 500 hectares. These protected areas are established for the purpose of protecting specific natural features and remnants, which are generally restricted to smaller sites. Two thirds of all protected areas are considered to be strictly protected, falling within IUCN categories I to IV. They include more than 7500 protected areas covering more than 63 million hectares. The remaining 1200 protected areas (category V and VI) are multiple use covering more than 26 million hectares. See Appendix 3.3 for a map of the National Reserve System in classified for each IUCN potected area category. 3.3.5 - Applying IUCN protected areas categories to the TSR network If all of the above mentioned issues were addressed for the TSR Network to qualify for a protected area, which protected area category would apply to the TSR Network best? Table 3.2 - The six categories of IUCN protected areas
IUCN Category
Summary Description Primary objective
La Strict nature reserve: protected area managed mainly for science
Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts
To conserve regionally, nationally or globally outstanding ecosystems, species (occurrences or aggregations) and/or geodiversity features: these
60
are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring.
attributes will have been formed mostly or entirely by non-human forces and will be degraded or destroyed when subjected to all but very light human impact.
lb Wilderness area: protected prea managed mainly for wilderness protection
Protected areas are usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.
To protect the long-term ecological integrity of natural areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity, free of modern infrastructure and where natural forces and processes predominate, so that current and future generations have the opportunity to experience such areas.
II National park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation
Protected areas are large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities
To protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying ecological structure and supporting environmental processes, and to promote education and recreation.
III Natural monument or feature: protected area managed for conservation of specific natural features
Protected areas are set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value.
To protect specific outstanding natural features and their associated biodiversity and habitats.
IV Habitat/species management area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention
Protected areas aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.
To maintain, conserve and restore species and habitats.
V Protected landscape/seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation
A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its
To protect and sustain important landscapes/seascapes and the associated nature conservation and other values created by interactions with humans through traditional management practices.
61
associated nature conservation and other values.
VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems
Protected areas are generally large, with much of the area in a more-or-less natural condition and where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.
To protect natural ecosystems and use natural resources sustainably, when conservation and sustainable use can be mutually beneficial.
Dudley 2008 It is difficult to allocate one IUCN model for the entire TSR Network. Each parcel of land has a unique combination of environmental values, uses and management regimes. Conversations with DEWHA confirm that it would perhaps be more appropriate to assess all parcels for their conservation values, to confirm what level of protection can be guaranteed for parcels with high conservation value land and seek to adjust their land tenure and management accordingly. It would be more likely that parts of the network receive formal protection because of their unique individual values and local support for management for their environmental values than that the entire network can be protected because of its entire function in the landscape. Formal protection of the entire network appears to be nearly impossible. The most likely candidate for these individual parcels of land, it appears, is a Category IV reserve as this is nominally the category that protects smaller fragments of representative ecosystems and reserves where active management regimes are applied to sustain a certain key species (eg active fire management in a certain protected heath ecosystem to sustain ground parrot numbers). This active management, however, is not a prerequisite. Category III could apply for those locations where the landscape feature represents a natural monument that has a strong cultural attachment, such as a waterhole or a gorge. Category II could apply where the TSR expands a national park. Category V reserves are about maintaining the ecological values of a cultural landscape and does not apply if the focus is limited to TSRs. Category V demands focus on a larger scale where an entire cultural landscape is protected, and it is difficult to see how the entire NSW wheat-sheep belt could fit this picture. Perhaps a small region could be managed as such, if there was the support to do so. Category VI assumes a low level of sustainable use of natural resources in the protected area. The Federal Government does not regard traveling stock as a sustainable use of resources, as the old ―Long Paddock approach‖ often takes a full advantage of pastures and are actively grazing down the understory. Only if the ―Long Paddock‖ traveling stock approach is effectively disallowed and if there is an effectively enforced limit to the acceptable level of non-consecutive cattle and sheep grazing – preferably backed by a scientific study - is there a chance that the TSR network could qualify in this category (pers. comm).
62
It must also be noted that only the first four protected area categories are generally funded by Caring for our Country for the National Reserve System (Australian Government 2010d). 3.3.6 - Category IV - Habitat species management area Category IV protected areas aim to protect particular species or habitats (for instance a nationally-listed threatened species) and management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category. Primary objective To maintain, conserve and restore species and habitats. Other objectives:
o To protect vegetation patterns or other biological features through traditional management approaches;
o To protect fragments of habitats as components of landscape or seascape-scale conservation strategies;
o To develop public education and appreciation of the species and/or habitats concerned;
o To provide a means by which the urban residents may obtain regular contact with nature.
Distinguishing features Category IV protected areas usually help to protect, or restore: 1) flora species of international, national or local importance; 2) fauna species of international, national or local importance including resident or migratory fauna; and/or 3) habitats. The size of the area varies but can often be relatively small; this is however not a distinguishing feature. Management will differ depending on need. Protection may be sufficient to maintain particular habitats and/or species. However, as category IV protected areas often include fragments of an ecosystem, these areas may not be self-sustaining and will require regular and active management interventions to ensure the survival of specific habitats and/or to meet the requirements of particular species. A number of approaches are suitable:
o Protection of particular species: to protect particular target species, which will usually be under threat (e.g., one of the last remaining populations);
o Protection of habitats: to maintain or restore habitats, which will often be fragments of ecosystems;
o Active management to maintain target species: to maintain viable populations of particular species, which might include for example artificial habitat creation or maintenance (such as artificial reef creation), supplementary feeding or other active management systems;
o Active management of natural or semi-natural ecosystems: to maintain natural or semi-natural habitats that are either too small or too profoundly altered to be self-sustaining, e.g., if natural herbivores are absent they may need to be replaced by
63
livestock or manual cutting; or if hydrology has been altered this may necessitate artificial drainage or irrigation;
o Active management of culturally-defined ecosystems: to maintain cultural management systems where these have a unique associated biodiversity. Continual intervention is needed because the ecosystem has been created or at least substantially modified by management. The primary aim of management is maintenance of associated biodiversity.
Active management means that the overall functioning of the ecosystem is being modified by e.g., halting natural succession, providing supplementary food or artificially creating habitats: i.e., management will often include much more than just addressing threats, such as poaching or invasive species, as these activities take place in virtually all protected areas in any category and are therefore not diagnostic. Category IV protected areas will generally be publicly accessible. Role in the landscape/seascape Category IV protected areas frequently play a role in ―plugging the gaps‖ in conservation strategies by protecting key species or habitats in ecosystems. They could, for instance, be used to:
o Protect critically endangered populations of species that need particular management interventions to ensure their continued survival;
o Protect rare or threatened habitats including fragments of habitats; o Secure stepping-stones (places for migratory species to feed and rest) or
breeding sites; o Provide flexible management strategies and options in buffer zones around, or
connectivity conservation corridors between, more strictly protected areas that are more acceptable to local communities and other stakeholders;
o Maintain species that have become dependent on cultural landscapes where their original habitats have disappeared or been altered.
What makes category IV unique? Category IV provides a management approach used in areas that have already undergone substantial modification, necessitating protection of remaining fragments, with or without intervention (IUCN, 2010a). 3.3.7 – IUCN Category V - Protected Landscape/seascape A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. Primary objective To protect and sustain important landscapes/seascapes and the associated nature conservation and other values created by interactions with humans through traditional management practices. Other objectives
o To maintain a balanced interaction of nature and culture through the protection of landscape and/or seascape and associated traditional management approaches, societies, cultures and spiritual values;
64
o To contribute to broad-scale conservation by maintaining species associated with cultural landscapes and/or by providing conservation opportunities in heavily used landscapes;
o To provide opportunities for enjoyment, well-being and socio-economic activity through recreation and tourism;
o To provide natural products and environmental services; o To provide a framework to underpin active involvement by the community in the
management of valued landscapes or seascapes and the natural and cultural heritage that they contain;
o To encourage the conservation of agrobiodiversity and aquatic biodiversity; o To act as models of sustainability so that lessons can be learnt for wider
application. Distinguishing features Category V protected areas result from biotic, abiotic and human interaction and should have the following essential characteristics:
o Landscape and/or coastal and island seascape of high and/or distinct scenic quality and with significant associated habitats, flora and fauna and associated cultural features;
o A balanced interaction between people and nature that has endured over time and still has integrity, or where there is reasonable hope of restoring that integrity;
o Unique or traditional land-use patterns, e.g., as evidenced in sustainable agricultural and forestry systems and human settlements that have evolved in balance with their landscape.
The following are desirable characteristics:
o Opportunities for recreation and tourism consistent with life style and economic activities;
o Unique or traditional social organizations, as evidenced in local customs, livelihoods and beliefs;
o Recognition by artists of all kinds and in cultural traditions (now and in the past); o Potential for ecological and/or landscape restoration.
Role in the landscape/seascape Generally, category V protected areas play an important role in conservation at the landscape/seascape scale, particularly as part of a mosaic of management patterns, protected area designations and other conservation mechanisms:
o Some category V protected areas act as a buffer around a core of one or more strictly protected areas to help to ensure that land and water-use activities do not threaten their integrity;
o Category V protected areas may also act as linking habitat between several other protected areas.
Category V offers unique contributions to conservation of biological diversity. In particular:
o Species or habitats that have evolved in association with cultural management systems and can only survive if those management systems are maintained;
o To provide a framework when conservation objectives need to be met over a large area (e.g., for top predators) in crowded landscapes with a range of ownership patterns, governance models and land use;
65
o In addition, traditional systems of management are often associated with important components of agrobiodiversity or aquatic biodiversity, which can be conserved only by maintaining those systems.
(IUCN 2010b) 3.3.8 - Category VI - Protected Area with sustainable use of natural resources Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area. Primary objective To protect natural ecosystems and use natural resources sustainably, when conservation and sustainable use can be mutually beneficial. Other objectives
o To promote sustainable use of natural resources, considering ecological, economic and social dimensions;
o To promote social and economic benefits to local communities where relevant; o To facilitate inter-generational security for local communities' livelihoods –
therefore ensuring that such livelihoods are sustainable; o To integrate other cultural approaches, belief systems and world-views within a
range of social and economic approaches to nature conservation; o To contribute to developing and/or maintaining a more balanced relationship
between humans and the rest of nature; o To contribute to sustainable development at national, regional and local level (in
the last case mainly to local communities and/or indigenous peoples depending on the protected natural resources);
o To facilitate scientific research and environmental monitoring, mainly related to the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources;
o To collaborate in the delivery of benefits to people, mostly local communities, living in or near to the designated protected area;
o To facilitate recreation and appropriate small-scale tourism. Distinguishing features Category VI protected areas, uniquely amongst the IUCN categories system, have the sustainable use of natural resources as a means to achieve nature conservation, together and in synergy with other actions more common to the other categories, such as protection. Category VI protected areas aim to conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and natural resource management systems. Therefore, this category of protected areas tends to be relatively large (although this is not obligatory). The category is not designed to accommodate large-scale industrial harvest. In general, IUCN recommends that a proportion of the area is retained in a natural condition, which in some cases might imply its definition as a no-take management zone. Some countries have set this as two-thirds; IUCN recommends that decisions need to be made at a national level and sometimes even at the level of individual protected areas.
66
Role in the landscape/seascape Category VI protected areas are particularly adapted to the application of landscape approaches. This is an appropriate category for large natural areas, such as tropical forests, deserts and other arid lands, complex wetland systems, coastal and high seas, boreal forests etc. – not only by establishing large protected areas, but also by linking with groups of protected areas, corridors or ecological networks. Category VI protected areas may also be particularly appropriate to the conservation of natural ecosystems when there are few or no areas without use or occupation and where those uses and occupations are mostly traditional and low-impact practices, which have not substantially affected the natural state of the ecosystem. What makes category VI unique? Allocation of category VI depends on long-term management objectives and also on
local specific characteristics.
Issues for consideration highlighted for category VI o Protection of natural ecosystems and promotion of sustainable use must be
integrated and mutually beneficial; category VI can potentially demonstrate best management practices that can be more widely used.
o New skills and tools need to be developed by management authorities to address the new challenges that emerge from planning, monitoring and managing sustainable use areas.
o There is a need for the development of appropriate forms of governance suitable for category VI protected areas and the multiple stakeholders that are often involved. Landscape-scale conservation inevitably includes a diverse stakeholder group, demanding careful institutional arrangements and approaches to innovative governance (IUCN 2010c)
3.3.9 - Summary and conclusions There are substantial challenges that need to be overcome for the TSR Network to become a protected area: issues that need addressing include: defining exact geographic location and extent, dedication of the land, management, legal frameworks and effectiveness of protection of values. In addition, there is no guarantee that the TSR network is reserved in perpetuity. All these issues have to be considered and addressed before the TSR Network can be recognised, according to IUCN standards, as a protected area. There are six IUCN protected area categories and several categories could be applied to the TSR Network. Category I to IV are considered to be strictly protected areas, whereas category V and VI are regarded as multiple use areas. A category II protected area (eg national park) could apply if the focus is entirely on protecting natural values and excluding uses like grazing. However when managed grazing is considered one of the management strategies, category IV, V and VI could apply. The question is then: what values does one seek to protect? Category IV is considered a strictly protected reserve, carefully managed for the protection of a certain species or value. Category V and VI are considered multiple use areas and are generally not funded under the Caring for Our Country National Reserve System. One could argue that the TSR network exists because of the interactions of humans with nature, and that its land-use (eg dedication
67
as public land and the transport of grazing stock) maintains the network. Therefore it could be managed as a category V protected area. A category VI category often applies to large natural areas, but the allocation of category VI depends on long-term
management objectives and also on local specific characteristics. 3.4 - Other Important Binding International Agreements 3.4.1 – Introduction This paragraph describes those international agreements that have been embedded in the EPBC Act. Internationally listed migratory species and Ramsar listed wetlands are defined as matters of national environmental significance. 3.4.2 - Commonwealth-listed migratory species: Bonn Convention, CAMBA and JAMBA. Many animals migrate to Australia and its external territories, or pass though or over Australian waters during their annual migrations. Many migratory species listed under the international conventions and agreements Australia is party to are protected under the EPBC Act. An action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a migratory species listed under the above agreements must be referred to the Minister and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process. Migratory species are those animals that migrate to Australia and its external territories, or pass though or over Australian waters during their annual migrations. Examples of migratory species are species of birds (e.g. regent honeyeater, albatrosses and petrels), mammals (e.g. whales) or reptiles. Listed migratory species are those listed in the:
o Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention)
o China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) o Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA)
Listed migratory species also include any native species identified in an international agreement approved by the Minister. The Minister may approve an international agreement for this purpose if satisfied that it is an agreement relevant to the conservation of migratory species.
The list of listed migratory species only includes species that have cyclic and predictable movements across boundaries of countries (e.g. that are part of international agreements). Species that migrate within Australia are not included on this list (pers. comm with DEWHA on 1 Feb 2010).
The online database of EPBC-listed migratory species on the Australian website is in Latin and there is no comprehensive list with common names available – the Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) database is the best tool to check for the common name for each species on a one-by-one basis. The SPRAT database can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl Birds Australia is another good reference point to obtain an overview of any internationally-listed migratory bird species in TSR areas as this organisation has conducted extensive bird atlassing projects and has build the most comprehensive database with bird records in Australia.
68
3.4.3 - Ramsar wetlands of international significance The TSR Network has several sites that are in the vicinity of Ramsar-listed wetlands. It will be useful to identify where this is the case and where TSR tenure and Ramsar wetlands overlap. This is however beyond the scope of this paper. The EPBC Act enhances the management and protection of Australia's Ramsar wetlands. A ‗declared Ramsar wetland' is an area that has been designated under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention or declared by the Minister to be a declared Ramsar wetland under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act also establishes a process for identifying Ramsar wetlands and encourages best practice management through nationally consistent management principles. Management Plans are used to formulate and implement planning so as to promote the wise use and conservation of wetlands. Management Plans must be consistent with the Ramsar Convention, Schedule 6 of the EPBC Act Regulations 2000 (the Australian Ramsar Management Principles) and relevant National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands – Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. A management plan for a Ramsar wetland cannot be recognised by the Australian Government as a Ramsar management plan unless it is in accordance with these principles. For a Ramsar wetland in a State or Territory, the Commonwealth must use its best endeavours to ensure that a management plan is prepared and implemented in cooperation with the State or Territory. The principles are set out in the regulations and cover matters relevant to the preparation of management plans, the environmental assessment of actions that may affect the site, and community consultation processes. An action that has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland must be referred to the Minister and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process (Australian Government 2010e). 3.5 - Biosphere reserves
3.5.1 - Introduction Biosphere reserves are sites recognized under UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme, which innovate and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development. They are of course under national sovereign jurisdiction, yet share their experience and ideas nationally, regionally and internationally within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. There are 553 sites worldwide in 107 countries. A list of all biosphere reserves is available here: http://www.unesco.org/mab/doc/brs/BRList2009.pdf They are areas in which people are an integral component, and are managed to support sustainable relationships between people and their environment (EDO, 2010). It is a regional centre for monitoring, research, education and training on natural and managed ecosystems. It is a place where government decision makers, scientists, managers and local people cooperate in developing a model program for managing land and water to meet human needs while conserving natural processes and biological resources. Finally, each biosphere reserve is a symbol of voluntary cooperation to
69
conserve and use resources for the well being of people everywhere (Australian Government 2010e 3.5.2 - International Significance of Biosphere Reserves 'Biosphere Reserve' is an international designation made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on the basis of nominations submitted by countries participating in the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB). MAB was launched in 1971 to catalyse a greater understanding and provision of knowledge and skills to support sustainable relationships between people and their environment. Biosphere Reserves act as a keystone of MAB by providing a global network of sites for cooperative research toward this end. They also aim to demonstrate the sustainable use goals of the World Conservation Strategy. The program was set up at a time when Australia did not have legislation such as the EPBC Act in place (Australian Government 2010e). 3.5.3 – The EPBC Act and Biosphere Reserves Biosphere reserves are not a major component of the Commonwealth's strategy to protect biodiversity, and there is no formal mechanism in the EPBC Act for creating a biosphere reserve (EDO 2010). Biosphere Reserves are not recognised as matters of national environmental significance (pers. comm. with DEHWA). In effect, this means that the rules and legislative frameworks apply of the underlying land tenures at the responsible level of Government (eg local government, state government, commonwealth) The EPBC Act:
o includes provisions for the development of cooperative arrangements between the Commonwealth, states and territories in the development of biosphere reserves. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Water, through Parks Australia, continues to act as the national focal point for biosphere reserves in Australia while the Australian National Commission or UNESCO still retains overall responsibility for UNESCO activities in Australia.
o inter alia, allows the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water to cooperate with a State or self-governing Territory on Biosphere Reserves while the EPBC Regulations contain principles for the management of Biosphere Reserves.
3.5.4. - Nomination, management and funding issues in Biosphere Reserves It seems that Biosphere Reserves are superseded by the much better protection regimes provided under the EPBC Act. Many Biosphere Reserves were nominated in the late 1970‘s and early 1980‘s for natural areas that already received formal protection (eg dedicated national parks) to gain international recognition. In the 1990‘s, the Biosphere Program was extended to include areas with social, cultural and economic values. The Biosphere Reserves that were nominated since the extension of the program often include core areas that are formally protected through state legislation with a ‗buffer zone‘ surrounding it on other tenures. Often this happened with a view to manage an area at the landscape level, however this depends completely on the governance structure and the governments involved. In these Biosphere Reserves there is no additional national or international layer of formal protection other than that the area receives international recognition. In addition
70
there does not seem to be any program with dedicated public funding for the management of biosphere reserves. Successful ‗operation‘ of the Biosphere Reserve is strongly dependent on the involvement, enthusiasm and energy levels of the local community involved. Often people spend a lot of energy listing the place without having the capacity to comply with the demanding reporting standards that accompany a listed reserve. It seems that with the relatively high protection standards offered by the EPBC Act, nominations for Biosphere Reserve are merely a symbolic or branding exercise: gaining international recognition, an opportunity to create a brand or a tourism market at the international level (pers. comm. with DEHWA). 3.5.5 - Examples of Biosphere Reserves in NSW There are 14 biosphere reserves in Australia, of which three are in NSW: Barkinkji Biosphere Reserve, Kosciuszko National Park and Yathong Nature Reserve. The Commonwealth and each Commonwealth agency must exercise its powers and functions in relation to a biosphere reserve in a way that is not inconsistent with the Australian Biosphere reserve management principles or a management plan. http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/biosphere/ The Director of National Parks is responsible for the management of Calperum and Taylorville Stations, areas of open mallee bushland and Murray River floodplain which form part of the Riverland Biosphere Reserve, near Renmark in South Australia and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (as the Uluru-Kata Tjuta biosphere reserve) (Australian Government 2010e). 3.5.6 - Biosphere Reserves applicable to the TSR Network? As we look for increased protection levels and increased funding for management for the TSR Network, and the nomination of the network as a Biosphere Reserve doesn‘t deliver either, this is probably not a priority protection framework for the TSR Network. If better protection is achieved through other formal mechanisms first, a Biosphere Reserve nomination may be considered in future to increase international recognition, or boost marketing, cooperation, community involvement and research efforts of the network if this deemed useful. 3. 6 - Important Bird Areas 3.6.1 – Introduction: what is an Important Bird Area? Important Bird Areas (IBA‘s) are sites that are recognised as internationally important for bird conservation. They are among the Earth‘s most exceptional places for birds and known to support key bird species. By conserving these key areas, Australians can be more confident of the long-term survival of our birds. Between 2005 and 2009, Birds Australia has identified 314 Australian sites of global significance for bird conservation, encompassing almost 44 million hectares of land (5.7 % of Australia‘s land area). The sites are concentrated in heavily cleared and -fragmented landscapes, where the TSR network is providing habitat, along coasts and on islands. Almost half of the area covered by Australia‘s IBA‘s has no existing formal protection, thus representing an opportunity for conservation (Dutson, et al. 2009).
71
3.6.2 – IBA’s are non-governemental and non-statutory IBA‘s are non-governmental and non-statutory and have been used as a complementary process to governmental conservation. In Australia, IBA‘s are identified and designated by Birds Australia, and the identification process is totally independent of government (Dutson et al. 2009). 3.6.3 - The value of IBA’s While this means that IBA designation has no statutory status or legal implications and is not designed to have any, it provides a means for communicating the high conservation value of IBA‘s to the land managers responsible for them. IBA‘s are sites: they are distinct areas or places that differ from surrounding areas and can be potentially managed as a single unit. They vary greatly in size. Ten Australian IBA‘s each exceed 1 million hectares, the largest being the 2.6 million hectare South- Western Slopes IBA in New South Wales, overlapping with stock routes and outside formally protected areas. In general, conservation actions are best directed at these individual sites, but in some instances species-specific management will also be necessary. The IBA project is the first national site-scale conservation analysis for Australia. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, all sites of conservation have been identified. Until now, the scale of the task and the inadequacy of baseline distributional data have discouraged such projects in Australia and the lack of mapped priority areas, especially those off-reserve, has been a hindrance to effective and cost-efficient conservation. Many IBA‘s are on unallocated Crown Land or other land managed by Government. Formal protection of these sites could help prevent destructive land-use and their conservation management could be considered a priority (Dutson et al 2009). 3.7 - Summary and conclusions There are several international frameworks available that could be applied to help protect the values of the TSR network. Some of these have a statutory status and legal implications, like a World Heritage Listing, and some do not. Some require a certain threshold in conservation values and are subject to a very competitive and thorough assessment, like a World Heritage nomination. Some require a certain threshold in management standards before they can be applied, eg the TSR Network currently is not a protected area per IUCN definition, because there are too many critical elements unresolved, notably the security of the land tenure. Some protection frameworks are part of an active program or international agreement, actively supported by the Australian Government, such as the Ramsar Convention, some are older, like the Biosphere Reserve, and appear to have been superseded by other frameworks. Several effective initiatives are driven by non-government organisations and the community, such as Important Bird Areas. Ultimately, support is required from key decision makers to secure progress in protecting the natural values of the TSR network. In Chapter 4, a comparison of all identified national and international frameworks is made, conclusions will be drawn and future directions for the project will be discussed.
72
Chapter 4
Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 - Introduction This chapter will provide a comparison of national protection models, conclusions and recommendations for future directions for the project.
Paragraph 4.2 will assess the project aims and policy asks developed to date, revisit the values and threats identified in Chapter 1 and look at which decision makers and stakeholders can help achieve the project goal. Paragraph 4.3 will compare international protection models taking into account the key decision makers, land managers and values. Paragraph 4.4 will provide recommendations and suggestions for the next phase of the project.
4.2 - What future is envisaged for the TSR Network? To answer the question: what is the most appropriate national framework to protect the Travelling Stock Routes Network of NSW, it is vital to:
1) to clarify what the vision is for the TSR network and what selection of TSR values the project seeks to protect
2) to identify the main threats to the values the project seeks to protect 3) to identify the key decision-makers that can deliver the outcomes the project
seeks.
Let us assume for now that the general goal of the project is:
To protect and improve existing natural values of the NSW TSR network (500,000-600,000ha in the Central and Eastern Divisions of NSW).
In Chapter 1, five broad drivers of threats were identified:
1. Politics and decision-making 2. Decentralised institutional framework and ineffective policy framework 3. Lack of funding and biased funding for management 4. On-ground management issues and conflicting uses of the network 5. Issues with knowledge, data collection and data management
The current key decision makers who have the power to deliver the outcomes we seek are the NSW Minister for Agriculture and the NSW Minister for Lands, because they can improve overall policy and management directions, improve institutional frameworks and allocate high-level funding for management. These high-level decision makers, however, are not traditional proponents of an environmental agenda. In fact, it can be argued that they, to date, have had little regard for the ecological functioning of the TSR network as an entity nor for the unique environmental values of individual parcels of land. Their
73
agenda has been mostly one of appeasing land-user benefits and minimizing management costs to the state. The newly appointed Minister for Agriculture and gradual cultural changes within the Department of Lands may perhaps be regarded an opportunity to win increased support for the environmental case of the TSR network in its entirety and for protecting parts of it. The relative power of other Ministers is also important, e.g the NSW Environment Minister, Minister for Primary Industries. As discussed in chapter 3: unless these parcels of TSR‘s are formally protected for nature conservation as a primary goal in perpetuity, these reserves can not qualify as a protected area under IUCN guidelines. On a local level key decision makers are the land managers (and rangers) who are coordinating on-ground outcomes. This is where some good work has been achieved on a region to region, parcel to parcel basis.
It appears difficult to protect the entire TSR Network‘s natural values in their current institutional framework in isolation of other values and interests, mainly because the proponents of these interests have more power to influence the identified key decision makers in NSW than environmental interest groups do. Again, management of TSRs is coordinated by departments and local/regional entities (Livestock Health and Pest Management Authorities in NSW) that have other first interests before the environment. Most core funding for management is generated from local rate payers (graziers) and user payments (graziers, drovers, user groups) although some ad hoc grant funding is provided for environmental management outcomes, some of which is supported by the federal government. Managers make the decisions on the day-to day management of the TSRs and the allocation of existing funding for management but have to operate within the framework provided by high-level decision makers.
As discussed in chapter 1, values and uses associated with the TSRs are varied. Some of these values are very compatible with managing TSR land for its environmental values, as for instance the protection of cultural heritage sites. However, some can be in direct conflict with the aim to protect the environmental values, eg the use of TSR‘s for agistment grazing is considered an important value of the network, but inadequately managed grazing threatens some of the key natural values of the network. There are key values associated with TSRs related to pastoralism that are not directly associated with the environment and that resonate strongly in country Australia. Also there may be strong values that we are currently not aware of, such as the values Indigenous Australians honor with regards to TSR places and pathways in the landscape.
The key question is: can the environmental values of the network be appropriately protected within the current institutional and management framework? If so, how can we bring the environment appropriately into the management equation? If the answer is no: what is the best alternative? The best path forward may be a combination of approaches.
Policy developed to date Both the NSW and the Queensland Governments have been considering the future their Travelling Stock Routes. Some pro-active policy development has been undertaken to date to guide the Queensland‘s thinking by representatives from Birds Australia South East Queensland in cooperation with several NSW colleagues and it was hoped this could be applied to both QLD and NSW. The authors of the policy aimed for an inclusive approach that would gain the support of stock route users, other environment groups, state government ministers and stock route managers. It aimed to maintain the full extent of routes and reserves as public land in both Queensland and NSW.
74
The Stock Route Coalition - www. Stockroutes.info The Stock Route Coalition is a broad alliance of groups concerned about the future of the stock routes. To maintain the multiple values of the stock routes for travelling stock and for biodiversity, it is important that the NSW and Qld governments: 1. recognise and embed the conservation values of the existing stock route networks in policy and protect them in the day-to-day management of the stock routes, 2. create by legislation, Protected Corridors for Travelling Stock and Biodiversity to encompass the entire remaining Travelling Stock Routes in NSW and the Stock Route Network in Qld and 3. contribute the necessary ongoing financial support from environmental budgetary sources reflecting the public interest conservation component and for enhancement of the stock routes networks through the Regional Funding Component of the Australian Government‘s NRM Initiative. 4. put an immediate freeze on disposal or lease of any segments of the stock routes until they have taken account of their potential benefits for biodiversity under climate change. Definition of Protected Corridors for Travelling Stock and Biodiversity Conservation: The entire network of stock routes and reserves for travelling stock which are retained permanently in public ownership, and which are: (a) managed for the benefit of travelling stock (b) managed as habitat and landscape linkages for the long term maintenance of biodiversity (including fauna, flora, ecosystem services and ecological communities generally); and (c) maintained to conserve the Australian Heritage values and rural landscapes embedded within the network and; (d) with policy, management and practices to ensure that the Stock Route Network is maintained to meet all these purposes.
Summarised this policy calls to:
o strengthen the legal status of the Stock Routes to take natural values into account;
o to manage them consistently and properly for natural and cultural values as well as traditional economic values;
o support and improve the Stock Route network with adequate funding for management of natural values;
o not sell or lease stock routes or subject them to long-term unsustainable continuous grazing; and
o acknowledge the Stock Route network's role in combating climate change.
This campaign resulted in two NSW Government commitments:
The NSW Government commitments made in the media as a response are as follows (2008): - not to sell off parcels of TSR lands that have public values; - to conduct a pilot assessment of the future use of TSRs in the Hunter CMA area.
The main benefit of this approach has been to showcase the extent and the landscape connectivity values of the TSR networks (publicly-owned crown land) in both states as well as highlighted the fact that their future as public land was insecure. It has encouraged some big-picture, landscape-scale thinking, has created some common
75
ground with graziers, and it has created a ‗problem‘ that stakeholders and government want to see resolved, eg stock routes are a public asset that should be preserved.
However, it has not been able to strengthen the legal status of TSR lands for conservation outcomes and, despite the public comment by the NSW Government, their future tenure and management regimes remain insecure. The Hunter TSR assessment is a key test case to observe how the Department of Lands is conducting a land assessment process.
NPANSW has to make a decision about whether policy developed to date will deliver the TSR vision in NSW: will it safeguard the natural values of the network? The Federal Government‘s opinion is that the impact of the ―long paddock approach to traveling stock‖ is in direct conflict with nature conservation outcomes and that substantial management of grazing would be required in these areas, specifically tailored (backed up by adequate research) to support conservation outcomes (Pers. comm). The historically allowed access for stock in droughts and floods and grazing for agistment are problematic rights if nature conservation is the primary objective (see chapter 3).
Differences in relative environmental health of TSRs are a reflection of geographical differences in management approaches for each local management entity (RLPB, or the new LHPA). Some entities have had managers/rangers with an interest in balancing various values associated with the network. Some had a particular interest in safeguarding the network‘s environmental values, other regions have had an approach primarily focused on pastoralism and more intensive grazing. And even within districts there are large differences in the management of different parcels of lands, where some reserves (eg the main routes) are used more intensively for traveling stock and less active reserves for other uses, including conservation.
In essence it means that we can, currently, only effectively achieve long-lasting nature conservation outcomes for those parcels of land that have a unique combination of natural values, uses that can be made compatible with the protection of these natural values and land managers that are supportive of nature conservation. These land managers then need resources to secure nature conservation outcomes.
4.3 – What protection frameworks can deliver the vision?
Chapters 2 and 3 have described the main protection frameworks available. The table below provides and overview of those initiatives discussed.
Table 4.1 Comparison of national and international protection frameworks
Framework EPBC Management Funding Suitable for TSR Network
Commonwealth-listed threatened species and ecological communities
- Matter of NES
- Recovery plans may be developed
Priority for C4C biodiversity and natural Icons component
Yes
National Heritage List
- matter of NES - responsibility of owner of land
- Funding for management is
Yes
76
- national heritage management lay may be developed
responsibility of owner
Commonwealth Heritage
- EPBC may be triggered if action affects commonwealth land
Commonwealth owned land, Commonwealth is required to develop and implement management plan
n/a No
Register of the National Estate: ‗The Frozen Register‘
- not NES (!) - no legal requirements under NES listing - in process of transferring items to local and state registers
No Applies but as database with references, not as a protection framework.
National Reserve System – C4C
- not NES, state environmental legislation or commonwealth
- formal protected areas (IUCN categories I to VI)
- funding mainly for IUCN protected area categories I to IV. - funding is for acquiring lands and for management on commonwealth- owned lands - states have to provide management funds for state-owned lands.
No – unless secure protected area under international IUCN standards where nature conservation outcomes can be guaranteed
Biodiversity and Natural Icons – C4C
Focuses on increasing the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes esp. for nationally threatened species listed under EPBC Act.
- proposals are invited by April 2010.
- yes - funding for management initiatives that safeguard conservation of nationally listed species and ecological communities outside the NRS.
Yes
World Heritage - Matter of NES - some funding for management available
Potentially, but unlikely in light of national competition and issues with management frameworks
Migratory species - Matter of NES Yes, but list to be confirmed
Ramsar - Matter of NES - management plan - questionable –
77
required by managers
some funding available this year for Ramsar wetland management
Biosphere reserves No formal protection – tool for obtaining international recognition
Bilateral agreement required
No clear standards for management
No funding priority by Australian Government
It will not deliver the required management frameworks or the funding
Important Bird Areas
No formal protection – tool for delineating areas that require protection
- - Yes, the largest identified IBA in Australia is in the NSW Woodland belt.
There are many threats that all need addressing, but when considering our power to influence key state decision makers, project resources and the national conservation frameworks available, where could we be most effective?
The following options are proposed, they could work simultaneously:
1) National Heritage Nomination for the NSW TSR network
Potential benefits
Potential drawbacks
TSR Network is likely to fit the NHL criteria Caution is required regarding pastoral and economic values of the network. The nomination needs to be written in a way that is inclusive but focuses on the ecological values and more non-tangible cultural values of TSRs so that a nomination will not support unsustainable uses of the TSR network.
NSW Government will be consulted but can not veto a listing
NHL listing may damage our relationship with key decision-makers in NSW Government if they are not supporting the listing. It may affect their willingness to develop a national heritage management plan in case listing is successful.
a nomination is a great tool to put the big ecological connectivity and cultural heritage case on the record, it transforms the TSR network into an icon. Media opportunities to progress the conservation agenda.
Issues with either including or excluding Qld SRN.
a nomination gives the federal government an opportunity to articulate any issues with the nomination, eg a lack of data on the exact extent and geographical location, which gives us the opportunity to pressure the NSW Government to collate the necessary data.
If successfully listed down the line, it could trigger EPBC Act if actions are likely to have an impact on the national heritage values, eg a sell-off of TSR land, road upgrades, vegetation clearing, resource extraction, industrial logging, high-impact uses.
If successfully listed the NSW Government may develop a management plan for the National
78
Heritage item – if they are supportive
2) Biodiversity and Natural Icons C4C project:
Managing key TSRs to increase the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes.
Potential benefits Potential drawbacks On-ground conservation outcomes for key threatened native vegetation communities and native species
Only possible in places where there is an ideal combination of sufficient data, federally threatened species/EEC‘s, supportive land managers
Federal Government C4C funding support: TSRs are a likely candidate in light of their mention in the national biodiversity strategy and the high concentrations of federally listed EEC‘s and species on TSRs (see chapter 2)
Funding is temporary and long-term protection is not secured
Opportunity to work with CMA‘s, LHPA‘s, Rangers, local groups, landholders to protect key sites while developing a regional ‗landscape connectivity vision, including TSRs‘
Important Bird Area identified for South Western Slopes that could provide synergies with such a project
Potential to act as a champion case or catalyst for restoring native habitat and ecological connectivity in other areas of the wheat sheep belt
Potential to build a springboard to formally protect parcels of land in future for nature conservation
3) Formally protect TSR parcels as IUCN protected areas
Potential benefits Potential drawbacks Secure, long-term conservation outcomes for a small selection of TSRs
Conflicting land uses with graziers and other user groups/individuals that need to be resolved
Federal government assists when state government purchases formal reserves ( IUCN category I to IV)
Issues with management of relatively small fragments of land – is DECC willing to progress this agenda and how much public/political support is needed?
Small areas only while management issues in the rest of the network are not addressed.
4) Crown land assessments where conservation outcomes can be secured.
There is an abysmal lack of data confirming the exact location and boundaries of the TSR crown land tenure and NSW crown lands in general. This is a fundamental data gap causing issues when making decisions about the future management of the land. This potentially requires whole of government support in NSW and for the Department of Lands and the Department of Environment and Climate Change to work closely together. It appears that the Natural Resources Commision may be the most suitable institution to conduct such studies, following the example of VEAC in Victoria. There is no core federal government funding for states to conduct such an assessment.
79
To view and overview of the Victorian model for the VEAC remnant native vegetation Investigation http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/remnant-native-vegetation-investigation
5) Local support for nature conservation versus top down regulation Unless local managers and people are on board, management for natural values is going to be an immense challenge unless forced by a federal legislative framework: eg National Heritage listing or protection as a formal reserve. For all lands managed by the Department of Lands, LHPA‘s or others, cooperative approaches seem the most viable option.
4.4 - Recommendations for future directions
1. Continue to articulate a strong, big picture (ecological) vision for the NSW
and QLD TSR networks (TSRs are a great tool to communicate the issue of ecological connectivity). For example: a map to inspire people of the opportunities and possibilities of the network approach – individual TSRs could be included on this map and their unique values and unique management regime highlighted. Within the map a mosaic of management regimes can be applied with protected areas as one of the many management options. The map could be published as a glossy document or brochure. Cultural values can be included in the picture to secure broad community support. Details could be added over time as studies and management frameworks progress;
2. Develop a national heritage nomination as a tool to present a big picture case for protecting TSRs as a national public land network icon: the process invites an active role for the federal Minister for the Environment, and, if listed, reduces threats to the integrity of the network by triggering the EPBC act in a case of crown land disposal. A nomination could potentially also assist by highlighting the abysmal lack of data concerning crown lands in NSW, including the exact geographical location and extent of TSRs and helps to put pressure on the NSW Government to collate this data;
3. The high number of federally threatened species and endangered ecological communities on the TSR network and the mention of TSRs in the Commonwealth Biodiversity strategy confirm a federal government interest in this land tenure, however they are unable to change management regimes without the cooperation of the state government. It will be important to start where there are key opportunities: eg develop a leading Caring for Our Country project proposal (confirm which organisation/institution is best placed to lead) with TSR‘s at the core, linking the CforC project to the big picture vision, this is a typical project that could maximize collaborations in the landscape;
4. Explore where formal conservation reserves can be achieved for parcels of the TSR network and work with NSW DECC to achieve long-term outcomes without causing massive opposition;
5. Evaluate the pilot Hunter TSR assessment: did it provide for any solid conservation or improved management outcomes for TSR lands or did it gather appropriate key data? Should it be repeated elsewhere?
6. Explore the benefits of a NRC crown land assessment process that secures improved environmental outcomes for crown lands (including TSRs) and
80
takes regional landscape connectivity into account. What are the benefits to conduct such an assessment at the CMA scale?
7. Explore the idea of a data gathering exercise led by ecologists (and other experts as for instance Indigenous heritage experts or local people) supported by volunteers of NSW TSRs to record key conservation values and ‗fill in the gaps on the map‘. This could feed into any later government study and build community support for the protection of remnant vegetation and historic cultural values. The Birds Australia Atlas and NPA‘s Community Biodiversity Surveys are an excellent example of what a project could look like.
Appendix 4.1 provides outcomes from a brainstorm of further miscellaneous opportunities that may help secure positive conservation outcomes for the project.
81
References ACT Government (1999). Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii): A Vulnerable species. Action Plan No. 17. Canberra, Environment ACT.
Austin, J. R. (2002), The Conservation and Identification of Biodiversity on Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves of North Western New South Wales. North West Rural Lands Protection Board (National Heritage Trust-funded project).
Australian Government (2010a). About the World Heritage Convention. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world/convention.html Australian Government (2010b), Managing World Heritage Places 1. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/management/world/index.html Australian Government (2010c), Managing World Heritage Places 2. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world/managing.html Australian Government (2010d), World Conservation Union (IUCN) protected area categories 2008. http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html (Australian Government 2010e), Wetland Protection. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protect/wetlands.html Australian Government (2010f), Biosphere Reserves. http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/biosphere/index.html Australian Legal Information Institute (2010), The EPBC Act. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s341jk.html Christie, P. (2004). Extension of the known breeding range of the Superb Parrot. Corella. 28:75-78. Cole, N. (2008), Cultural Heritage of Queensland‘s stock routes: report to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. Commonwealth of Australia (2010), Caring for Our Country Business Plan 2010-2011. Council for Rural Land Protection Boards (2006), Annual Report 2006. Davidson, I (2008), Letter to the NSW Government in response to the IMC Report release. Department of Environment, Water and Heritage (2010), Species Profiles and Threats (SPRAT) Database http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=738 Department of Environment and Conservation WA (2010), World Heritage. http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/2202/1027/
82
Department of Environment and Conservation WA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Water (2008), Summary Document for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020. Department of Lands (1975), unknown source. Derived from Hibberd (1978). The Future of the Long Paddock. Nature Conservation Council of NSW, p. 3. DEWHA (2007), Factsheet EPBC Assessment Referral Process. DEWHA (2010a), Internet factsheet on Recovery Plans http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html DEHWA (2010b), Final Report EPBC Act Review http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/review/publications/final-report.html DEWHA (2010c), Internet Factsheet: Heritage http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ DEWHA (2010d), http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/protecting/pubs/national/working-together-map.pdf DEWHA (2010e), http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/protecting/pubs/national/working-together-referral.pdf DEWHA (2010f), http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/protecting/pubs/national/working-together-management.pdf DEWHA (2010g), http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/protecting/pubs/national/working-together-principles-epbc-guide.pdf DEWHA (2010h), Criteria for National Heritage Listing http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/national/criteria.html DEWHA (2010i), Nominating a Heritage Place. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/nominating/index.html DEWHA (2010j) http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/rne/index.html DEWHA (2010k) http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/index.html DEWHA (2010L) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/strategy/index.html DEWHA (2010m), Draft National Biodiversity Strategy 2010-2020 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/strategy/pubs/biodiversity-conservation-strategy2010-2020.pdf
83
Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp. Dutson, G., S Garnett and C. Gole (2009), Australia‘s Important Bird Areas: key sites for bird conservation. Birds Australia (RAOU) Conservation Statement No. 15, October 2009. EDO (2008a), Factsheet EPBC Act. http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/factsh/fs03_1.php EDO (2008b), Factsheet Heritage. http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/compliance/heritage.html EDO (2008c), Factsheet Commonwealth Heritage Protection Law. http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/factsh/fs03_2.php EDO (2010), http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/factsh/fs06_3.php. Environment ACT (2005), National Recovery Plan for Natural Temperate Grassland of the Southern Tablelands (NSW and ACT): an endangered ecological community (Environment ACT, Canberra). Greening Australia (2009), National Biodiversity Review Submission, 1 June 2009. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/strategy/review-submissions/pubs/id961-greeningaustralia-1jun09.rtf Hibberd, J. (1978), The Futureof the Long Paddock. A study of Travelling Stock Reserves, Routes and Roadside Verges in the Southern Tablelands of NSW. Nature Conservation of NSW. Humane Society International (14 April, 2009), Action Alert, http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=468 IUCN (2010a), http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/pa_categoryiv/ IUCN (2010b), http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/pa_categoryv/ IUCN (2010c), http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/pa_categoryvi/ Legislative Assembly (1896), NSW Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly 1895, vol. 5, p.12. Livestock Health and Pest Management Authorities (2010), http://www.lhpa.org.au/travelling-stock-reserves. Malkin, B (2008), Australia's Outback cattle trails under threat from plans to lease and sell them off. The Telegraph UK, 25 Oct 2008.
84
Mc Knight, Prof. T. (1977), The Long Paddock: Australia‘s Travelling Stock Routes.
Department of Geography: University of England. NSW Agriculture and Rural Lands Protection Boards (2001), The long paddock: a directory of travelling stock routes and reserves in New South Wales. Pers. comm. with Tim Bond, science coordinator of the National Reserve System program, Parks Australia, Department of Environment, Heritage and the Environment 17 Feb 2010. Possingham, Nix et al (2008), The Long Paddock Scientists‘ Statement. An open letter to the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and the New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma on the need to protect the Travelling Stock Route Networks in QLD and NSW. Sparks, P. (undated), Summary of Conservation Summary of Conservation Assessment of Assessment of Travelling Travelling Stock Stock Reserves and Routes of the Eastern Reserves and Routes of the Eastern Half of the Lachlan Catchment. NorthWest Ecological Services. Swift Parrot Recovery Team (2000). Swift Parrot Recovery Plan 2001-2005. [Online]. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Hobart: Dept of Primary Industries, Water & Enviro. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/swift-parrot/index.html.
TheAge.com.au (21 December 2006), article on Burrup Peninsula.
The Burra Charter (1999), The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.
The National Tarkine Coalition: http://www.tarkine.org/ The West Australian (22 December 2006), article on Burrup Peninsula. UNESCO (2010a), World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ UNESCO (2010b), World Heritage Nominations. http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations. UNESCO (2010c), The Criteria for Selection. http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria. UNESCO (2010d), Tentative Lists. http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists. UNESCO (2010e), Global Strategy. http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy Webster, R. (1998). New South Wales Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii Draft Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney.