Gary Dunnett, CEO NPA NSW
Anyone who has been part of conservation campaigning will know that one of the first challenges is settling upon a name. There are often assumptions and aspirations embedded in the choice of a preferred ‘brand’, and how it is interpreted by others can have profound implications for how community and government respond to a campaign.
All of which is highly relevant to NPA’s current proposals for new forest parks. The purpose of this article is to explain the ‘brands’ that are being used in our north and south coasts campaigns.
NPA has always justified our new parks proposals on the basis of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, recreational and educational enjoyment and community benefit. In the case of forestry campaigns this raises a really important point- we are arguing for the overwhelming benefits of protected areas rather than simply campaigning to end forestry activities. The importance of this distinction is currently becoming manifest in Victoria, where a bold decision to end forestry was coupled with an unwillingness on the part of government to create new national parks. The consequence is that forestry is still taking place and there is every prospect that the full-scale forestry industry may resume with a change in government.
All of which means that the chosen brands must evoke the new park, not just an end to logging activities within the relevant forests.
Brands and titles
The Great Koala National Park (GKNP) brand has been used for more than a decade. At the other end of the state, two different terms have been used, the Great Southern Forest proposal (GSF) and Great Southern Forest National Park (GSFNP) proposal.
Despite the references to ‘National Park’, the term is not strictly accurate. The reality is that both the GKNP and GSFNP will end up as a mixture of several different reserve categories under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. All of these categories are declared under the same legislation and share most, but not all, legal characteristics. All are recognised as Protected Areas by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
There are three issues to unpack: why use national park in a generic sense; why allow for different reserve categories; and what is the practical effect of declaring different areas of forest as different types of Protected Area?
Why not simply refer to ‘Protected Area’ proposals in our campaign branding?
The problem is that very few people would know what a Protected Area is, compared to just about everyone having some idea of the meaning of a National Park. Most people don’t distinguish between the reserve categories- if there is a burnt chook on the entrance sign, it’s a national park. If we want people to connect to the proposals it makes sense to use familiar, however inaccurate, language.
The question of why we envisage the use of different reserve categories is that it is simply unavoidable. While it may be true that the majority of the lands we are asking to be transferred out of Forestry Corporation’s hands will end up classified as National Park, substantial areas either cannot or should not be categorised as such.
The different reserve categories
A good starting point for understanding why this is the case is to look at the reserve categories under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. There are seven different types of Protected Areas: Nature Reserves, National Parks, State Conservation Areas, Regional Parks, Karst Conservation Reserves, Aboriginal Areas and Historic Sites.
There are subtle but important differences between the reserve categories: basically Nature Reserves enjoy the highest level of pure conservation management; National Parks allow for a mixed bag of conservation and recreation; State Conservation Areas provide interim protection to allow legal impediments to permanent declaration to be resolved; Regional Parks share similar conservation objectives to National Parks but allow for more intensive recreational facilities and activities (including walking dogs); and the Karst, Aboriginal and Historic categories are restricted to places that contain specified values.
The GKNP and GSFNP project footprints contain dozens of existing Nature Reserves, National Parks, State Conservation Areas, Regional Parks and Aboriginal Areas. There is no expectation that these existing reserves will be degazetted and reclassified as National Park just because they become part of the GKNP or GSFNP. Imagine the outcry if several Nature Reserves were downgraded to mere National Parks!
Likewise, when Government starts looking at most appropriate reserve categories for the State Forests to be declared as Protected Areas, they will inevitably employ a range of different categories. For example, those areas of State Forest that are already declared as Flora Reserves should transition to Nature Reserve rather than National Park, for the simple reason that Flora Reserves, like Nature Reserves, are classified by the IUCN as Category 1 reserves. Likewise, the only option to immediately protect areas subject to mining leases or licences is to declare them as State Conservation Areas, otherwise they can’t be protected until those leases/licences have been legally extinguished, a process that can take decades.
Why Regional Parks
A frequent concern about the selection of reserve categories relates to Regional Parks. I’d encourage readers to have a look at the legislative provisions for Regional Parks. There is a common perception that they are some form of second-class reserves that are given over to large scale visitor infrastructure. Leaving aside the fact that the NSW parks with greatest amounts of visitor and commercial infrastructure are in fact national parks such as Kosciuszko, Royal, Ku-ring-gai Chase, Lane Cove and Sydney Harbour, the legal obligations to manage and protect natural vegetation, fauna and habitats apply just as much to Regional Parks as any other category. In practice the primary distinguishing feature of the category is that it allows for on lead dog walking.
The Great Southern Forest report discusses the benefits and constraints of each reserve category. It notes that there may be situations where Regional Park is the most appropriate option, especially in peri-urban situations with existing recreational infrastructure or dog walking. Our expectation is that such would be in the form of a fringe around peri-urban locations rather than covering entirety of (former) State Forests.
The pointy end of reserve categorisation
NPA will continue to influence the reserve category decisions through our involvement in the various consultative forums where we have a voice (eg the GKNP community committee, Regional Advisory Committees, National Parks Advisory Council and meetings with NPWS and the Minister’s office). Let’s just remember that decisions on reserve categories are just about the final step in the entire reserve establishment process.
The GKNP is fast reaching that point, but the practical reality is that it is years away for the southern campaign. At this stage it is a strategic decision, and benefit, to retain the common use terms of national park and forest. These terms offer the agility we need to respond to claims that public access and uses are being denied, while retaining our absolute commitment to forest conservation as our foremost objective.
This is not an issue that needs to pit north against south, or those who prefer technical certainty against those with a taste for generic terminology. The GKNP is at the pointy end of discussions about which reserve categories offer the best fit for conservation value and public use in specific locations. Conversely, the GSFNP campaign is confronting opposition focused on claims that National Parks declarations signal the end to all the recreational activities they hold dear. In the case of the GKNP it is now time for careful precision. For the GSF common sense dictates the more generic terms as the campaign builds momentum.