The creation of new national parks was a 2006 election promise to secure inner-city votes but is based on a lie – on the false belief that by declaring an area a national park you can somehow “save it”. 

In reality the red gums of the mid-Murray need water and thinning and a national park declaration will achieve neither.    The national park declaration will simply increase the risk of wild fires and the death of koalas.

The Rivers and Red Gum Alliance, representing local forest users, provided the government with a well research plan whereby 104,000 hectares could be managed under the principles of the internationally recognised Ramsar convention.  

As Peter Newman, chairman of the Alliance, explained yesterday, “The forests exist in a highly modified landscape surrounded by farmland and need active management to maintain forest health.  This includes fuel reduction through controlled grazing and thinning of the red gum trees to keep the forest open and in a healthy state.” 

But the alliance plan was ignored in favour of city votes.

Announcing the plan to convert the forests to national park and effectively exclude active management, Premier Brumby falsely claimed trees in the forests are more than 500 years old: “You’re talking about trees that are more than 500 years old. And they are ancient, they are part of our history and they need to be protected.”

This is incorrect.  During the late 1800s, large quantities of timber were harvested from these forests for building and operating river boats, gold mining and as sleepers for local and overseas railways. The extent of the logging, including along the entire river frontage to a distance of approximately three kilometres from the River bank, resulted in concern that the forest would be entirely cut out. A Conservator of Forests was appointed in 1888. His focus was on protecting the forest from over-cutting, controlling over-grazing, introducing silviculture treatment and protecting the forest from fire.

The current extent of the largest of the mid-Murray forests, the Barmah forest (23,000 hectares), is thought to be a result of the extensive regeneration that also occurred at this time, in part a consequence of wet years during the 1870s coinciding with the decline of Aboriginal burning practices and preceding the introduction of sheep, cattle and rabbits.

Significant quantities of timber continued to be harvested from the Barmah forest during the 1900s. There was an official assessment of the Barmah forestry resources in 1929–30 and then again in 1960–61. The 1960–61 assessment indicated a considerable increase in growing stock and total sawlog volumes, notwithstanding the significant volumes harvested in the intervening period and despite the fact that river regulation since the construction of the Hume Dam in the 1930s had changed flow regimes.

The Murray River is now flowing strongly with water from this dam, but the water is passing the forests on its way to South Australia.  Some of this water could be diverted.  It could be pumped into the forests, but the Victorian government is intent on waiting until there is a large flood event.

The mid-Murray forests really just need some water and some thinning now.  Yesterday’s announcement by Premier Brumby will secure neither.

**************

Photograph of the burnt koala taken in Barmah Forest, in the Central MurrayValley, October 17, 2008 by Peter Newman.

Related blog posts:

A New Plan for the Red Gums of Northern Victoria, August 1, 2008.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/08/a-new-plan-for-the-red-gums-of-northern-victoria/

Thinning Red Gum Forest at Koondrook, November 9, 2007
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/thinning-red-gum-forests-at-koondrook/

After the ‘Top Island’ Fire in the Barmah Red Gum Forest, November 10, 2007
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/11/after-the-%e2%80%98top-island%e2%80%99-fire-in-the-barmah-red-gum-forest/

Further reading:

Myth and the Murray, Measuring the Real State of the River Environment, IPA Backgrounder,  December 2003, Vol. 15/5 http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/449/myth-and-the-murray-measuring-the-real-state-of-the-environment

The forest has historically been grazed and the Barmah locals believe this is important to reduce the fire risk. 

Max Rheese explains:    

Hi Jennifer,   

Today, the first day of summer, with 80 residents of the tiny Murray River community of Barmah I helped to drive cattle into the Barmah forest in defiance of a Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE] ban on cattle grazing in the forest.  The cattle were purchased last week by individuals in the community as part of the Barmah Community Cattle Company to be put into the forest to reduce the serious fire risk from chest high grass along the river.

On October 23rd the Barmah Grazing Advisory Committee met, as it usually does at this time, and recommended to the department that 420 cattle in total be placed in the 29,000 hectare red gum forest to graze for 2 -3 months subject to review in January 2009.  In particular, 70 cattle were recommended to be placed on the 1500 hectare part of the forest adjacent to the Barmah township for 8 weeks to reduce the fire threat to the town.  This was refused by the department who stated that no grazing would be allowed for ecological reasons.

This is a ludicrous statement as the chest high grass and weeds consist of wild oats, rye grass, Scotch thistle and Patterson’s Curse – not a native grass amongst them.  No self respecting forest manager would tolerate infestations of these species but in Barmah there is hundreds of hectares of these grasses and weeds.  Grazing should be required for ecological reasons.

DSE are required under the Forests Act to carry out fire prevention works in all forests under their control.  This year they have carried out two fuel reduction burns of less than 50 hectares in total in a 29,000 hectare forest and none of those closer than 10 km from Barmah township.  In effect, there has been no fire prevention work carried out within 10km of Barmah township this year.

Victorians have suffered badly in recent years from public land management decisions made by DSE and this can be read here in the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on bushfires.  This decision has all the hallmarks of more bad public land management.  No fire prevention work as required under legislation, no allowance for controlled cattle grazing and nothing has been done to reduce the fire risk to Barmah or other small communities that are adjacent to public land.

The Alliance wrote to the Minister for the Environment two weeks ago asking him to direct the department to reverse their decision and advising him that cattle would be put into the forest if no action was taken.  I phoned his office last week seeking a response.  We wrote to the secretary for the department a week ago pointing out his obligations, particularly in light of the parliamentary inquiry recommendations that were very critical of his department’s fire management practices.  There was no response to any of these communications.

The community were driven by this apathetic attitude to collectively act illegally in driving the cattle into the forest – but we did get a response today!  The DSE Manager for Land and Fire stated on ABC Radio that he was disappointed at the actions of the community in putting cattle into the forest.  He then went on to say how the department had a duty of care to the community – but they have not done anything to mitigate the fire danger. 

Part of the lack of confidence at a local level in DSE’s fire management skills were highlighted on ABC television news out of Melbourne tonight where they were described as incompetent fire managers.  This was because of a poorly managed fuel reduction burn on October 16th that is highlighted on the Alliance website.

Despite this badly run burn for which the Alliance has provided the Premier’s office with a detailed report, despite the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry which are critical of the department’s land management practices, despite the support for the Alliance position of grazing as a fire mitigation tool by University of Melbourne fire ecologists, the department still does not seem to grasp that they are the problem not the solution.

Until there is a change in the public land management paradigm as outlined in the Alliance  Conservation & Community Plan Victorian’s will continue to suffer sub optimal environmental outcomes from public land managers.  

Max Rheese
Secretary, Rivers & Red Gum Environment Alliance

But few Australians now have anything much to do with the bush.  They mostly live in cities, don’t know how to ride a horse and go to the beach for their holidays.  They just singing about sheep at sporting events and read poems about mighty rivers and like the idea of saving the outback.  And so it seems every new Australia government makes saving the Murray River part of their platform. 

The previous Howard government was going to save the Murray from salinity – and achieved this through the construction of salt interception schemes and catchment wide drainage plans all administered by the Murray Darling Basin Commission.     

The new Rudd Government wants to save the Murray from climate change.   This is a much more ambitious undertaking than saving the Murray from salt.  

As part of this campaign the new government has new legislation, The Water Amendment Bill 2008, and it is currently being debated in federal parliament with its second reading beginning last week.   A centre piece of the new legislation is the creation of a ‘The Murray Darling Basin Authority’.   This new institution is claimed to be needed because the existing Murray Darling Basin Commission doesn’t have enough control over the states, but in reality the new organisation, like the old, will still be subject to state politics.  In short, nothing much will change, but it keeps the politicians in politics.   

Politician and new Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, plans to relieve the claimed climate change problem by buying up farms; most recently through the purchase of a 91,000 hectare property called Tooralee near Burke in NSW.  Tooralee currently grows maize, cotton and beef cattle but following the federal government takeover will be converted to national park.  

Internet campaigners ‘GetUp’ helped get the Rudd-government elected, and have recently joined ‘the fray’ on Murray River issues claiming to provide an opportunity for Australians “to keep the rivers flowing” and save “Australia’s food bowl” through a few mouse-clicks.   But this new campaign is particularly deceptive as Penny Wong’s policies will actually close-down agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin i.e. empty the food bowl!  Indeed the federal government has something like $3.6 billion to buyback farms like Tooralee.
Furthermore, as some farmers explained on ABC’s TV’s Four Corners program on Tuesday night, you can’t buy back rivers, not even with billions of dollars, because water allocations are just air space until it rains.   

But hey, modern Australia’s are now a mostly soft and gullible lot and likely to support this campaign which is essentially a campaign in support of more politics and big government and against bushies because they now know no better.   But none of this makes senses in the context of our heritage which was about being practical and a part of the bush – the floods and the droughts and the climate change.

Beyond Burke, May 2005. Photograph by Jennifer Marohasy

We have an enlargement of this image printed on stretched canvas, hanging on the wall of our living room. In its abundance and purity, water underpins the richness of our rainforest home and this image beautifully captures the celebrity of its most central supply.

As a family, we spend a surprising amount of time discussing and enjoying impressions within the image, such as the somewhat maniacal moss-covered face at the centrepiece of the two major falls. Another, somewhat haunting depiction of what we agree appears to be a woman’s face, looks upward from the right-hand wall of the cascade towards the heavily-browed simian face to the immediate left of the upper fall.

In an absence of formal identity, I named these Bridal Veil Falls, for the splendid way that the water diverted to the left spreads, with such an even, parabolic descent.

In retrospect, I would have liked to have been able to provide a presentation service to this gorgeous feature deep within the Cooper Valley, but such an entitlement is vigorously prohibited, through application of the precautionary principle. Of course, being national park, public entry is an existing right, however, the provision of a guiding service is not allowed.

Ironically, I may be called upon to assist in the recovery of a lost hiker, along with perhaps another hundred or so volunteers, in an environment deemed too important to suffer the impact of a guide that might prevent the loss in the first place.

Near Wentworth, Blue Mountains, photo taken April 27, 2008

Following on from Queensland’s climate-linked plan of doubling its declared reserves, the Federal Government has now pledged $180 million to expand the National Reserve System.

“Today’s announcement will help protect key habitats at a time when native species such as the mountain pygmy possum, tree kangaroos and hare wallabies need them most – as they struggle to adapt to the impacts of climate change,” Mr Garrett said.

WWF’s Protected Areas Policy Manager, Dr Martin Taylor, said the $180 million funding boost was a promising step toward saving Australia’s wildlife from a “decade of neglect”.

“National parks and nature reserves are the proven best and most secure method of arresting declines of threatened wildlife toward extinction and buffering nature against climate change,” Dr Taylor said.

A little over 11 per cent of Australia is presently reserved, which is apparently less than many developing countries. However, associating declared reserves with protection unfairly suggests Australia is eighty-nine percent unprotected.

The irony of the entire exercise is that it is underpinned by an environmental ethos, held by the majority and enunciated through the bidding of elected representatives, but only if others pay it for. As far as I know, there has never been a transfer of reserved land into private-ownership for improved protection. It has only ever been the other way. Australia incrementally increases its reserve system, leaving an ever-decreasing off-reserve portion.

Perhaps a more inclusive and cost-effective national approach would be possible if our elected representatives represented the protective interests of land-holders off-reserve.

But the stories went on to lump upstream legal and planned irrigation development that makes allocations for environmental flows with legal and illegal levies on grazing land within the marshes. Some levies within the marshes are currently blocking designated environmental flow water from reaching the northern nature reserve.

Some of the media reports suggest a need for more studies, but the solution may simply be to bulldoze levies so that environmental flow can get through to the nature reserve.

Other issues within the marshes that require action, rather than more studies include:
1. Preventing the trampling of bird nesting sites by cattle, and
2. Addressing the general issues of overgrazing.

The Macquarie Marshes is a large non-termial wetland in central western New South Wales covering about 200,000 hectares. Most of this area (88 percent) is privately owned and grazed. There are two publicly-owned nature reserves where cattle are excluded and which are Ramsar-listed, meaning they are considered of international importance for migratory bird species.

The most definitive recent publication on the ecology of the Macquarie Marshes is:

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History
by Gillian Hogendyk
IPA Occasional Papers
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=683

You can see pictures of overgrazing at this blog post:

Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000949.html

There are pictures of the illegal levies here:

More Water Won’t Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001282.html

And for more discussion read:

Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001481.html

—————————–
** Yesterday’s stories include:

Report reveals illegal Murray-Darling irrigation. By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Scientists say the flood plains are being sucked dry and there is no legislation in place to stop further development.
A new report has exposed major flaws in the management of key rivers and flood plains along the Murray Darling Basin. Satellite images of a key wetland in north-western New South Wales reveal more than 2,000 kilometres of earthworks have carved up the waterway. While some of the channels and levees may have been authorised, others are considered illegal and are diverting water into irrigation and farming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171517.htm

NSW vows crackdown on Murray-Darling earthworks
The New South Wales Government says it will crack down on unauthorised earthworks in the Macquarie Marshes in the state’s north-west. A report by the University of NSW found that more than 2,000 kilometres of channels, levees and dams are carving up the Macquarie Marshes and diverting water into irrigation and grazing areas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171663.htm

Wetlands in a flap after the rains
February 25, 2008
Birds are winning the battle of the marshes, writes Daniel Lewis.
Wading through Monkeygar Swamp, with magpie geese honking in the sky above, even a vicious bite from the odd leech can’t wipe the smile off Ray Jones’s face.
There’s enough water for significant bird breeding in his beloved Macquarie Marshes for the first time since 2000, and the National Parks field officer is on a high after depressingly dry years.
“When you see these geese taking off you can’t help but smile,” Jones says. A fellow parks employee recently told him: “This is the first time I have seen you smiling for years.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/wetlands-in-a-flap-after-the-rains/2008/02/24/1203788147733.html

‘Water theft’ threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON – Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A MAZE of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from the state’s flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
The report says inappropriate development has continued for decades…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/river-rescue-under-threat/2008/02/24/1203788147679.html

Flood plain development ’stealing water’
February 25, 2008 – 6:35AM
Levee banks, channels and dams are stealing water from NSW flood plains and threatening to undermine the $10-billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
The authors of a report on flood plain development on the lower Macquarie River say state and federal governments have turned a blind eye to water theft through flood plain harvesting, Fairfax reported on Monday.
http://news.smh.com.au/flood-plain-development-stealing-water/20080225-1ugc.html

‘Water theft’ threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON – Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A maze of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from NSW’s flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
…. SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=48948

I trekked into the forest today and was surprised and pleased to see a beautiful forest with little evidence of fire damage.

The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. Looking to the south-east.

The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. Looking to the north-west.

The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. At junction of Grose River and Govett Creek, looking to the north.

As I struggled up the steep escarpment on my way out of the valley, I passed a couple descending into the valley and I asked if they were planning to visit the Blue Gum Forest.

“Yes,” replied the women, “At least what is left of it”.

Like me, and so many Australians, she believed the media reports that the forest had been badly damaged. As we passed I suggested she would be pleasantly surprised by what she saw.

Why has reporting in the popular press been so negative? Was the state of this iconic forest misrepresented as part of a wider campaign against back-burning?

———————————–
Additional Notes and Links

Link to picture of burnt forest in Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-ghosts-of-an-enchanted-forest-demand-answers/2006/12/10/1165685553891.html

Link to earlier blog post with a question from Bill in Melbourne about the state of the forest:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002620.html

The Blue Gums in the Grose Valley are Mountain Blue Gums Eucalyptus deanii, here are some links to the more common Tasmanian Blue Gum, Eucalptus globulus:
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1702968.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Eucalyptus+globulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_globulus

The plan proposes the removal of horses from the Barmah Forest firstly by using lure and trap techniques over two years, which will commence following the approval of a final plan. The removal program would be reviewed annually and all feral horses are proposed to be removed from the Barmah Forest within five years of the program commencing. The involvement of key stakeholders will be through comment on this draft plan. The feral horse removal program will be managed jointly by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria.

In a note from Angela Downey of the Great Divide Team:

Earlier this morning we received notification that the Victorian Government and their able assistants, not content with killing the Legend of the Man from Snowy River, by their banning of the Mountain Cattlemen and their Barmah counterparts, it seems now they are set to remove another icon of Victoria’s heritage under the guise of saving the environment and questionable animal humanity reasons.

On Monday members of Parks Victoria will set about removing 150 brumbies from the Barmah Forest which covers an area of 75,000 acres. It is claimed this small number of horses are causing severe damage over this huge area.

A decision was made to remove the animals from the park following this years harsh drought and with another to possibly to follow, with the implication that this small number of brumbies would place the environment and the resident native fauna under undue stress due to competition for feed and water. Many of the horses live in small family groups and are spread throughout the park. No doubt it has been a harsh year for them and many of the other animals.

However no mention has also been made of the contribution to the lack of feed made by other feral animals such rabbits, wild pigs, goats, foxes, dogs and cats all of which inhabit the forest. Such other feral animals often have massive explosive populations and cause direct and monumental damage to the environment.

An option of using helicopters with snipers on board to do the deed was considered but due to the potential of a similar outcry such as the furor over the Guy Fawkes National Park slaughter of 2000. During that episode many horses were shot but died a slow and agonising death from bullet wounds.

The Victorian National Parks propose to round up the Barmah brumbries, destroy any stressed and old animals on site and remove the rest to the abattoirs.

These animals would be obviously suffering due to the current dry conditions as would the native fauna. . They are more than happy to leave the suffering native fauna to their own devices in the Park while also making little impact on the removal of other feral fauna with populations of thousands which happily munch their way through tonnes of native flora and fauna, digging holes, slopping around in bogs, and bulldozing their way around the Park.

The removal of the Brumbies will have little impact on the environment of the Park. One has to question the governments motives in removing this small population of an Australian icon and part of our heritage.

If Parks Victoria are actually so concerned with the plight of the brumbies there are other options out there.

Further recommendations have been made by the Victorian Environment Assessment Council in its River Red Gum Forests Investigation Draft Proposals Paper (which states):

Domestic stock grazing has occurred in Barmah forest for several generations. The average of 2000 (summer) and 800 (winter) head of cattle agisted in the forest has been reduced in response to recent drought conditions, culminating in the destocking of the forest for the 2007 winter term. There are also 7 current grazing licences covering a total of 78 hectares and with a total carrying capacity of 112 Dry Sheep Equivalent that would be included in the proposed national park. Grazing with domestic stock is incompatible with national park status and will not be permitted in the proposed park. As well as domestic stock, Barmah forest is also grazed by feral horses and deer which, together with feral pigs, should also be promptly removed from the proposed national park to protect its highly significant natural values.

In Chapter 4 of the report, Social, economic and environmental implications, a candid expression of economic impact is made:

A team of consultants led by Gillespie Economics was commissioned by VEAC to independently assess the social and economic implications of VEAC’s proposed recommendations. The consultants concluded that the proposed recommendations would result in a net increase in economic value to Victoria of $92 million per year excluding the costs of environmental water. The breakeven price for environmental water would be between $1320 and $2880 per megalitre. Most of the benefits from the proposed recommendations result from non-use values for environmental protection, which are heavily dependent on adequate environmental water. These benefits would accrue mostly to people outside the Investigation area, especially in Melbourne, while the costs of the proposed recommendations would be largely borne within the Investigation area particularly in the areas near where public land timber harvesting and grazing are focussed. The towns of Cohuna, Koondrook, Nathalia and Picola are likely to be most sensitive to these effects, as they would be occurring in the context of the contraction of local economies and populations in these areas that has been experienced in recent years.

This is yet another abrogation of environmental responsibility in a seemingly endless succession, as defined within the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.

As people and communities are included in the definition of the environment, the threat of serious or irreversible socio-economic damage (as identified by the consultants) should bring the precautionary principle into play. Under the policy principle of intergenerational equity, the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. And, environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.