Last August, a panel of scientists from the Australian Greenhouse Office and the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), called on the federal and state governments to expand the number of nature reserves in Australia in a bid to protect animal populations from climate change.
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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Neil, why is this ironic?
“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. ”
This sentence doesn’t make sense.
there are organisations that buy land and create reserves. EG the AWC, run by some Doctors (of the medical kind) and some Zoologists and Tim Flannery.
“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. ”
It’s not an unfair assumption as different laws apply to Reserves. So Reserves are better protected under the Law.
Mr T,
The irony describes the contradiction of the value.
To whom are the property’s intrinsic environmental values more worthy of protection, the landholder – who has paid for those values or a financially uninvolved citizen in another place that is remote from the property in question?
Ironically, the owner with the greatest investment in these values is usurped for the notional gratification of a much larger number of non-contributing interests.
As for better protection under the law, you should see how devastatingly ineffective laws are in protecting habitat values on reserves from very well protected feral pigs.
I see what you mean now.
So are you suggesting that there’s better help for private citizens to create their own ‘reserves’?
That’s a great idea. There are a lot of organisations that do that, like AWC, or even the Steve Irwon Foundation (or whatever they’re called). I’m sure they’d end up making more reserves.
The thing that I doubt is that these private reserves will make up anywhere near the land area that public reserves do.
The main thing that reserves are protected from is conflicting land use. This is easily the biggest threat to species in Australia (other than seagulls 🙂 ). Loss of habitat is a huge problem.
Probably the answer would be in doing both. The private reserves tend to do better in protecting animals – as they’re normally fenced. The public reserves tend to be larger and remain as habitat areas.
Mr T, “The thing that I doubt is that these private reserves will make up anywhere near the land area that public reserves do.”
I don’t think land area is the issue here but how well the reserves perform. It’s something that needs investigation I have no idea about relative performance I’d like to see some numbers.
There are two important issues here, one is that the WWF and other green groups used to endorse the target of 10% reservation. Now that Australia has achieved it and in some states the reserve level is almost 50%, the green groups are demanding more, and the Federal Government appears to have redirected money from health education and social welfare to expand on this reserve’s system.
The second important point is will expanding the reserve system have any benefit to threatened species, when they are threatened by a whole range of processes not just the modelled scenarios of global warming.
Jan, here you go:4, 8, 16, 32
Jokes aside though, the land area is important as the amount of habitat is directly related to the number of animals. I don’t know any figures, it would change from species to species.
Jennifer would have some numbers. She’d know how dependent species are on habitat area.
Or are you wondering on the relative sizes of public vs private reserves? And their relative success? That’s a huge question!
Around 70% of Australia is held under private ownership in one form or another. This is where the greatest habitat value exists and where the least resources are historically allocated for conservation management. This must change!
Reserves are declared for the expressed purpose of protecting natural and cultural heritage, but their cost is exceptionally high, as they are dependent on the recurrent funding and growth (it would seem) of bureaucracies.
Australia needs to harness the stewardship potential of the 70% majority landholders and achieve the best possible and most cost-effective conservation outcome on that portion.
Managing reserves is expensive, the Australian Government recently told the World Heritage Commission that since 1982 it had spent over $100 million dollars on managing the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area covering 1.38 million hectares.
This is about 4 million a year.
It is a very small part of the National Reserve System that covers 88 million hectares (11.5% of the land mass). So based on the Tasmanian experience $250 million will be needed for annual management, yet Mr Garrett said $180 million would be rolled out over the next five years to create new reserves and protected areas. So where where is the managemnt money of $1.25 billion for 5 years?
I don’t buy this passive view of dealing with biodiversity.
I think the key is nature corridors. Not great unexploited parks. But buffers, nature corridors and so forth around the private property.
We ought to exploit and arrange for the homesteading of any and all areas. But put in motion a multi-century plan to wind up with a situation where substantial private properties typically have throughways through them and buffers around them.
And all this of course in the context of strengthening and making more sacred property rights.
Thats why it would have to be a multi-century-plan because we could not let the leftists use this goal as a way of undermining property owners rights.
Mr T, 4, 8, 16, 32
*chuckle*
“:Or are you wondering on the relative sizes of public vs private reserves? And their relative success? That’s a huge question!”
Yes. I’m actually more interested in comparing managed vs let alone. I don’t think that’s quite such a big ask, maybe.
Jan, the AWC seem to be quite successful with their rehabilitation – I would say more so than Government Reserves. So I would think that these managed reserves do better.
GMB,
This is silly :”Thats why it would have to be a multi-century-plan because we could not let the leftists use this goal as a way of undermining property owners rights.”
yes, of course, ANOTHER leftist conspiracy…
“National parks and nature reserves are the proven best and most secure method of arresting declines of threatened wildlife toward extinction and buffering nature against climate change,”
They’ve got to be f@#$%g kidding!
How many of these clowns have spent any time in the Victorian reserve system since the 2003 and more recent fires? A lazy 2 million hectares went up in an entirely preventable “broadscale clearfire” that was of such scale and intensity that few wildlife could escape. And we still have these “ecozombies” chanting their sinister mantra, “must have more land, must have more land”.
The unofficial (off back of truck) data for NSW serious forest fire damage by tenure a few years back was;
National Parks = 700,000ha destroyed.
State Forests = 70,000ha destroyed.
Private Native Forest = 7,000ha destroyed.
And this from roughly similar areas of tenure.
Normally one would suggest that the wildlife (the only real experts in wildlife ecology) vote with their feet and favour Private forests and actively managed State Forests. But the residents of the 700,000ha of torched national park didn’t get a vote. In fact, they still don’t have a vote because they’re all f@#$%g DEAD. Just as the victims of the following year’s conflagration are all f@#$%g DEAD.
There has never, ever, in the clearing history of Australia, been habitat destruction that is anywhere near the scale, intensity, concentration and repeat frequency as that which is being inflicted by the incompetent management of the parks estate.
Even the clearing of the “Big Scrub” on the NSW North Coast took 70 years and was dispersed over more than 1000 seperate holdings and more than 1000 dispersed annual events comprising an average area less than 3 hectares each. This created a gradual decline in populations that was primarily characterised by reduced fertility and less vigorous recovery from drought.
Only the departmental boofheads of the brave new green utopia have managed to preside over 2 million hectares of contiguous habitat destruction and mass extermination in a single event.
But never mind, punters, the WWF said they were doing a wonderful job but just need a bit more money. Well, maybe more than just a bit more, a whole lot more in fact. Oh, and by the way, we found the money in the aged care budget. But they will all be dead soon anyway and they are the only ones who remember what these parks were like before they came under our “protection”. And there will also be some money taken out of the education budget to maintain intergenerational equity. But the little bimbos won’t know what they are missing and, besides, they believe anything we tell them.
But make no mistake, the community is getting exactly the environment they deserve. Pity about the little fuzzies.
Mr T, “So I would think that these managed reserves do better.”
I think so too but unfortunately it’s not something we can take to the bank.
Reserves = “belongs to the people” = “belongs to the government” = “controlled by the Party” = does not belong to anyone accountable, and will eventually be wrecked.
Mr T’s acceptance of the notion that reserve = protection while private = threatened appears to be in complete ignorance of the fact that native forest in every state is subject to comprehensive clearing bans. If land is covered by native vegetation, and that vegetation is older than 1990 in NSW and on Qld Leasehold land, or is mapped as remnant vegetation on Qld Freehold land, then it may not by subject to any material change that would alter that state.
So in every conventional sense of the word, it is all “protected”. In most catchments this level of protection extends to more than 50% of the total land area and most of the available habitat. And there is absolutely no excuse for any AGO or CSIRO officer to be unaware of that situation.
Consequently, any Commonwealth employee who has endorsed a statement that implies that the extent of habitat protection is limited to the 11% that is under reserve tenure is either deliberately, or negligently, misleading the public and the policy process.
And I would like to know exactly who these people are and whether they have been acting in an official capacity.
Ian, you seem to be misrepresenting what I said.
I actually suggested that private reserves are better than public. Try reading it again.
Yes, there are clearing restrictions now. However if there is a mineral commodity there, they will clear. If they want the land for residential purposes they will clear the land.
It is clear that giving an area Reserve status gives it more protection under the law. Othwerwise they wouldn’t do it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so concerned about areas being placed into reserves.
It’s also about Guaranteeing the reserve. So at the moment we have about 11%. The various conservation departments seem to use a figure of 15% as the minimum habitat required. That’s 15% of each type of habitat too, not just a 15% grand total. Here in WA the State Govt are buying old Pastoral Leases that adjoin National Parks to try to get to that 15%.
There are a lot of competing interests here and it’s stupid to paint it as one-sided. Working in the minerals industry I can see that the law heavily favours Pastoralists and Mining companies. Environmental concerns are clearly the poor cousin.
If you want to know who they are go to the websites. Stop huffing and puffing.
Oh really, Mr T, which planet have you been on? Q. What proportion of the non-reserve tenures (Freehold, Leasehold and State Forest) with native vegetation are;
A. located near future housing developments and
B. do not have a ready supply of existing cleared land to supply future demand?
A. Diddly squat.
The simple facts are that in the fastest growing part of Australia (SEQld) there is a Regional Plan that already sets out where all the development will take place for the next 50 years. And there is an even greater supply of land outside this footprint that is either cleared or has young regrowth and woody weeds.
Infact, there is over 400,000 hectares of woody weeds and regrowth in the region that has minimal habitat value and is capable of housing an additional 10 million people even under the old low density model.
So the case remains. Remnant native vegetation on private land will continue to deliver the full suite of habitat services and there is absolutely zero excuse for suggesting otherwise.
Ian, why have you suddenly changed the topic to residential development?
1. You ignored that you misrepresented what I said the first time. Would be nice if you acknowledged that you actually completely had it wrong.
2. I am talking about how Resrves are more protected under law. Nothing more. The property rights of private owners creating reserves is no greater than the rights of someone with a home or large amount of land. SO if there was some commodity (like gold) beneath their land they would have no may of preventing the mining. With a Reserve there is a way of preventing it. That’s the increased protection.
So in the sense that you were describing earlier private land is not as protected as a Reserve.
However, before you start misrepresenting what I mean, I will say that private reserves are normally much more succesful at protecting than public ones.
No, Mr T, you mentioned housing and mining and you are splitting hairs over very low probability events. Yes, if gold is found on private land then remnant vegetation will be cleared but the amount of land cleared each year for mining is statistically insignificant. According to the SLATS Landsat data, In the period 2001-2003 the total area of woody vegetation (including woody weeds) cleared for mining in Qld was only 1609 hectares out of 170 million hectares of land. Most of this was in the north east major catchment with 1472ha in a region of 44.75 million hectares of which 63% (28 million ha) is still woody vegetation.
And of course, mining approvals always require the land to be restored to the original vegetation (and habitat value) upon completion so the long term implications are infinitely small.
Any discussion on the need for “protection” must include consideration of the realistic probability of threats and the scale and relevance of those threats. And for all intents and purposes the clearing controls implemented by KRudd’s state labor mates already deliver effective protection to all native remnant vegetation. To suggest otherwise is grossly misleading.
Ian, you seem to be thinking I am disagreeing with you… You can argue with yourself.
Well, T, you did say that only reserves are fully protected.
There is nothing silly about what I said Mr T. Leftists are constantly undermining peoples property rights. They even have a name for it. They call it “sustainability”. Thats just a fact. You can call it a conspiracy if you like but these leftist filth believe in what they do.