Right: A participant in a "Junior Ranger" program is shown around a coastal wilderness. Proponents of parks developments say that this sort of activity will still be possible with the right environmental safeguards.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against private development in national parks
1. The new development plans are motivated by profit
It has been claimed that the new development provisions are putting an emphasis on profit generation ahead of the purposes for which the parks were originally established.
The Victorian National Parks Association has stated, 'The primary role of national parks is the conservation of nature on behalf of all Victorians. Our parks were not created to end up as building sites for hotels and large-scale infrastructure that can only be used by a privileged few who can afford it.'
The conservation group, Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests, have similarly stated, 'Worldwide experience shows it is the investors who benefit most from private developments in parks, not the majority of park visitors and certainly not the parks themselves.'
The group further notes, ''The government asserts without evidence that private developments would contribute to the management of our parks, but international and national examples show they actually skew resources away from much-needed conservation management...
For good reason, less than 1% of the 20,000 national parks worldwide have any significant tourism infrastructure within them. And most of these developments pre-date park establishment or are on pre-existing enclaves of private land.'
The Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests conclude, 'National parks and other reserves have been created to look after some 300 different habitat types in Victoria, and the tens of thousands of native species they support.
Rather than acting as a real estate agent for parks, the government should take its role as guardian and steward of our national parks seriously.'
2. Private development in national parks will harm Victoria's remaining natural areas
The Victorian National Parks Association has noted that 'Victoria has cleared far more of its natural areas than any other state in Australia'. The Association has further stated, 'National parks and conservation reserves make up approximately 18% of the land in Victoria, and are a refuge for plants and animals in a state with relatively little intact native habitat left.'
The Association concludes, '[This] makes it even more important to be vigilant in protecting our remaining natural areas.'
Referring to the proposed development within the Point Nepean National Park, Blairgowrie resident, Des Smith, stated, during a visit to Point Nepean, 'We get inundated with idiots here every summer; we don't want more of them. The whole point of a national park is to escape people, not [to be] dodging hotels and latte sippers.'
The Victorian National Parks Association has also noted, 'Exposing our parks to tourism development could lead to irreversible damage to some of our most precious natural areas and undermine the integrity of our magnificent system of parks and reserves.'
Referring again to the proposed development within the Point Nepean National Park, Frankston resident, Michael Jackson, has stated, 'All we're doing is going back to the Kennett era. Once the developers have it, it's lost forever.'
Under the new development provisions, land lease terms are being extended from a maximum of 20 years to 99 years. This has raised concerns among many that the new developments will permanently alienate areas that were intended to be undeveloped, in order to preserve flora, fauna and conservation values.
It has also been argued that increasing development in national parks will heighten the fire risk.
Dr Kevin Tolhurst, an expert witness at the Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires, has stated, 'The issue we have with people going to national parks is that these people are often from out of town, from other countries, and they aren't really well prepared for bushfires. And so a lot of onus then goes back onto the park management to protect and defend them...'
Dr Tolhurst concluded, 'If you have commercial enterprises in a national park there's major vested interests from outside parties invested in that area - so it's very hard to move them out.
Campers, walkers, you can close the park - but if you've got facilities in there worth millions of dollars, it's a much harder decision for governments and agencies to evacuate the area... the facilities will still be there and that will put a lot of pressure on the fire authorities to protect them - and that's what we saw in the 2003 and 2007 fires...'
Dr Tolhurst has also argued that expensive accommodation facilities within national parks will impede the burn-offs necessary to help reduce the fire risk. He states, 'We need to come to a clear decision as to why we have national parks, and how much we expect to be able to develop those areas to improve our economic return... Primarily they are there to protect the natural values of the areas...'
3. The guidelines surrounding private development in Victoria's national parks are inadequate
It has been claimed that the guidelines supposed to protect the integrity of Victoria's national parks are insufficient.
These guidelines are titled 'Tourism Investment Opportunities of Significance in National Parks: Guidelines'. Critics of the guidelines claim that this is reflective of their emphasis - the intention is to facilitate private investment rather than protect the parks and the conservation values they are supposed to represent. The introduction to the guidelines states their intention as to 'boost eco-tourism in Victoria...enabl[ing] us to better compete with similar attractions in Australia and overseas and...provid[ing] people the opportunity to experience, appreciate and care for their natural environment.'
Victorian National Parks Association executive director, Matt Ruchel, has complained of the guidelines' lack of rigour, describing them as 'another step on the path of putting "For Sale" signs on national parks.'
The conservation group, Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests, has noted, 'The guidelines have a number of vague principles, and outline a five-stage approval process, but the provisions for community consultation are weak...
Alarmingly, it is not until development of a full proposal that a detailed environmental management plan will be required, leaving no opportunity for community comment on this critical aspect.'
4. National parks are currently being enjoyed by large numbers of people
It has been claimed that the suggestion that private development is needed to make Victoria's national parks available to large numbers of visitors is false. Opponents of private development within the parks claim that these special places are already much visited.
In 2008, the Victorian government released a report titled 'Victoria's Nature based tourism strategy 2008-12' which included the information that the state's national parks received 28.6 million visitors in the 2004-5 financial year - more than any other Australian state. The environmental group, Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests, has stated that this is 'a figure which puts paid to the idea that parks "lock out" people.'
Thus, it has been argued that private development to provide better facilities is not needed to ensure that large numbers of Victorians have the opportunity to visit the state's national parks.
Relatedly it has been suggested that not only are Victoria's national parks well frequented, but that private development could actually discourage many potential tourists, especially eco-tourists, from visiting the parks. These tourists are seeking to enjoy an unspoiled environment. They are likely to reject locations that boast substantial development as this is not the simple, environment-based experience they are seeking.
The immediate commercial response to the new relaxed provisions has caused concern among conservationists. A coalition of councils in Victoria's south-west has already received proposals for high-end accommodation - offering about 50 to 100 beds - and luxury recreational facilities such as golf courses and restaurants within the parks.
The Victorian National Parks Association has stated, 'National parks are already good for tourism. We are in danger of "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" if we overdevelop them. Emphasis should be placed on encouraging tourism on private land, not within parks...
We already have large tourism developments such as the Alpine resorts outside national parks. Many of the 'tourism' experiences can be facilitated by improved eco-tourism services such as tours rather than new large-scale infrastructure.'
Similarly, the environmental group, Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests, has noted, that even such tours should be appropriate and sensitively managed in order to satisfy eco-tourists.
It has stated, 'Many "high yield" customers are looking for something quite modest-like engagement with local culture and people, and a sense of place. This is the very thing that packaged, expensive tours can insulate people from.'
5. Good facilities for visitors are already being supplied near Victoria's national parks
It has been claimed that visitors to Victoria's national parks are appropriately catered for and can readily access accommodation and have their other needs met.
The environmental group Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests has noted, 'Most of our parks already have ample accommodation, restaurants etc within a few kilometres of the park boundary.'
It is argued that where additional facilities are needed they should be supplied in areas adjacent to the parks, not within the parks themselves. This claim has also been made by the Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests, 'And wherever more services are needed, there is plenty of opportunity to allow for sensitive world-beating ecotourism accommodation on private land adjacent to our parks.'
The need to limit substantial development to areas outside the national parks has been stressed by the Victorian National Parks Association. The Association has stated that there has been 'a long standing position that private investment into any new large scale facility, particularly accommodation other than adaptive re-use of existing infrastructure, should be sited outside the park.'
The Association has further stated, 'There is a lot of tourism potential on private land adjacent to our national parks that allows for certainty of investment, particularly in and around regional towns. Opening up parks will damage the viability of these businesses.'