This Chapter is unique in this book because of the timing of the events
discussed. The looking back period afforded us by the Landsat series of
spacecraft is largely coincident with the major political developments that
have shaped much of what we see today.
There are two larger questions that should be kept in mind as we examine
specific examples. What is the status of the landuse of Conservation today?
How well is the intent of Conservation being achieved in fact?
The landuse of Conservation is taken in this book to include all the tenures
under which landcover is protected from consumptive use. I include landcover
that is conserved (it is still used for recreational purposes) as well as
landcover that is preserved (it has no significant human use at all).
These areas enjoy a wide variety of names: National Parks, Conservation
Parks, Wildlife and Nature Reserves, Game Reserves, and Regional Reserves.
I exclude Marine Parks which are the largest areas reserved.
The size, distribution and location of the Conservation landuse areas across
the continent are available as a map, AUSMAP (1989). The numbers, absolute
and proportional areas of land set aside for Conservation landuse for each
state, are shown in the table below. The values are from 1988 and are calculated
from Table 2.4.2 in ABS (1992).
Some caution should be applied in the interpretation of these figures.
Some of the parcels of land aggregated for each state include Forestry reserves
and suchlike. This suite of reserved land types have a very varied history,
and were not primarily created for Conservation landuse. The inclusion of
these lands inflates the total area.
Nonetheless, even with this proviso, some 10% of the continent is under
Conservation landuse. This is a satisfactory figure because 10% is a significant
proportion of the continent, and double the recommended minimum of 5%. Most
importantly, it is an encouraging figure, because it is more than double
the area of two decades ago. Positive change in Conservation landuse is
happening in Australia.
A further point of caution is necessary before the effectiveness of Conservation
landuse can be evaluated. There is a large number of very extensive reserves
in the arid interior of the continent. In contrast, the areas reserved in
the more densely populated and far more biologically diverse high rainfall
areas are numerous, but small. One of the larger states, Queensland, has
only 4% of its area under Conservation landuse, even though Queensland contains
areas of unique biodiversity and highly significant conservation value.
The point at issue is balance and representativeness.
To ensure perpetual conservation of flora and fauna, the critical ecological
questions are: How much land, and which parcels of land, are needed?
The best answer that can be given in 1992 to the first of these two questions
is that not enough land has yet been allocated to Conservation landuse.
The second question remains unanswered because the most efficient strategy
to choose additional land to achieve a balanced and representative conservation
of the nation's landcover is not yet clear.
We are deluding ourselves if we believe that conservation of Australia's
unique flora and fauna can be achieved within the boundaries of National
Parks and other dedicated areas of Conservation landuse.
At best, the National Parks can only support the general level of conservative
landuse practised by other landusers, such as Agriculturalists and Pastoralists.
The conservation of Australia's unique flora and fauna is dependent on everyone
in Australian society, no matter where they live or what they do.
This sign was erected by children from a school in the Outback. The target of the message is the multitude of city dwellers who come (in 4WD vehicles) to experience the beauty of the land hereabouts. These 'townies' exercise a Conservation landuse in an area of Pastoral landuse. Obviously some of these new landusers are leaving more than their footprints.
