National Park Feasibility Reference Group

Notes from meeting held on 7 March 2017

In attendance: / Dr Kate Auty / Chair
Mr Adrian Brown and MrWallyBell / Aboriginal Representative
Aboriginal Representative
Mr David Flannery / ACT Heritage Council
Mr Brendon Mulloy / ACT Recreation Users Group
Mr John Starr / ACT Rural Landholders Association
Mr Larry O’Loughlin and MsJenny Bounds / Conservation Council – ACT Region
Conservation Council – ACT Region
Mr Kevin Cox / Gungahlin Community Council
Ms Karissa Preuss / Landcare ACT
Mr Rod Griffiths / National Parks Association of the ACT
Mr Paul Davies / Natural Resource Management Advisory Committee
Mr Jochen Zeil / North Canberra Community Council
Ms Sherry McArdle-English / Majura Valley Landcare
Dr David Shorthouse / Wetlands and Woodlands Trust
Ms Maryclare Woodforde / Youth representative
Observers: / Dr Annie Lane / Environment Division
Mr Daniel Iglesias / Environment Division
Speakers: / Mr Peter Taylor / Previously Director, National Reserve System team, Commonwealth Government
Ms Kathy Tracy / Environment Division
Secretariat: / Ms Debbie Worner / Environment Division
Ms Lesley Peden / Environment Division
Technical assistance: / Ms Jenny Smits
Mr Bindu Johnson / Environment Division
Environment Division
Key outcomes from the meeting / Action

1Questions to be addressed

The meeting agreed that the following are key questions in considering the environmental, economic and social benefits/costs of establishing a lowland grassy woodlands national park:
  1. Does the proposal improve the management of lowland grassy woodland above current management and how?
  2. Does the proposal facilitate inclusion of additional areas of lowland grassy woodland into the protected area estate?
  3. What would a new lowland grassy woodland national park cost?
  4. Would other stakeholders be affected by the proposal e.g. landholders, Wetlands and Woodlands Trust, ParkCare?
The meeting noted that additional information was required from the land manager to provide context for the questions. This would assist each representative in discussions with community groups, and to support further discussion at the next meeting of the reference group.
It was agreed that the National Parks Association of the ACT should have the opportunity to respond to issues which are raised regarding the proposal. / Dr Lane

2Terms of Reference

Clarification was requested on the area of lowland grassy woodland under discussion.
Mr Iglesiasnoted that the Parliamentary Agreement states that the feasibility study for a new national park identifies areas ‘including existing nature reserves around Mulligans Flat, Mount Ainslie and Mount Majura’ and that a wide interpretation is being applied as to the areas that could be considered for national park declaration.
No other comments were made on the Terms of Reference.

3Additional members

Mr Zeil proposed that a representative from Mount Ainslie or Mount Majura ParkCare should be invited to join the group as these reserves are key components of any possible national park.
Mr Iglesias and Dr Lane supported the proposal. / Secretariat

4Canberra Nature Park management plan

A number of members noted that a new Canberra Nature Park management plan is required. It should have a focus on addressing the diversity of ecosystems with Canberra Nature Park reserves including lowland grassy woodlands.

5Next meeting

Date and time: 2.00pm – 4.30pm on 5 April 2017
Location: Ground Floor, North Building, Dame Pattie Menzies House, 16 Challis Street, Dickson

Notes from discussion

National Parks Association (NPA) of the ACT

note that less than a third of ACT grassy woodland is within a protected area

want to protect all on-reserve and off-reserve grassy woodland (focus is protecting the ecosystem with broad landscape protection)

looking to improve connectivity

looking for ecosystem wide coherent management

there will be ecotourism benefits

currently do not market grassy woodland values well and it would be important to draw in others e.g.Parkcare and Landcare

managing together with rural landholders is important, and there is no intention of removing grassy woodland areas from rural leases. NPA recognises how much landholders have contributed to maintaining values

low impact recreation is fine, and the NPA is not advocating for any change

NPA supports research into lowland grassy woodlands including the work of the Wetlands and Woodlands Trust. NPA expects that the marketing potential for a lowland grassy woodland national park would assist rather than detract from the Trust’s work

note that areas on the Territory Plan identified as national park and nature reserve both have the some objectives under the Planning and Development Act, but it is the NPA’s view that national park has an ecosystem focus which will aim to improve connectivity, while nature reserve is focused on species or habitat management

MPA supports a consolidated national park approach rather than a fragmented approach for ecosystem management.

Aboriginal representatives

Adrian Brown

wants true engagement with Aboriginal people

supports connectivity – including social and community connectivity

Aboriginal people view the cultural landscape as across the who of south east NSW, not just the ACT

supports cultural land management and there is a lot that the Aboriginal community can do to improve management

there needs to be better guidelines for cultural connectivity

likes the term ‘cultural repatriation’ meaning the return of culture to the landscape.

Wally Bell

very much supports connection to country

governments are bound by borders, but Aboriginal people view the landscape much more broadly

Aboriginal people find they have to work with a very wide range of different governments and groups to achieve outcomes.

ACT Heritage Council

will check the ACT Heritage Register, but aware that there are a lot of Aboriginal heritage sites listed and also many European sites in the areas under discussion.

ACT Recreation Users Group/Canberra Off-Road Cyclists

what is the net benefit of the proposal

how would a change of status be resourced

suggests that a good outcome would be to identify additional areas for the reserve system, and improve the Canberra Nature Park management plan.

ACT Leaseholders Association

how much will the proposal recognise landholders.

Conservation Council – ACT Region

not convinced that putting a label of national park will improve management

how does national park designation improve biodiversity

what alternative mechanisms may be available to achieve good outcomes for lowland grassy woodlands e.g.ecological guidelines in Molonglo Strategy, through the CNP management plan

is there any way for a number of stakeholders to manage lowland grassy woodland under the one umbrella

observed that Land Management Agreements with rural landholders do not always work well.

Gungahilin Community Council

key question is how to best achieve the objective of good management of lowland grassy woodland

supportmultiple approaches that are coordinated. A segregated approach to management (many different managers) is better than a consolidated approach

national park label is not a good idea when trying to include diverse land managers such as rural landholders and Woodland and Wetland Trust.

Landcare ACT

working closely with community groups is very important

noted that short notice about participating in reference group had not allowed input from umbrella community groups including Parkcare.

Majura Valley Landcare

strongly supports marketing of protected area values and community engagement including rural landholders

note that a Majura Valley feasibility study was prepared in 2010.

North Canberra Community Council

does the proposal facilitate different ways of managing areas of lowland grassy woodland

will the proposal facilitate the inclusion of extra areas of grassy woodland

whatare the costs e.g. signage, management plan, etc.

Wetlands and Woodlands Trust

aims to support evidence based management of grassy woodlands, and has a long term outlook (100- 200years)

the Trust is already working on many of the issues identified in the proposal

before supporting a proposal to establish a national park that includes Mulligans and Gooryooraroo, the Trust would need to be assured that there would be no impacts on their long term work

concerned that potential funding partners e.g. corporate investors, have a view that national parks should be funded by governments

connectivity needs an integrated set of solutions and many kinds of land use contribute e.g. paddock trees, urban vegetation, and would not be captured in a new national park alone

note that even though the Trust is currently free to operate at arm’s length from government, corporate funding is difficult to source,

Trust has an MOU with ACT Parks and Conservation Service.

Daniel Iglesias

the term ‘national park’ gives an impression of the very best

Daniel noted that Canberra Nature Park is a fragmented collection of land, ranging from highly modified to relative good condition. It is a complex area to manage

note that the current proposal does not include grasslands

note that funding for ACTPCS is based on risk to ecosystems, not on name or IUCN classification

a case can be made for extra funding e.g. as was made to protect grasslands in the 1990s

Government has not made any commitment to additional funding for a new national park.

Peter Taylor

there is general view from corporations that funding of national parks is a government role

philanthropic and corporate funding providers generally want to see integration e.g. between the community and government

Australia has wide range of collaborative management models e.g. state governments working together with Land Trusts.

1 | Page