Should Victorian bush users welcome a Great Forest National Park?

For many years now a Great Forest National Park (GFNP) has been proposed, a reclassification of public land from State Forest to National Park, covering the area roughly from Kinglake to Baw Baw to Eildon. This would represent an addition of 355,000ha to the existing 170,000ha of National Park. But now it’s off the table according to the Labor government, and you can bet any Liberal-led government wouldn’t even consider it.

To say the proposal is divisive is an understatement. Proponents of the Park argue that the forests must be preserved for the good of the climate, endangered species and water quality. They further argue the creation of a Park will bring an economic benefit to the locality, and up to 89% of people want it. More on that later.

Opponents point out that any Park will, by definition, restrict human activity such as hunting, mountainbiking, fossicking, firewood collection, horse riding, free-camping, dog walking and 4×4 touring. They argue that making the area a Park would actually hurt the economy as those activities would be lost or reduced, and define the Park as “locking up the bush” which would also increase the risk of bushfire.

Are all these claims true, or as true as suggested? It doesn’t seem to me that either side is overly interested in the views of the other, so I’m going to try and strike a balance in this article and see if there’s any common ground.

Let’s start with the role of the forest, which begins with photosynthesis. Trees convert sunlight to chemical energy, absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, creating wood, and emitting oxygen. If all the trees were suddenly eradicated from earth, all living life would soon follow. Forests also improve water quality by acting as a natural filter, preventing erosion, and regulating heaving rainfall. Although even sewage can be filtered to become drinkable, that’s expensive so the greater the purity of the water going into our drinking water systems, the less expensive it is to make it drinkable. Forests are also home to endangered species, of which the GFNP area has quite a few. Old-growth forests are more, not less resistant to fire as they have large trees, relatively wet earth, and are dense which helps resist wind. Newly-logged, or fresh-growth areas are in contrast drier, sparser, and have thinner trees.

All the above is well proven with plenty of research (actual papers, not Googling). I don’t think anyone could, or would seriously argue that forests are not good for Victoria, and indeed those opposing the GFNP want forests just as much as the pro crowd, just not designated as a Park. David Lindemeyer has written a good book on the subject which I can recommend as background research.

So, why a Park? Why not just leave things be, as a State Forest? After all, a tree doesn’t care whether it’s in a forest or park, and nor does the Sooty Owl or Barred Galaxias.

The primary answer is, having spoken to someone working on the pro GFNP side – who requested I not name them – is protection of the forest. Forests are valuable resources. They occupy significant amounts of land which could be put to all manner of purposes which make money. A forest view is what people value most highly when choosing a property, maybe with the exception of a beach. Forests are full of saleable wood. All this potential for commerce will compromise the forest’s benefits that we covered earlier, because if there’s less forest, there’s less benefit, and once destroyed, forests cannot reasonably be recreated. Replanting the same area elsewhere with trees does not make it equivalent to decades, or even hundreds of years of forest growth, and a fire through an old-growth forest is not the same as logging. The only way to make an old-growth forest is time, and time as in multiple generations, not decades.

So, making the area a Park means it is much harder for commercial interests to destroy the forest, thus it is protected. The primary concern, my source says, is extractive industries, specifically logging and mining.

So far, so good. I don’t think too many people are going to have a problem with keeping the forests intact, so let’s now come to the objections to the GFNP and those centre around restrictions.

There are many different types of Park – Regional, National, Wilderness, Coastal and more. The rules for what you can, and cannot do in a Park vary, and there are many, many exceptions. The same is true of State Forests. However, it is true that generally you can do more recreational activities in a State Forest than a Park, and that is the problem. State forests come from “yes, unless”, Parks are “no, unless”.

The simple question from the State Forest users is “what happens to my recreation if there’s a Park”? And I am yet to see any answer which addresses the question in a way which gives people a clear understanding of the changes. Saying “there will be camping” or “there will be 4×4 tracks” isn’t enough. It’s like being asked if you’d agree to a new sporting facility in your suburb. Well, will that be big a huge stadium drawing interstate crowds, or a little footy field? Both are ‘sporting facilities’. Same way with the Park, it could be highly restrictive, or few restrictions. All we know is that, by definition of it being a Park, there will be restrictions.

Now one reason given for the lack of clarity is that various reports and proposals are just that, not decisions, and only the government can make a decision, so we don’t know. This is indeed true, but does not excuse the proponents of the park from clearly explaining what the changes would be to every recreation under their proposed plans, even if those plans aren’t agreed by the Government. But we don’t know, so there is an information void, and into that void comes misinformation going to the extremes. For example, “the bush will be locked up”, implying nobody will be able to do anything at all, or everything handed over to First Nations people and nobody else allowed access. That is never the case with Parks; look at the Otway, Grampians, other Parks – but equally, there will be restrictions even if it’s not totally locked out.

I also don’t think the GFNP are helping their cause with raising the spectre of a government beholden to guns-right activitsts:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1107811701488581&set=a.590119189924504

Conflating guns rights with families is a distortion and will just serve to further alienate middle-ground thinkers, even it gets applause from the choir. Fact is, not enough people want the GFNP for it to happen.

The GFNP is a change, and the onus is on the proponents of a change to argue their case which includes addressing the concerns of those who would be affected by the change, and even those who think they would be affected. So far, this has yet to happen. Opponents aren’t going to look at the arguments for a Park and drop their own concerns, you get people on side by understanding their point of view and addressing concerns, not preaching about the greater good from a of self-righteousness, paying simplistic lip-service to the concerns or inventing statistics. Here’s the aforementioned 89% example:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1107811701488581&set=a.590119189924504

So 89% of Victorian want more national parks? I found where that figure came from:

Source: https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/GFNP_Interns_Report.pdf

Well if you ask it like that, of course 89% are going to support a new national park! It’s a technique as old as time itself, phrase the questions to get the answer you want. For a masterclass, watch this from Sir Humphrey. An alternate question could be:

There is a current proposal for a new Yarra Ranges national park in the forests around the Yarra Valley and central highlights, less than 90 minutes from Melbourne. However, there will be restrictions on recreational activity such as camping, hunting, horse riding, 4WDing and more, with attendant effect on regional local business, and it would likely take visitors away from other national parks such as the recently expanded Otway. There are threatened species in the area but those can or will have exclusion zones around their habitat. Would you support or oppose this proposal?

You know it wouldn’t be 89% in support, so when I see the GFNP using these kinds of tactics it makes me question every other bit of evidence they provide. And frankly it’s moderates like me who they need to win over, not fuel the echo-chamber greenies allies, or attempt the impossible by converting the rusted-on anti-environmentalists.

In my view, the case for a Park needs to have a section for each and every recreation from free-camping to fossicking showing the current state, and the proposed state. The areas you can go now, the areas you will be able to go in future, restrictions, even improvements.

Now with a Park there will undoubtedly be restrictions, and not only will that be unpopular with those people whose activities are restricted, but also with the businesses who depend on the revenue of the forest users. An argument could be made that some people would never accept any restriction, and that’s true, but the majority would…if they had a reason to. This is where the pro-Park conversation needs to switch from the abstract, good-for-humanity, self-righteous them-and-us argument to WIIFM, or What’s In It For Me if it wants to garner wider support, which would mean support to make it a reality.

I’d suggest that support might start with the business owners. The GFNP does have an economic analysis, but it focuses on additional Park visitors, dismisses and then ignores loss of revenue from existing forest users, and was done in 2017. A proper, impartial analysis needs to be done, by an independent body not an environmental-focused consultancy, and if it shows businesses are going to lose, then be up front about that, and include in the Park proposal a recommendation for some sort of compensation or assistance. Right now, there’s nothing to prove that local businesses wouldn’t, overall, lose revenue as nobody believes the extra Park visitors would compensate for the hunters, fishers, 4x4ers, free-campers, car rally events and the like who’d go elsewhere or reduce in numbers. And then there is the effect of reducing visitor numbers elsewhere – if Melbourne Family X visits the GFNP, are they really going to go out next weekend and visit the Grampians or Otway? And which international tourists are going to fly in to see the GFNP? The business consultant in me says that economic case is absolutely not proven.

Then, the bush users. What could you say to persuade a hunter to support a Park, if they think they can’t hunt in it? Or the family who free-camps, and would need to spend their hard-earned for camp fees? Or 4×4 owners who think they’d lose track access?

I think almost every bush user could be persuaded to support a Park very easily. All that’s needed is to promise them they can still carry out their recreation, and I call this a ‘Recreation Park’ – a Park, therefore protected from extractive industries, but with the same recreation permissions as we have now. So we prevent extractive industry, conversion to housing etc which is what the conservationists claim to want. There is plenty of research showing logging native forests is problem for everyone, but I’m yet to see any showing that recreations like I’ve listed are a problem. Quite happy to hear from anyone who can show me decent research that forests are significantly damaged by current levels of recreation, for example hunting, fishing or camping.

The other concern is areas where the endangered species are known to live, and as these are small areas, just draw a line on a map and set that area aside for special, no-access conservation – I really can’t see any objection to that from anyone. Then everyone could continue their forest activities just as if it was a State Forest. The bush users would be happy too, as their forest is protected.

Now this is a compromise, but for the Park proponents, it may be this solution or nothing. What would they rather; no Park at all, or a Park protected from industry, with all recreational activities still permitted? And if we had a ‘Recreational Park’, then the anti-Park people may well join forces with the pro Park people, and it would then happen. I guess it all depends on whether the GFNP movement is capable of seeing another point of view.