State Heritage Convention
Dr Barry Wilson
Managing Director, Australian Wildlife Conservancy
"A case study - the Australian Wildlife Conservancy"
Just as in all matters of public interest, public attitudes to the conservation of nature evolve as circumstances change. During my own experience as a naturalist and conservationist in Western Australia there has been a quantum change in this respect.
In the 60s we promoted the view that the conservation of nature is best served by leaving natural bushland alone because Mother Nature would look after it herself and human intervention was bound to be counter-productive. That lead us to the 70s when we believed that the way to conserve nature was through reservation of conservation reserves. The Conservation Through Reserves Committee was set up by Government which led to the infamous EPA Red Books and the establishment of many of our most important national parks and nature reserves. A notion developed that if 10-15 % of every bioregion could be protected we could preserve most of the plants and animals as well.
But in the 80s the terrible truth dawned upon us that we were confronted by extinction of our native wildlife on a scale that was unprecedented. The scale and rate of extinctions were as great as anything the continent had seen before. The loss of native Australian mammal species during the 20th century was greater than on any other continent. A representative system of conservation reserves would not save many of our treasured plants and animals - though critically important, representative reserves were not enough. Studies demonstrated that the patterns of biodiversity in this land are such that no reserve system which we could envisage was capable of protecting even the majority of our native species. Not only because only a proportion of species could be protected in reserves but also because the cancer of extinction affected even the lands that were designated for conservation. While land clearing and loss of habitat were the paramount cause of the extinction crisis, insidious threatening processes including disease, weed invasion, changing fire management practises and exotic predators transcend reserve boundaries.
So in the 90s we began talking about "off reserve conservation". Rather than depending solely on tax-payer funded public conservation reserves we realised that every land holder has a role and a responsibility in the conservation of nature. Governments began promoting conservation on private land through Landcare, Land for Nature and covenanting programs.
And we also came to understand that "left alone" even wilderness areas degrade. For the truth is that there is hardly a square centimetre of land that is really left alone. Direct or indirect human influence is pervasive everywhere. The frequency of wildfire has increased alarmingly and invasion of weeds and pests, especially exotic predators like foxes and cats is universal, except perhaps in the far north. Changes in land management practises are essential if the extinction crisis is to be addressed. In some cases direct intervention is required, especially in small areas of remnant habitat now surrounded by cleared land.
Public support for change always lags behind the need for it. Nevertheless, we have witnessed over the past few years an enormous shift in community attitude toward this problem. The NIMBY phenomenon is still with us but more and more people are beginning to understand that land ownership carries with it a responsibility for custodianship as much as opportunities for exploitation. Depressing though the environmental prognosis may be , we can rejoice in the stirrings of widespread public support for the conservation of nature.
People tend no longer to see conservation as something that can be left to government agencies but want to have a go themselves. NIMBY is changing to YIMBYT, Yes In My Back Yard Too.
Other contributors to these proceedings speak about the range of community conservation programmes that have emerged in recent years. My task is to report on one. This example is perhaps not a typical one but it is one manifestation of how the resolve of committed private citizens may impact in a major way.
Most of you will have heard about the "Flat Cat Man", Dr John Wamlsley who established private conservation reserves in South Australia and began reintroductions of threatened mammals after elimination of fox and cat predators. The notion that extinctions could be halted if you removed the threatening process impacted strongly on many visitors to his properties. One person stimulated by this notion was an Englishmen named Martin Copley whose family had owned large tracts of land in the Swan Valley and Avon areas around the turn of the 19th century.
Martin and his family moved house to Western Australia a few years ago. He and his wife Lorraine bought a property at Chidlow that retained several hundred acres of bushland. They named it Karakamia Sanctuary. With advice from John Walmsley, an electrified fox-proof fence was constructed around the property and foxes, cats and rabbits were removed from the enclosed area. Professional staff were engaged and a management plan was prepared. Then, in collaboration with CALM, several threatened species of native mammal were released within the enclosure. The result was stunning. In the absence of fox and cat predation most of the reintroduced species rapidly multiplied. Today there is a visitor centre in the sanctuary and staff run evening walks where visitors may experience at close quarters native animals in their natural habitat. On most evenings 6-8 species of mammal may be seen within an hour-long walk and the staff provide commentary on the natural history of the animals and their habitat, their conservation status and the success (and some failures) of the recovery programmes. On the outside of the fence the ground shows no sign of mammals but inside the ground is worked over from one boundary to another and the bush is alive with furry animals again.
This success led the Copleys to decide to do it again. Another property was bought, this time a 2000 hectare property in the Avon Valley, linking Walyunga and Avon Valley National Parks. It was originally called Paruna Park but the name was changed to Paruna Sanctuary. An electrified fence was constructed along the southern boundary separating the bushland from farmland beyond the rim of the escarpment making fox control by baiting in the valley effective. Mammal reintroductions were again immediately successful.
At this point the Copleys realised that they had initiated something with very great potential, not only for hands on conservation projects but also for influencing community attitudes. This experience showed that our mammal extinction crisis is not irrevocable. We can do something about it and it need not be left soley to government.
A company was formed called Paruna Sanctuary Ltd. It was a company limited by guarantee, that is the directors take no profit from it and its assets (including its land) must pass to another charitable organisation with similar objectives in the event that the company fails. It was registered as a charitable company and as an environmental organisation under Commonwealth legislation. Today there are 6 directors with Martin Copley as the Executive Chair. A public gift fund is established with its initial capital donated by the Copleys.
In the past three years three more properties have been purchased, all of them pastoral leases in remote parts of the State. They are Faure Island in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area, Mt Gibson Station on the edge of the goldfields and Mornington Station in the Kimberley. A share in Ningaloo Station at North West Cape was also purchased. This makes the company arguably the largest holder of private land dedicated to conservation in Australia with more than half a million hectares under its management.
As there are now 6 properties involved, the name Paruna Sanctuary Ltd is no longer pertinent, that being the specific name of one of the properties. After much agonising the company name was changed to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, or AWC. The organisation is now seeking public support to ensure that the land it controls remains securely committed to conservation in perpetuity and the conservation projects it has initiated continue under wise management.
There are two other organisations in Australia that have similar objectives and programmes - the Australian Bush Heritage and Earth Sanctuaries. As you might expect, the three are not structured the same way. Each is an individual experiment so to speak. However, considered together, the three represent a new approach to conservation in Australia. They provide opportunities for private citizens to become directly involved through financial support and/or personal participation in field projects. This is not an alternative to conservation on public conservation reserves (national parks and nature reserves) managed by government agencies but supplementary and complementary to it.
Perhaps, before I close, a little more detail is needed on the AWC objectives and programmes. There are three primary objectives:
