Submission to the Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks in NSW

Submission to the Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks in NSW

From Dr. Andrew Bolam, Owner/Developer of Clonturkle Sanctuary, Yetholme NSW

Attention:The Secretary

Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks

GPO Box 7050

Sydney 2001

Submission to the Ministerial Taskforce

on Tourism and National Parks in NSW

From

Dr. Andrew Bolam

Owner Developer of

Clonturkle Sanctuary,

Yetholme NSW

Andrew Bolam

160 Eusdale Rd

Yetholme NSW 2795

0418 976 313

To the Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks in NSW,

I welcome and commend this taskforce as I believe its terms of reference are highly relevant to my needs as the struggling developer of an innovative eco-tourism project in the Blue Mountains region. I believe my story is of value to this taskforce and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute my experience. Thankyou also for the extension of the closing date for submissions.

Regards,

Andrew Bolam Ph.D

SUMMARY

My name is Andrew Bolam. I have been developing and operating an innovative ecotourism driven private conservation project in the west of the Blue Mountains Tourism Region for over seven years. This enterprise, Clonturkle Sanctuary, consists of 500 aces of magnificent moist tableland escarpment forest set amidst a heritage farming landscape.

Making money is not my priority. No one in their right mind would be in this to make money. It is only because I am so passionate about its possibilities that I have persevered against so much opposition. Nevertheless, I have $1.5 million invested in my project to date and unlike NPWS, I am keenly aware that private ecotourism has to generate income to achieve the intensive conservation that underpinsnature tourism experiences in private land.

I am a former member of the National Parks Association and take great pride in our magnificent natural areas. I would like to be able to say that over the course of developing this project I have received support from NPWS. In truth, NPWS has at best been uncooperative, at worst obstructive and unethical. It appears that NPWS is threatened by the potential of ecotourism driven private conservation. This expresses itself ina bureaucratic intransigence and indifference that is an obstacle to NPWS’ own charter to enhance the role of private conservation.

I would also like to say that I have been assisted by the State and Commonwealth emphasis on nature based tourism. My experience is that State and Commonwealth ecotourism initiatives have been of no assistance and I continue to struggle to realize the potential of my enterprise.

My evaluation has also been that the dogmatic and uncompromising position taken by wilderness associations such as the Colong Foundation for Wilderness has not been helpful to encouraging a greater conservation role for private ecotourism.

Nevertheless, I submit there is a model whereby the three parties above can affect and support a greatly increased role by private organisations in both conservation, tourism and the enhancement of existing lands in the NPWS estate.

Clonturkle Sanctuary – ecotourism driven private conservation

Clonturkle has a proud and long standing heritage of private conservation. Dr Charles Moffitt gave the property “Clonturkle” its name over 100 years ago. Dr Moffitt was a tree lover and his fierce resolve to prevent vegetation clearing is responsible for the high quality moist tableland forest that covers much of the property today. In practice, this means Clonturkle Sanctuary has 106 more years of practical conservation heritage than the neighbouring Eusdale Nature Reserve administered by NPWS.

As the present owner, I wish to make the most of this conservation heritage by developing it as a place for eco-education and intensive nature conservation. Clonturkle Sanctuary is a privately funded project that has been established for the purposes of conservation, education, research and pioneering innovative approaches to sustainability.

For the last nine years I have been exhaustively researching the natural ecosystem that Clonturkle Sanctuary occupies. I would challenge NPWS to find an equivalent area of its estate that it has more intensively researched. I hold a Ph.D from the School of Geography and Environment, FlindersUniversity, as well as additional post-graduate training in native forest management and landscape ecology (ANU), wildlife ecology (Macquarie), captive vertebrate management (CSU), sustainable agriculture (CSU), and indigenous heritage management (UNE).

I am currently seeking to establish research and education ties with CharlesSturtUniversity, the regional university serving this part of the state with a strong track record in wildife research and teaching in protected area management and sustainable agriculture. CharlesSturtUniversity is a leader and innovator in land management studies, including its post graduate programme in Captive Vertebrate Management.

I am developing Clonturkle Sanctuary as a visitor based tourism enterprise, incorporating both accommodated visits and, eventually, day visitations. Clonturkle offers an opportunity for visitors to experience and participate in an experiment in sustainability, in nature conservation, in sustainable agriculture and in sustainable living.

A key element in my development plan is wildlife conservation and eco-education. My aim here is to create a wilderness-like experience of wildlife, but in private land away from the delicate wilderness interiors. This element includes many innovative measures to maximize wildlife habitat and diversity on the property. A central objective is to restore to Clonturkle the original assemblage of native wildlife that existed in this landscape. An unavoidable and necessary infrastructure item to achieve this goal of wildlife restoration will be the erection of predator exclusion fence within which self-managing populations of native wildlife can exist. A linked goal is also to restore wildlife to the surrounding landscape, including possibly, adjoining lands originally privately owned but recently acquired by NPWS.

For the last five years I have been trying to negotiate the acquisition,through a land swap, of an adjoining area of land (c.140 acres) which I refer to as ‘deep gully’. Clonturkle valley is a sharply defined escarpment subcatchment and ‘deep gully’ represents the most southerly corner of this valley. The ‘deep gully’ is also the driest, steepest, most exposed and rockiest slope in the valley.

There are a number of very strong ecological management reasons for seeking to acquire the ‘deep gully’ area. The primary reason is that ‘deep gully’ provides an integral habitat element absent elsewhere in ClonturkleValley. For example, its small rock walls and overhangs make the ‘deep gully’ the only of portion of the valley ideally suitable as habitat for the locally extinct Brush-tailed Rock-Wallaby. The exposed northerly aspect of ‘deep gully’ also provides valuable habitat in this cool mountain landscape for sun basking bycool blooded wildlife as well as mammals, such as Rock Wallabies proposed above.

The secondary, but still critical, reason for acquiring deep gully is that allows for innovative whole-of-catchment approach to ecosystem management. This will greatly improve the viability and efficiency of developing and managing reintroduced wildlife and habitat. It will also greatly minimizing environmental disturbance, a outcome that I regard as extremely desirable. One of the innovations in the Clonturkle Sanctuary proposal is that it offers an ecosystem and landscape scale experience for enjoying and learning about Australian nature. The inclusion of the ‘deep gully’ will mean the entire valley subcatchment can be managed with an ecosystem approach to eco-education and ecotourism.

NPWS -inhibitingprivate conservation and nature tourism.

The ‘deep gully’ area was originally private land. In the 1970s it was purchased for pine plantation by State Forests of NSW as part of a larger area that came to be known as the Frapples Block of Sunny Corner State Forest. Five years ago I began negotiating with State Forests to acquire this ‘deep gully’ area through a land swap in which I proposed a boundary adjustment to transfer anotherforested area of my land to the Frapples Block in exchange for the ‘deep gully’ area. This proposal was supported by the regional office of StateForests as well as the then State Manager of Wildlife Management, StateForests, Dr Jim Shields.

I was on track to negotiate a land swap with State Forest when, around three years ago, the State Rail proposed a quarry on part of the Frapples Block, Sunny Corner State Forest. The local community felt strongly that such a quarry would ruin the scenic and natural heritage values of the area and banded together to call for the Frapples Block to be transferred to a more protected status.

I personally submitted letters to numerous State government departments in support of greater protection for the Frapples Block. I was also approached by NPWS and State Forests to delay the land swap to allow its inclusion as part of the transfer, indeed as part NPWS’ argument in support of a transfer to them. One of the key reasons why NPWS was keen to pursue the land swap was it provided to them the easiest and nearest access into the Frapples Block. At this time I put in writing to NPWS an in-principal agreement with NPWS whereby I agreed to delay the land swap to assist the transfer process. I was given assurances from NPWS and in good faith allowed NPWS to delay the land swap until closer to the transfer date.

As a result of community action, State Government had much of the Frapples Block converted to a new (Eusdale) Nature Reserve to be administered by NPWS. Several days before the scheduled gazettal I was contacted by NPWS who informed me that despite their assurances and my good faith in them, a land swap no longer suited them and it would not proceed, but the Frapples Block would nevertheless be acquired by NPWS.

I made contact with the outgoing ministers office with a claim not only of a breach of good faith but also a breach of the NPWS’ own Code of Ethical Conduct. After strenuous efforts I received a letter from outgoing Minister, Mr Bob Debus, commending my project and asking NPWS to support my efforts.

However,after the best part of yet another year I had received no contact as promised from NPWS. It was only after persistent contact with the new minister that I receivedcontact from a very reluctant and uncooperative NPWS. In early 2008 I arranged a meeting with regional NPWS staff to progress the matter. In good faith I agreed to set out once more in writing a six page proposal as the basis for kick starting the process anew. Once again, nothing has come of this latest action from NPWS other than delays, obstacles and diversions.

In the case outlined here, NPWS took advantage of private citizens to acquire the Frapples Block, Sunny Corner State Forest, but then breached an in-principal agreement to support a private landholder’s efforts to establish an intensive conservation and ecotourism project that could potentially restore the newly acquired nature reserve lands with wildlife that has become locally and regionally extinct.

Consider, for example, the range of initiatives I proposed for ‘deep gully’ that NPWS has no intentions of undertaking.

-reintroduce species that are extinct in the locality and region,

-provide surplus individuals with which to populate a wider landscape or region,

-an intensive programme of increasing habitat abundance and diversity

-manage self-sustaining populations of formerly locally present and locally extinct native wildlife species

-support this project with intensive and innovative ecological management and research,

-provide intensive guided and minimal impact education and tourism experiences for visitors,

-intensive management of weeds and feral animal

NPWS is difficult to work with. In my experience it operates under a culture of take first, reciprocate later. In this regard, it fails to meet its own ethical standards in dealing with private individuals or enterprises. It is little wonder that NPWS finds it very hard to earn the trust and respect of innovative private sector land managers. I am confused by NPWS, because it appears to me that it is even threatened by my offer to re-introduce wildlife into the new Eusdale Nature Reserve.

My experience demonstrates that NPWS lacks the flexibility and the desire to support either ecotourism or private conservation. This a bureaucracy issue which is not related to achieving conservation outcomes. NPWS has acquired 100,000’s of hectare of new estate in recent years, but appears to lack the bureaucratic flexibility to perform a 50 ha land swap of newly acquired land so that locally extinct but habitat specific species can be reintroduced by ecotourism funded private conservation. NPWS is taking with one hand but not giving back to the community with the other, in the form of cooperation with and support to fledgling ecotourism-driven private conservation.

Failure of Tourism assistance to realize innovative ecotourism.

Several years ago I sought an infrastructure grant from the Commonwealth Regional Tourism Development Fund, partly administered at a State level. The ‘dollar for dollar’ funding I sought was for a feral proof fence within which to reintroduce locally extinct but previously present native wildlife for conservation, ecotourism and eco-education. This infrastructure item will dramatically transform wildlife depleted forest into a vastly improved conservation outcome, ecotourist nature experience, research potential, and economically viable undertaking, all without impacting the NPWS estate.

Just prior to this funding scheme, the Federal Government released itsWhite Paper on Nature Based Tourism strongly supporting the development of ecotourism in Australia. Among my arguments for a funding grant was the fact that my enterprise simultaneously supported local, regional, state and commonwealth tourism plans.

For example, the Blue Mountains Region Tourism Plan specifically sought new intensive guided nature attractions that emphasized wildlife experiences. This is exactly what my proposal offered to do, without drawing on the National Park estate. To achieve this, I not only needed 500 acres of 150 year old habitat rich forest ecosystem on private land next to the Great Western Highway, I also need a single important infrastructure item – a feral proof exclusion fence. This is exactly what I requested a grant for, including dollar for dollar matched funding.

I did not receive a grant. On investigating the funding allocations, I was appalled at the apparent bias against and apparent lack of understanding for the obstacles facing both ecotourism and regional areas. The public servant who debriefed me over my application shown no apparent understanding of the challenges facing either regional development or ecotourism. I was frankly stunned by the inability of the department involved to defend its choices, let alone be accountable and transparent.

Within a year of being told by a tourism official that they struggled to see the relevance of a feral proof wildlife fence to ecotourism on the other side of Lithgow, the United Arab Emirates announced their plan to spend 40 to 120 million dollars on the very same concept as I was seeking to develop. Ironically the exclusive Emirates’ Wolgan Valley Resort and spa is even further from Lithgow than my enterprise and much further from the Great Western Highway.

Its ridiculous that I should be dismissed as irrelevant to a federally-funded ecotourism grant and then less three years latter witness the arrival down the road of the $50 to $150 million dollar United Arab Emirates Wolgan Valley Resort and Spa project that follow the same formula as my own.

Hard line taken by Colong Foundation is dogmatic, unreasonable and unhelpful

I regard hardline taken by the Colong Foundation for wilderness and other as dogmatic and unreasonable and counter to maximum conservation outcome. This gives an impression that the Colong Foundation regards control issues as more important than conservation outcomes. The Colong Foundation’s position could do with considerable refining. The Foundation might benefit from a more sound and reasoned examination of whether control or conservation is their priority.

In particular, the foundation could also dwell more on their reasoning on whether Crown owned land administered by NPWS should be sold or not. If the estate of NPWS can be bought and acquired on the scale that has occurred in NSW in recent decades, then why can it not also be sold, relinquished or exchanged when it supports the goal of greater conservation, especially where it supports both private and public conservation as well as tourism.

I am familiar with the Colong Foundation’s criticism with the land swap between the United Arab Emirates and NPWS with regard to the Wolgan Valley Resort and Spa development near Lithgow. I have always regarded the Colong Foundation’s position on this matter to be unreasonable, dogmatic and far too dismissive of the greater potential benefits for conservation.

The Colong Foundation is particularly sensitive to having core wilderness areas opened to private ecotourism. It defends this concern by reminding that there are opportunities to enjoy nature outside of National Parks, such as private lands. Unreasonably, however, the Colong Foundation is also critical of ecotourism that involves the very edge of the National Park Estate, or even outside of it where it adjoins the National Park estate.