Professor Richard Mackay AM
State and trends of heritage values
Heritage (2016, 2011)
State and trends of heritage values
Component
Summary
Grade
Very poor
Poor
Good
Very good
Confidence
In Grade
In Trend
Comparability
To previous years
Statutory heritage lists are inconsistent in coverage of natural heritage places, both between jurisdictions and across site types
The National Reserve System (NRS) now includes more than 17% of terrestrial Australia, meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity target, and the comparable marine figure is more than 36%, which substantially exceeds the Aichi Target 11
The NRS is focused on incorporating the full range of ecosystems and other important environmental values across each of the 89 bioregions; 50 of these bioregions have more than 10% of their area protected in the reserve network
Year(s):
20163
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Comparable
Statutory heritage lists are inconsistent in coverage of natural heritage places, both between jurisdictions and across site types. Geodiversity is poorly represented The National Reserve System focuses on incorporating examples of the full range of ecosystems and other important environmental values across each of the 85 bioregions. Although there are known gaps and alternative targets that are greater and more refined, 51 of the 85 bioregions have more than 10% of their area protected in the reserve network
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
The very limited available data relating to natural heritage values, environmental threats and management plans for natural heritage places suggest that Australia’s reserved lands are in good condition, but continue to face threats from invasive species, fires, erosion, use and effects on threatened species. Lessening of the resources available for reserve management (particularly relative to the increasing extent of reserved lands) means that these threats to natural heritage values are increasing
Year(s):
20163
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Somewhat comparable
Data relating to natural heritage values, environmental threats and management plans for a sample of natural heritage places indicate that Australia's reserved lands are in good condition but continue to face threats from invasive species, fires, erosion, use and effects on threatened species. There are differences in condition according to land tenure and listing status Available national information relates to a select sample and may not be truly representative
Year(s):
20113
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Low
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
There is no nationally coordinated inventory of significant Indigenous places
Survey and assessment programs for Indigenous heritage are often undertaken in response to threats from development projects, rather than proactively, owing to perceptions about cost and resource availability
There has been a major increase in dedication of Indigenous Protected Areas
Additional Indigenous places have been included on the National Heritage List
Year(s):
20162
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Comparable
There is no nationally coordinated inventory of significant Indigenous places Survey and assessment programs for Indigenous heritage are most often resourced and undertaken in response to threats from development projects There is inadequate representation of Indigenous places within public sector reserved lands and on the major statutory heritage lists, particularly the National Heritage List
Year(s):
20112
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
No nationally coordinated data exist about the condition and integrity of Indigenous heritage places. There have been many positive developments, but also some trends that significantly undermine the protection of Indigenous heritage. Recognition of the role of Indigenous people in managing Indigenous heritage has expanded, but individual assessment and development decisions continue to cause cumulative, incremental destruction of the Indigenous cultural heritage
Year(s):
20162
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Interest in Indigenous heritage in Australia has increased. There have been many positive developments, but also some trends that significantly undermine the protection of Indigenous heritage. Recognition of the role of Indigenous people in managing Indigenous heritage has expanded, but individual assessment and development decisions cause cumulative incremental destruction of the Indigenous cultural resource
Year(s):
20112
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Limited
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Despite some improvement to particular languages arising from language revitalisation programs, Indigenous languages remain highly endangered, and there has been a net reduction in the number of Indigenous languages that are actively spoken
Year(s):
20161
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Comparable
Indigenous languages remain highly endangered, although there have been some improvements in the number of speakers and additional language revitalisation programs
Year(s):
20111
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Progress continues to be made in the collection of data relating to statutory listing processes for historic heritage at the national and state level
The number of listed places continues to increase, and there have been more systematic, thematic historic heritage assessment projects, and projects to improve the quality of listing data
However, gaps remain in statutory registers and heritage lists, and the resources allocated to survey and assessment have declined. At the local level, processes for heritage listing are inconsistent, sometimes perceived as costly and often under-resourced
Year(s):
20163
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Significant progress has been made in the collection of data relating to statutory listing processes for historic heritage at the national and state level. Although inconsistencies remain, the number of listed places has increased and there have been more systematic, thematic historic heritage assessment projects
Year(s):
20113
Improving
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
No nationally coordinated data exist about the condition and integrity of historic heritage places, but those on national, state and territory lists appear to be in good condition and retain integrity of their identified values. Idle, unused historic places remain at risk
Year(s):
20162
Unclear
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not comparable
Survey of a national sample of historic heritage places indicates that the majority are in good condition and retain integrity of their identified values. Variation in the observed condition, indicating minor improvement, is likely to reflect maintenance and repair cycles, although places that are both vacant and in poor condition remain under threat
Year(s):
20113
Stable
Confidence (in grade):
Adequate
Confidence (in trend):
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports):
Not assessed
Assessment Summary Key
Grades
Very good
Places with heritage values have been systematically and comprehensively identified and included in relevant inventories or reserves. Heritage places are in very good condition, with identified values retaining a high degree of integrity
Good
Places with heritage values have been systematically identified and included in relevant inventories or reserves. Heritage places are in good condition, with identified values generally retaining their integrity
Poor
Places with heritage values have not been systematically identified. Heritage places are in poor condition, and/or their values lack integrity
Very poor
Places with heritage values have not been identified. Heritage places are in degraded condition, and their values lack integrity
Recent Trends
-
Improving
-
Stable
-
Deteriorating
-
Unclear
Confidence
-
Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus
-
Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus
-
Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus
-
Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus
-
Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment
Comparability
-
Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment
-
Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not previously assessed
Mackay R (2016). Heritage: State and trends of heritage values. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/assessment-summary-91-state-and-trends-heritage-values, DOI 10.4226/94/58b658bbe13a0
Comments
Analysis for both SoE 2011 and SoE 2016 bioregional protected area representation was re-undertaken using IBRA 7 bioregionalisation boundaries for comparability. Some changes reflect administrative decisions, rather than actual change in land status.