Outcomes

2016
Heritage
Effectiveness of management
South Western Plateau
Australian Capital Territory

The importance of assessing management effectiveness is well recognised for protected areas, but less so for other types of heritage (Leverington et al. 2010). Evaluating the outcomes for heritage requires informed evaluation of the way in which current pressures and emerging risks to heritage values are being reduced, and how the resilience of heritage is being improved to retain values.

A nationwide lack of monitoring and evaluation programs makes these assessments challenging and highly reliant on individual examples, anecdotal evidence and phenomenological data (see Box HER41). The judgements presented in this section are based on opinions expressed during workshops with peak expert, government and stakeholder groups (as outlined in Introduction) and the National Heritage place monitoring survey (WHAM 2017).

The Australian Heritage Strategy supports regular, long-term monitoring, evaluation and reporting of World Heritage and National Heritage value conditions (Australian Government 2015a).

Box HER41 The ACT state of the environment report—heritage

Every 4 years, an independent state of the environment (SoE) report is prepared for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in accordance with the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment Act 1993, by the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, assisted by a range of experts.

The 2015 ACT SoE report parallels the approach and structure of the 2011 national SoE report, providing an assessment of the state and trends of the key environmental indicators, the pressures on the environment, and the drivers of those pressures and their impacts. In relation to heritage, the ACT report provides generally comprehensive information about registered places, but recognises that accurate understanding of the state of heritage is incomplete because the condition of ACT heritage places is not monitored.

There are structures and policies in place to protect and manage heritage, as well as events and programs to support community understanding and appreciation. Heritage listings have increased and the nomination backlog has decreased since the previous ACT report in 2011. Land use and development are recognised as the most significant pressures on heritage. In addition, although there are processes in place to recover Aboriginal artefacts from development sites, Aboriginal people do not consider the link between the artefact and place to be properly understood, managed or protected.

A major achievement and potential benefit of the approach to heritage in the ACT SoE report is the approach to ‘assessment summaries’, which parallels that in the national SoE 2011 and SoE 2016. If a similar approach were to be adopted in other jurisdictions, the opportunity may arise to generate a national understanding of the state, trend and condition of Australia’s heritage based on aggregate comparable data from state and territory reporting (OCSE 2015).

Creative and engaging interpretation of the ACT Valley Ruin, one of the sites included in the What Still Remains project, which was a feature of the 2012 Canberra and Region Heritage Festival

Creative and engaging interpretation of the ACT Valley Ruin, one of the sites included in the What Still Remains project, which was a feature of the 2012 Canberra and Region Heritage Festival

Photo by Mary Gleeson

Creative and engaging interpretation of the ACT Valley Ruin, one of the sites included in the What Still Remains project, which was a feature of the 2012 Canberra and Region Heritage Festival

OCSE (Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment) (2015). Australian Capital Territory state of the environment 2015, OCSE, Canberra.

Natural heritage

Australian national parks and other recognised natural heritage places are accessible to the community, strongly promoted both within Australia and overseas, presented to visitors in engaging ways, and are often important elements in community identity and sense of place.

Each Australian jurisdiction has a separate statutory basis, and different structures and processes for natural heritage place management. At a national level, the National Reserve System has a strong focus, and its targets provide one way to assess the outcome for Australia’s reserved lands. Forty-eight of Australia’s 89 bioregions have more than 10 per cent of their area in reserved lands. However, taking other factors into account, such as subregions determined by vegetation communities, habitat and whole-of-landscape connectivity, reserved lands do not yet comprise an adequate selection. By contrast, Commonwealth marine reserves, and state and territory marine reserves, include more than 30 per cent of marine bioregions.

Limited information is available on the totality of conservation outcomes for natural heritage in Australian national parks, as only New South Wales (NSW OEH 2016a) and Victoria (Parks Victoria 2016) undertake substantive formal monitoring and evaluation of the state of parks. Australia’s Strategy for the National Reserve System 2009–2030 (NRSTG 2010) proposes that the states and territories standardise approaches to data collection and evaluation of management effectiveness. The predominantly anecdotal information that is available suggests that heritage values are generally being retained, despite some decline in habitat and some species loss. Comprehensive national data are not available to make objective judgements about natural heritage outside the parks system. However, Australian Government environmental biosecurity work (pre-border, at border and post-border) is improving protection from the introduction of new invasive species and diseases.

Indigenous heritage

Differences between jurisdictional systems prevent reliable conclusions being drawn about the coverage of listed and protected Indigenous heritage places. However, the heritage values of Indigenous places in reserved lands or under Indigenous management are being retained. Little information is available on the effects of management action on the values of other parts of Australia’s Indigenous heritage. Incomplete understanding of the resource, the current processes used to respond to development pressures and incremental site destruction continue to place Indigenous heritage sites at risk. There is no cohesive national picture for Indigenous heritage, or adequate action by government agencies to coordinate management of Indigenous heritage resources and share information at a national level. Assessing outcomes for Australia’s Indigenous heritage is therefore hampered by lack of comparable data, and the absence of formal monitoring and evaluation programs.

Despite these shortcomings, Australia’s Indigenous heritage is celebrated by Indigenous people, often accessible to the wider community, strongly promoted within Australia and overseas, and increasingly presented by Indigenous people in accordance with relevant cultural practices.

Historic heritage

Historic heritage places are usually accessible, often cherished, increasingly presented to visitors in engaging ways, and recognised as important elements in community identity and sense of place (see Box HER42).

Through the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand, there is some national coordination of the management of Australia’s historic heritage resources, despite the separate statutes and different government structures in each jurisdiction.

Australia’s listed historic sites are numerous, but have been assessed, listed and protected in an ad hoc manner. Although the Australian Heritage Database offers a convenient portal to information about more than 20,000 natural, historic and Indigenous heritage places, it does not include all the statutory heritage lists and is difficult to use. There are no readily available national data that allow assessment of the representativeness of the national set of listed historic places. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of historic heritage management, because very little long-term monitoring and evaluation takes place within state and territory or local jurisdictions.

Box HER42 Western Australian Goldfields Water Supply Scheme—conserving and interpreting a National Heritage place

The Goldfields Water Supply Scheme—which runs for 560 kilometres in Western Australia, extending from Mundaring Weir in the west to Mount Charlotte Reservoir at Kalgoorlie in the east—was branded as ‘audacious’ when the project was proposed more than 120 years ago. In the same way, many considered the National Trust of Australia Golden Pipeline project in Western Australia, and particularly the 650 kilometre heritage drive trail, overly ambitious.

The success of O’Connor’s 1890s vision was because, in part, of its simplicity. Similarly, the National Trust constructed an award-winning project around 2 straightforward objectives: to conserve and interpret the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme: and to bring tangible benefits to the associated communities. Built with state and Australian Government funding, the Golden Pipeline continues to deliver on these original objectives, as the water supply scheme, albeit updated, still supplies water to the wheatbelt and goldfields of Western Australia.

Now known as the Goldfields and Agricultural Region Water Supply Scheme, the Golden Pipeline has been delivering water more than 560 kilometres from its source for more than 110 years

Now known as the Goldfields and Agricultural Region Water Supply Scheme, the Golden Pipeline has been delivering water more than 560 kilometres from its source for more than 110 years

Photo by Gary Peters, National Trust of Australia (WA), CC BY-NC 4.0

Now known as the Goldfields and Agricultural Region Water Supply Scheme, the Golden Pipeline has been delivering water more than 560 kilometres from its source for more than 110 years

In 2011, the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme was inscribed on Australia’s National Heritage List. This recognition provides access to the Australian Government’s Protecting National Historic Sites grant program, as well as increasing the National Trust’s ability to attract corporate and community funding. Importantly, Australian Government funding recognises the crucial role of interpretation in the management of heritage places. One of the intended outcomes of the program is to improve awareness of, and engagement with, National Heritage places. This is achieved through interpretation.

Interpretation is key to the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail experience and, along with the active conservation of heritage places, sets it apart from many drive trail experiences. Twenty-five sites between Mundaring Weir and Mount Charlotte tell stories connected to this engineering feat, as well as explaining the context for its construction at the turn of the 20th century. Aboriginal people had lived on this land for thousands of years, but, when Western Australia’s population quadrupled in a few short years following the rush for gold, Premier John Forrest, ambitious for the development of his state, needed a solution to the resulting water crisis. His foresight resulted in the development of what is reputedly the richest square mile on earth. The gold rush, the coming of the railway and schemes to provide water pre-pipeline all feature in the project’s multifaceted interpretation.

Now, 13 years after the Golden Pipeline project was launched, funding from the Australian Government has allowed the National Trust to respond to changing travel and information delivery options, mitigate risk, continue ongoing conservation works, and refresh the marketing and promotion of this nationally important heritage place.

Source: Anne Brake, Community Engagement Manager, National Trust of Australia (WA)

No. 1 Pump Station interpretation is as much about understanding the building as an artefact as it is telling the story of the scheme. A Engine (in situ), B Engine (removed) and C Engine (now the interpretation machine) can be easily ‘read’

No. 1 Pump Station interpretation is as much about understanding the building as an artefact as it is telling the story of the scheme. A Engine (in situ), B Engine (removed) and C Engine (now the interpretation machine) can be easily ‘read’

Photo by Robert Frith/Acorn Photo, National Trust of Australia (WA), CC BY-NC 4.0

No. 1 Pump Station interpretation is as much about understanding the building as an artefact as it is telling the story of the scheme. A Engine (in situ), B Engine (removed) and C Engine (now the interpretation machine) can be easily ‘read’

Australian Government (2015a). Australian heritage strategy, Australian Government, Canberra. https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/australian-heritage-strategy

Parks Victoria (2016). State of the parks, Parks Victoria, Melbourne, accessed June 2016.

Leverington F, Costa KL, Pavese H, Lisle A, & Hockings M (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5):685–698.

WHAM (Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division) (2017). National Heritage Place monitoring, initial survey report, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, available at: https://soe.environment.gov.au/download/supplementary

NSW OEH (New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage) (2016a). State of the parks, NSW OEH, Sydney, accessed June 2016.

NRSTG (National Reserve System Task Group) (2010). Australia’s strategy for the National Reserve System 2009–2030, NRSTG, Natural Resource Policies and Program Committee, Canberra. https://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/publications/strategy-national-reserve-system

Mackay R (2016). Heritage: Outcomes. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/heritage/topic/2016/outcomes, DOI 10.4226/94/58b658bbe13a0