More Challenges for Parks Victoria

My recent article has generated a very broad response and with the current external review of the operations of Parks Victoria there are many perspectives and very divergent views about what a future parks management agency should look like in Victoria and how it can be more effective in delivering the right outcomes for Victorians. There are many current issues for Parks Victoria to address including conserving and repairing nature, responding to climate change driven events including fire and floods, balancing the diverse expectations of the community in providing the right range of recreation services, recognising and partnering with Traditional Owners and many more.

Clearly the lack of funding for ‘on the ground’ rangers and services, including for conservation works, recreation and facilities management, and cultural values has been an increasing concern. The perceived issues maybe endless however there are some Key Challenges, drawn from the conversations generated by my previous article that probably need to be addressed as part of the Parks Victoria review:

Central (‘head office’)? versus local control– this is the perineal problem for a service delivery organisation where services need to be prioritised across 3000 parks and reserves and 4 million hectares, however over the past decade decision making and priority setting at Parks Victoria has become much more centralised, and there has been a significant reduction in local operational staff to provide a wide range of services . While it makes sense for more centralisation in the case of emerging challenges (e.g policy and strategy guidance for for Traditional Owner engagement and partnerships), more central control of functions such as marketing, comms, asset management etc can result in reduced direct connection to local communities, inefficient use of resources (e.g. in ‘project management’), loss of staff and community trust. Risk Adverse – Once viewed as a risk taker and thus very responsive on the ground, the influence of a 'legal, governance and risk management' driven approach at? Parks Victoria is resulting in decision paralysis and inability to create effective partnerships. Good governance is required but this should drive decision making to be more effective, not slow down or stop innovative and creative management responses.

There is also inconsistency of approach across public land with Parks Victoria often going beyond the minimum legal or government policy requirements. This can confuse the community and gives Parks Victoria the reputation of being overly bureaucratic. So, in many cases the advice/decision is "NO" instead of "HOW can we do this?" A Service Provider – Even though all Government entities are service providers, Parks Victoria seems to have become so focussed on the immediate day to day operational ‘crises’ due to funding and thus has lost sight of developing the bigger longer term strategies and tactics that would get parks recognised for the benefits they provide Victoria (and therefore the flow of funding that would occur). However, lack of strategy isn’t just about funding but about defining the role, clarity and services provided for Victorians.? Parks Victoria may have invested in developing longer term strategies but they have not been well communicated or understood by government and the community. If they did, the current review wouldn’t be necessary.

Is the Remit too broad? – related to the above strategic direction, It could be argued that Parks Victoria is being expected to deliver too many, often competing services and that it cannot therefore focus its operations.? This is another perennial problem, that isn’t easily solved. While the decision to bring together urban parks and national parks/protected areas into one organisation had great merit, many would argue that “other” functions such as ports and waterways should be managed elsewhere in Government and that Parks Victoria’s role should be focused on parks and protected areas only.

Additionally, the role of parks versus other public land in providing recreational access needs to be reviewed in the light of the current review of State Forests. Our environment and our public recreation domain occurs across landscapes and State Forests and parks should be complimentary not competing for recreational use.? In reviewing the role of Parks Victoria, it will be important to consider on one hand the critical role that a specialist dedicated parks agency plays in conservation, visitor experience, culture and community education, and on the other hand that we need to recognise the increasing need to manage across landscapes, including more Traditional Owner involvement and the role of other public land.? This Remit conundrum – is the Great Ocean Road Conundrum – for decades we have been lamenting that there were to many state authorities involved and thus we never solved the challenges being faced. The result has been a new authority, but the core problem still exists – lots of different Government entities are still involved. The issue may not be structural and remit but leadership and strategy.

Is it a Conservation VERSUS people perception? It would seem that some stakeholders view Parks Victoria as anti-people, however this is an old-fashioned way of looking at park management. Indeed, with around 100 million visits to parks and waterways each year Parks Victoria could hardly be described as being anti-people. The assumption that it is an either-or choice, is far too simple as the reality is that our green and blue spaces need to provide multiple and complex services from species and habitat protection, to clean water to iconic tourism opportunities.

It is why in 1999, Parks Victoria established the foundational concept – “Healthy Parks Healthy People” with the aim to demonstrate a model that people rely on nature for their health and wellbeing but also that nature relies on the sustainable use and support by communities.. However, it seems that Parks Victoria has been decoupling itself from the HPHP concept, a concept that is now internationally adopted by all leading park agencies.

The goal of park management should be to optimise both conservation and human wellbeing goals. Yes there will need to be trade-offs and that why we need good transparent decision frameworks, engagement processes etc .

Next steps Some have suggested that integrating Parks Victoria into the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change (DEECA) will ‘solve the problem’. While this might save some money in the short term, making Parks Victoria part of a bigger bureaucracy is unlikely to achieve the goal of better effectiveness and connection to communities. Whatever model is proposed, the focus must be on how to direct the right resources to enable best practice park management.