In the nomenclature of the IUCN, if I recall correctly, Australia's national
parks are covered by the phrase where they are set up by the highest government
authority. In this instance, the States, as the highest appropriate authority
- the federal government not owning the land - are responsible for establishing
and managing national parks.
Royal National Park was the second one in the world, and set up by the State
government.
While it might sound confusing, the term is historical, appropriate, and should
not be interfered with lest we see the national park estate downgraded.
Peter Morgan
> On 6 Mar 2014, at 11:37 am, Graeme Stevens <> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that one of our issues in Australia is the title.
>
> We delude ourselves (or the general public) that "National" Parks are part of
> some form of well managed National estate when largely they are at the whim
> of the State Government of the day in terms of budgets, access etc. - and
> Commonwealth oversight is comparatively weak. They are in fact not "National"
> at all (Territory parks excepted?).
>
> At least in the USA there would appear to be a comprehensive National
> oversight of their resource.
>
> Am I off the mark here?
>
> Graeme
>
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
