Director
Conservation Incentives and Design Section
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601
By email to wildlife.corridors@environment.gov.au
20 April 2012
Dear Madam or Sir,
Submission on draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
The National Parks Association of NSW and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW strongly
support the Australian Government’s focus on and commitment to supporting connectivity
conservation initiatives in Australia, and applaud the work of the National Wildlife Corridors
Plan Advisory Group in preparing this important document. We believe that wildlife corridors
and other connectivity conservation projects are an important means of maintaining our
internationally significant biodiversity.
The National Parks Association of NSW (NPA) was formed in 1957 to promote the concept of
a network of national parks in NSW under specialist national parks and wildlife legislation
and managed by a professional agency. Today NPA continues to build on this work through a
network of 18 branches and over 5,000 members and supporters. NPA is a strong advocate
for the importance of the National Reserve System as a foundation for protecting and reestablishing connectivity in the Australian landscape. NPA also recognises the importance of
other tenures and initiatives for connectivity conservation. In particular, NPA is a lead
partner in the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative and also has a long-running campaign to
protect the NSW Travelling Stock Route Network, which has extremely important
connectivity values. NPA has also been involved in advocating for various linkages across the
NSW landscape, including linking the escarpment to the north and south coasts of NSW, and
linking Barrington Tops to the Warrumbungles along the Liverpool Range.
The Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC) was founded in 1955, and is a non-profit,
non-government organisation representing more than 100 community environment groups
across NSW. It is the state’s peak environment organisation and has a strong reputation for
leading effective action and influencing the direction of environment protection in NSW. NCC
has longstanding interests and involvement in forest and species conservation, native
vegetation management, land use planning and fire and biodiversity. NCC has been
represented on the Environmental Trust steering subcommittee for the Great Eastern
Ranges Initiative and has participated in the Linking Landscapes Collaboration.
Our organisations welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft National
Wildlife Corridors Plan in the attached submission. Please do no hesitate to contact us for
further information or clarification on any point raised in our submission. We look forward to
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 2 of 13
working with the Australian government and offering our continuing support and advice to
progress connectivity conservation in Australia.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Evans
Chief Executive Officer
National Parks Association of NSW
Pepe Clarke
Chief Executive Officer
Nature Conservation Council of NSW
2
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 3 of 13
General comments on draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
The National Parks Association of NSW (NPA) and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW
(NCC) support the Australian Government’s recognition of the importance of connectivity
conservation, through their commitment to producing a National Wildlife Corridors Plan. We
welcome the national scale of this project and the recognition of the importance of
incorporating Indigenous land management and cultural values, and involving rural
landholders in connectivity conservation.
There are a number of ways in which we feel that the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
(draft Plan) can be strengthened.
Terminology
We feel that the use of the term ‘wildlife corridors’, although useful for marketing and
community engagement, doesn’t really capture the breadth of initiatives that make up
connectivity conservation projects. The ‘corridor concept’ also does not emphasise the nonlinear nature of ecological connectivity and the need for a matrix of different land types to
be managed to promote connectivity. Although we are not suggesting that the term
‘corridors’ be dropped completely, it would be useful for this plan, and subsequent
discussion of it with the public, to place greater emphasis on the diverse, non-linear nature
of connectivity conservation and to make greater use of the internationally accepted term
‘ecological connectivity’.
Connectivity thinking beyond the Plan
The draft plan provides an important start in thinking about connectivity conservation in
Australia. Real, large-scale ecological connectivity, however, will not be achieved by relying
purely on voluntary conservation projects and measures. Connectivity thinking and goals
must be incorporated into the planning and actions of all levels of government and across all
tenures.
A number of recent incidents in NSW have highlighted the need for this broad adoption of
connectivity thinking.
 The NSW Annual Report on Native Vegetation for 2009/2010 showed that this period
was the worst year on record for clearing of native bushland. This report also showed
that in the preceding 5 years, forestry has become the leading cause of clearing of
woody vegetation, and the area cleared each year by forestry is rapidly increasing,
reaching 42,700ha in 2009-20101. Clearly, land uses such as forestry have huge
potential to disrupt connectivity and undermine the efforts made by community
groups and the Australian government under this Plan, unless connectivity planning is
integrated across all tenures and land managers.
1
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2010. NSW Annual Report on Native Vegetation 2010, Table 5.1, p.
11
3
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan

Page 4 of 13
Similarly, the recently-released NSW Strategic Land Use Plans for the Upper Hunter
and New England North West, which fail to provide clear, certain protection for
important natural areas from mining and gas activities, highlight the potential for
weak policies at the state level to undermine the goals of the draft National Wildlife
Corridors Plan. It is essential that all levels of Government share the connectivity
agenda laid out in this Plan, if the Plan is to succeed in keeping communities engaged
and successfully protecting and restoring connectivity.
As well as the actions recommended in the draft Plan, there are a range of additional actions
and initiatives that would significantly enhance the outcomes of this plan for connectivity
conservation.
 As discussed, there is a need for integration of connectivity planning at all levels of
government. This could be facilitated by the Australian government, through the
National Wildlife Corridors Council, developing resources and training for regional
NRM groups and local councils to increase their knowledge of connectivity principles
and how to implement these in their areas.
 It would also be extremely useful for the Australian government to provide
community education programs about connectivity conservation, either directly or by
funding NGOs or other appropriate groups to carry them out. These programs could
inform participants about the importance of a resilient, connected landscape; the
benefits that connectivity conservation projects have within and beyond the project
area, through maintenance of ecosystem services etc.; and how they can be involved
locally.
 The development of an integrated fire, pest and weed control program, involving all
land managers, would benefit ecological connectivity as well as biodiversity generally,
and would support the work being done in connectivity and corridor projects. (See
further notes on fire management below.)
Relationship between fire management and the draft Plan
Fire management in relation to connectivity and corridor projects needs to incorporate both
risk mitigation and biodiversity conservation elements. From a risk perspective, it is critical to
engage with government fire fighting agencies to ensure that wildlife corridors are not
located in areas that place human communities at risk from fire and require either intensive
prescribed burning or mechanical treatment to mitigate the risk of bushfire. A representative
from a fire fighting agency should be present on the National Wildlife Corridors Council.
There should also be alignment with fire management plans and legislation. In NSW, for
example, there should be alignment between local Bushfire Risk Management Plans and any
proposed wildlife corridor. This is complicated by a lack of consistency in approach to fire
management between states and territories in Australia.
Section 1.8 of the draft Plan states that ‘Habitat areas that are in good condition are more
resilient to disturbances such as wildlife and extreme weather events and provide anchors of
connectivity within the landscape’. Conversely, implementing appropriate fire regimes results
in more resilient ecosystems that are more readily able to adapt to the impacts of climate
4
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 5 of 13
change. Inappropriate fire regimes are generally those that occur too frequently or
infrequently. In many areas of Australia, bushfire has been removed from the system due to
habitat fragmentation and fire suppression by fire fighting agencies. This occurs both in
remote areas and in areas adjacent to human communities. Fire management plans must
therefore incorporate burning for ecological outcomes as well as risk mitigation to human
communities. These plans must occur at the landscape scale and across tenures, focusing on
mosaic burning and incorporating western science and Indigenous knowledge.
While the listing of fire as a threat to biodiversity is not consistent between the states and
territories, if the nomination to list ‘fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline’ as a Key
Threatening Process under the EPBC Act is successful and a threat abatement plan is
produced, it will be easier to consistently manage for fire and biodiversity in a national
approach to wildlife corridors.
Comments on Part 1: Why do we need a National Wildlife Corridors
Plan?
Section 1.7: Who will be involved?
This section does not mention the importance of involving scientists and research
institutions in the design of corridor and connectivity projects. This is a serious oversight. We
believe that it is of paramount importance that best-practice science is involved in the
development of all corridor projects, and this wording of this section of the draft Plan must
reflect the integral role of science.
The role of local governments in co-ordinating local, smaller-scale connectivity planning and
projects should also be explicitly acknowledged in this section.
Section 1.8: Foundation Stones
National Reserve System, World Heritage Areas and Wetlands
We strongly support the recognition of the National Reserve System (including Indigenous
Protected Areas), World Heritage Areas and Wetlands of National and International
Importance as vital ‘core areas’ for connectivity conservation in Australia. It should be noted
in the plan that connectivity projects complement existing reserve acquisition and
management programs. They do not remove the need to continue extending the national
reserve system following the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and
representativeness (CAR), particularly in bioregions that are currently underrepresented.
It is important that connectivity thinking and planning is consistently integrated with state
and Federal reserve acquisition and planning strategies. It is also critical that funds granted
for corridor and connectivity initiatives are additional to existing funds for reserve acquisition
and management, rather than being a redirection of this money.
5
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 6 of 13
Private Land
Connectivity thinking needs to be built in to all levels of planning and land management as
relating to private land conservation. Regional catchment and NRM plans need to contain
explicit connectivity plans to help with allocation of funds and provision of assistance and
advice to landholders. As previously discussed, provision of training and resources to staff in
NRM and catchment groups as well as local councils (who are significant planning
authorities) would be extremely useful in integrating connectivity thinking at all levels.
Ecological and Cultural Pathways
It is disappointing that a number of very important ecological pathways only get a cursory
mention in this plan. These deserve further consideration in this section of the plan.
Rivers and aquatic linkages
Rivers and riparian corridors are mentioned, but more could be made of their importance
and the opportunity they present for greatly increased landscape, habitat and ecological
connectivity through protection of existing riparian vegetation and restoration of degraded
areas. Riparian vegetation is particularly important because it maintains ecological processes
such as healthy river flow, and provides migration pathways for a range of species. Even
when dry, floodplain linkages from wetlands remain important corridors.
River systems are also a good illustration of the fact that a purely vegetation-focussed
approach to corridors is insufficient to ensure ecological connectivity. Connectivity initiatives
need to be integrated with other areas such as water management. A clear example of this is
in the Murray-Darling Basin, where vegetation conservation and restoration will not be
enough to protect and restore connectivity unless the Murray-Darling Basing Plan is
successful in returning sufficient water to ensure the health of the Basin’s ecosystems.
Remnant vegetation outside the reserve system
This section also makes little mention of the very significant network of remnant vegetation
patches and corridors found outside of the reserve system, such as along travelling stock
routes, roadsides, railways and in cemeteries. These remnants should receive more
acknowledgement in the draft Plan. They are an extremely valuable resource, as they are
often the only remnants of vegetation in otherwise highly cleared areas, but are
unfortunately often in a precarious situation in terms of management.
Having these areas well managed and preserved should be acknowledged in the Plan as a
priority. These vegetation remnants provide an important skeleton in heavily cleared areas
on which restoration, private land conservation and other connectivity conservation actions
can build. In NSW, the Roadside Environment Committee (REC) does very useful work co6
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 7 of 13
ordinating and promoting improved management of roadsides, railways and other major
stretches of land that are important to biodiversity. NCC is represented on this body, which is
hosted by Roads and Maritime Services, and also includes representatives from state and
local government, catchment management authorities, the rural fire service and other
bodies. The REC provides a useful model for managing these areas, which could be adopted
by other states.
Later in this submission, we will present a case study of the NSW Travelling Stock Route and
Reserve (TSR) Network, which comprises a significant part of this network of remnant
vegetation. The TSR network clearly highlights both the imminent threats to these areas and
the great opportunity they present. TSRs, like rivers, are also an important example of
corridors of both ecological and cultural importance.
Environmental gradients
It would also be useful for the plan to acknowledge the importance of environmental
gradients for ecological connectivity. Many natural linkages, including river and migration
pathways, span strong environmental gradients (e.g. from temperate to semi-arid areas, or
across the Great Eastern Ranges between the coast, highlands and western slopes). It is
important that the value of capturing environmental gradients within connectivity programs
is recognised.
Comments on Part 2: Building a national network of wildlife corridors
Wildlife Corridors Act
Effectiveness of the legislation
We support the concept of the Wildlife Corridors Act presented in the draft Plan. However,
we question how effective it will be without some means of protecting the work done by
corridor initiatives from future harm. Some form of land use regulation is required to ensure
that, for example, restored or privately protected land isn’t subsequently developed or
mined, and to ensure that Australia’s remnant native vegetation, the backbone of
connectivity projects, doesn’t continue to suffer death by a thousand cuts. The Act should
also stipulate that best available science should be explicitly required to define corridors.
As discussed in previous sections of this submission, connectivity planning needs to be built
into a wide range of Federal and State and Territory legislation and strategies relating to
issues such as management of native vegetation and land use planning. The degree to which
this integration occurs will have significant impact on the effectiveness of the Wildlife
Corridors Act. It would be extremely unfortunate for a project with significant state and
federal investment to be compromised as a result of inadequate legislation to protect it from
likely threats such as mining and gas exploration and extraction. Situations like this would
7
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 8 of 13
undermine community confidence and discourage future engagement in corridor and
connectivity projects.
The Australian Government needs an active strategy to encourage states and territories to
adopt the National Wildlife Corridors Plan, and connectivity thinking more generally, in a
widespread way. The implementation of this Plan should be put urgently on the agenda of
the Council of Australian Governments.
Community engagement in corridor nomination
A clear process for the community-led nomination of National Wildlife Corridors should be
included in the proposed Wildlife Corridors Act and any subsequent supporting state
legislation. Criteria for listing a corridor and a timeline for assessment of community
nominations should be developed and promoted to community groups as a matter of
priority, through workshops across regional and metropolitan areas explaining the
nomination process. To facilitate community engagement with National Wildlife Corridors,
support should be provided for community nominations through workshops across regional
and metropolitan areas explaining the nomination process. These workshops will also
provide an opportunity to engage the community with the concept of a National Wildlife
Corridor list, and thus mitigate the risk of this being seen as a top-down imposition rather
than a community opportunity.
Incorporating connectivity into the EPBC Act
We appreciate that it may not be possible at this stage to incorporate the key concepts of
ecological connectivity and connectivity conservation into the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. However, the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
provides an important opportunity to provide clear definitions of terms, and suggest
mechanisms for the incorporation of connectivity concepts into the EPBC Act, to facilitate
this occurring at a later date.
Developing and supporting existing major and prospective corridor initiatives
We support the identification in the draft plan of the Great Eastern Ranges (GER) as an
existing major corridor initiative for priority consideration. The draft Plan incorrectly
describes GER as operating only in NSW. It should be altered to indicate that GER spans
multiple states, operating in NSW, the ACT, Victoria and Queensland through its partnerships
and affiliates. For this reason, we also feel that the inclusion of the prospective Noosa to
Ballina corridor in the plan is unnecessary, as this is part of the existing GER corridor and one
of the GER regional partnerships, the Border Ranges Alliance, is named as being a part of it.
We also propose that the Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSR) network should be
identified as an additional existing major corridor. As discussed in more detail below, the TSR
network presents both a great need and a very important opportunity for connectivity
conservation in Australia.
8
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 9 of 13
Strategic investment
It is good to see the draft Plan notes that recognised existing corridor projects will be
supported. We would like to emphasise that connectivity initiatives are necessarily long-term
projects, due to the long time scales over which ecological processes operate, and require
long-term financial support. Without a commitment to continued, long-term support funding
of major projects, they may not be sustainable and therefore won’t achieve the desired
outcomes. Initial investment in a project will only be worthwhile if the project is able to
persist beyond the first few years.
It will be important to link a wide range of appropriate funding grants of various scales to the
Plan by providing a ‘connectivity and corridors’ theme across a range of grants. It is also
important that the Australian Government provides additional resources and training to aid
applicants (especially from smaller community groups) in their submissions. The process of
grant application often proves an intimidating and complex barrier to potential applicants,
and unless applicants are well supported, there may not be broad community engagement
with this Plan.
Working with stakeholders and supporting NRM regional planning
We support the idea that corridor development should be embedded in regional NRM
planning, as discussed above, although this should encompass a broader understanding of
connectivity than simply creating corridors. Funding should not only be directed at the level
of regional NRM groups – many of the bigger corridor initiatives are at a larger scale and
involve very broad collaboration. In these cases, money is best invested directly through this
collaborative framework.
Although we agree that Australian Government should “support access to information on
corridors design and planning through the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities website and other publications”, they should go further
than this in providing practical training in connectivity conservation and planning to councils,
NRM groups, community groups and others, either directly or by funding appropriate groups
to carry out this training and education.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
We strongly support the draft Plan’s recognition of the importance of monitoring, evaluation
and reporting (MER). This should not only occur at high levels within government – it needs
to occur at all levels and involve all stakeholders. To facilitate this, simple, consistent tools
and training need to be developed to allow people at all levels to be involved in MER for
connectivity conservation projects. These tools could build on existing resources like the
Atlas of Living Australia, which already has a strong relationship with GER and its lead
partners. Many community groups, including NPA, have some form of biodiversity survey
programs, which may also be an important resource for MER at community levels.
9
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 10 of 13
Comments on Appendix B: Potential National Wildlife Corridors
Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves – an additional potential National
Wildlife Corridor
As discussed above, there is a considerable amount of remnant vegetation that has
persisted, essentially accidentally, in various parts of the country, in areas such as stock
routes, roadsides, railway corridors and cemeteries. There is both great need and great
opportunity associated with remnant vegetation of this type, which should be recognised in
any connectivity conservation strategy for Australia
Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves (TSRs) in NSW provide an illustration of the pressing
need for action to protect these networks, which face growing pressures and are likely to be
lost if action isn’t taken soon. The TSR Network also presents an extremely rich opportunity
to further connectivity conservation in Australia, and for this reason we propose that this
network should be recognised in the plan as an additional Potential National Wildlife
Corridor.
Introduction to TSRs
The travelling stock route and reserves network (TSR network) in New South Wales is an
extensive network of public land that was established for droving of sheep and cattle during
early European colonisation, often along traditional Aboriginal pathways through the
landscape. Due to their management history and retention in public ownership, TSRs have
preserved much of their original vegetation.
Although the main purpose of the TSR network was originally for droving stock across the
countryside, the network is now recognised for its environmental, economic, cultural and
social importance. In particular, TSRs form a network of corridors (stock routes) and
stepping-stones (stock reserves) of remnant vegetation across the heavily-cleared wheat and
sheep belt in central NSW. Queensland has a similarly extensive network of travelling stock
routes, and the combined TSR networks of NSW and Queensland, if effectively managed,
have the potential to be a globally unique, continental-scale network of publicly owned
remnant vegetation, of great importance for connectivity conservation.
TSRs- the need
In central and eastern NSW, the majority of travelling stock routes are currently managed by
Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs), which also have major biosecurity
responsibilities. There has been a series of reviews of these Authorities over the last few
years. The most recent of these, completed in April 2012, has recommended that
management of TSRs be devolved from the LHPAs to the Crown, unless the LHPAs make
10
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 11 of 13
strong business case to retain them2. This is similar to the recommendations of a previous
(2008) review, which met extreme community concern that this action might lead to the
ultimate sell-off and break-up of the network.
At a 2011 conference on Travelling Stock Routes that was convened by NPA, a wide range of
stakeholders including representatives from federal and state government departments and
agencies, recreational user groups, Aboriginal groups, conservation groups and scientific
institutions agreed on five key requirements for management of the Travelling Stock Routes
Network. These were:
1. An authority with oversight of TSRs that has stable and adequate resourcing for the
task. This could build on existing institutional arrangements such as the LHPAs.
2. Accessible data, providing more information than is currently available and in a more
coordinated and streamlined format.
3. Representative management that brings together the various values and interests
and facilitates networking and information sharing.
4. Educational programs to raise awareness of the wide importance of TSRs and their
permitted uses, and help recognise and protect their Aboriginal and droving cultural
heritage.
5. An assessment of the economic significance of TSRs using a framework (such as Total
Economic Value) that incorporates their full range of economic, social, cultural and
environmental values3.
We have significant concern that current review is again posing the threat that network will
be broken up amongst a range of land managers, leading to inconsistent management and
loss of public access, and ultimately that sections of the network may be sold altogether.
Break up of the network, either in terms of management or physically, by sale and clearing,
would severely diminish its connectivity value.
The recommendations of the review were based on the fact that TSRs are now more
valuable for their environmental, cultural and social attributes than for their economic
benefit to the LHPA ratepayers who currently support them. There is general agreement
amongst stakeholders that LHPA ratepayers shouldn’t have to support them financially when
they provide such an important range of public benefits, including connectivity, but there is a
serious question of where other, consistent funding can be obtained to support them,
recognizing their many values. There is considerable time pressure to secure alternative
funding as soon as possible, before network is broken up too much.
2
Ryan T, 2012. Report on the Review of the NSW Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) Model. A review
commissioned by the Minister for Primary Industries.
3
NPA NSW (2011) NSW Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves Conference, 28 th July, 2011. Discussion group
priorities and proceedings. Available from
http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=728:the-2011-nsw-travellingstock-routes-and-reserves-conference&catid=101:travelling-stock-routes&Itemid=461#Discussion
11
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 12 of 13
TSRs- the opportunity
Listing the TSR network in NSW (ideally in conjunction with the Stock Route Network in
Queensland) as a potential National Wildlife Corridor would help to prioritise the TSR
network for Australian government funding. This would be an important source of support
for the preservation of the network.
Although criteria were not provided in plan for establishing ‘nationally significant corridors’,
the TSR network ties in extremely well with the six key objectives stated in the Plan.
1. Protect, maintain and restore native habitats and ecosystems, and their critical processes
and functions
 TSRs preserve remnant vegetation adapted to the fertile soils of valley floors and
other agricultural areas, which there are few, if any, national parks. For this reason,
they play an important role, complementary to the National Reserve system, in
protecting native habitats and ecosystems.
 TSRs are known to be a vital refuge for the declining native birds of NSW.
 TSRs often contain remnant old trees, and are thus extremely important to a range of
hollow-dependent fauna species.
 TSRs protect a range of threatened flora and fauna species, including at least 9
endangered or critically endangered ecological communities, at least 14 endangered
and vulnerable flora species and at least 9 endangered or vulnerable fauna species.
2. Protect natural stores of carbon in native ecosystems to minimise greenhouse gas
emissions
 TSRs are particularly important for carbon sequestration, as they contain natural
stores of carbon in their remnant vegetation. This vegetation currently needs
stronger protection from clearing, for example through sale and subsequent
agricultural clearing, extensive timber harvesting or clearing for mining infrastructure
or exploration.
3. Enhance the resilience of Australia’s biodiversity and its adaptability to climate change
Corridors and climate change
 TSRs may be particularly important for climate change mitigation and resilience
building, because they form both an east-west and north-south network.
 The TSR network also ties in with other connectivity projects. In particular, some TSRs
fall within GER corridor, and others provide a “ladder” extending west from the GER
area.
4. Support the global and national movements of fauna:
 TSRs are know to be important for some migratory fauna, including the Regent
Honeyeater (listed as endangered under the EPBC Act).
 Many TSRs run along rivers, which are particularly important corridors for migration
of species.
 In conjunction with network of stock routes in Queensland, TSRs provide a unique,
continental-scale network of corridors and stepping stones.
12
NPA and NCC submission on the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Page 13 of 13
5. Assist in the management and protection of Australia’s iconic landscapes and Indigenous
and non-Indigenous culture and heritage.
 TSRs are extremely iconic and culturally significant. Some TSRs in NSW are now the
focus of cultural tourism programs.
 Many TSRs are thought to have followed traditional Indigenous travel lines through
the landscape, and many are still significant to Aboriginal groups today. (This was
reflected by the Aboriginal groups represented at the 2011 TSR conference.)
 TSRs also have rich non-Indigenous culture and heritage, expressed through a wide
range of historical and modern songs, stories, art and folklore about the droving life
and the stock routes.
6. Increase community knowledge and understanding of wildlife corridors and connectivity
conservation:
 TSRs have a great capacity to engage people on the community level, as reflected by
the wide range of groups represented at the 2011 TSR conference.
 TSRs have a wide range of sustainable recreational uses (e.g. angling, bird watching)
which means that a broad cross-section of the NSW community is engaged with and
concerned about the network
 In some cases, community groups are involved with the management of local TSRs.
Through this involvement at the local scale, there is potential for people to be
introduced to concepts of connectivity on a larger scale.
 The TSR network also makes an excellent focal point for communicating messages
about connectivity and corridors to the wider public. In NPA’s experience, it is a
tangible example of connectivity that people really connect with and understand.
NPA’s detailed document about the TSR Network (‘The NSW travelling stock routes and
reserves network: Heritage – habitat – livelihood’) is attached as supporting documentation
to this submission. NPA would be happy to provide draft text describing the TSR network for
inclusion in the plan as the 11th proposed National Wildlife corridor, if desired.
13