The Slow Death Of Australian Wilderness

The Falls To Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan

The Slow Death Of Australian Wilderness

FHAC Master Plan | 24/01/2024 | Josh Hamill

“WHEREAS it is in the public interest that certain Crown land characterized by its predominantly unspoilt landscape, and its flora, fauna or other features, should be reserved and preserved and protected permanently for the benefit of the public…”

National Parks Act 1975 – Preamble.

Australia’s national parks and wilderness areas face a dire threat. All over the country, each state and territory races to provide commercial walking holiday experiences within national park land.

The ‘great walk’, as they are dubbed, is one designed to attract wealthy, international (or interstate) tourists through providing a luxury, comfort-based guided walking experience, done so through lavish infrastructure and excessive pampering.

These experiences, however, come at the cost of our wilderness. The very character of our national parks is changing before our eyes, and the natural essence of the most cherished and environmentally significant regions of our nation is being sacrificed in the name of private profit.

Though this issue is nationwide, this article aims to highlight an ongoing proposed development within the Bogong High Plains of the Alpine National Park. The new Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan seeks to transform the region into a playground for cashed up tourism, throwing conservation and national park legislation to the wayside in the process. Backcountry trails must be turned into paved pedestrian sidewalks, all technical terrain tamed, clearings turned into luxury lodge accommodation, all challenge eliminated. This is to attract a demographic who seeks a low degree of challenge, and a high degree of comfort. A demographic unable to escape into nature without electricity, hot showers, warm beds, wine and someone to rub their feet at night.

Conservation and recreation are the two objectives of a national park, each is forgotten in the name of these developments. Land that is to be “protected permanently for the benefit of the public” is being marketed and sold for the benefit of private profiteers. The Alpine National Park is an area of particular environmental significance, with rare and fragile ecosystems alongside some of Australia’s only mountainous and alpine areas (hence the name). To think that an area of such rarity and broad significance can be sold and abused for profit is an outrage.

For the sake of providing a greater understanding of the issue at hand, I’ve examined and highlighted the most striking and notable aspects of the Falls to Hotham Master Plan, bringing together the complete picture of the development and unveiling the hypocrisy.

A Necessary National Context:

For clarities sake, the ‘great walk’ is a commercial, often guided walking holiday. Tracks considered ‘great walks’ can be described as tame, comfortable and luxurious in comparison to any traditional hiking trail. Tracks are wide, clear and hardened, more akin to a suburban sidewalk than a hiking trail. Campsites are spaced roughly 10km apart and tend to include large lodge-like complexes with electricity, hot water, bedding and other backcountry luxuries.

These hiking experiences as designed to attract wealthy tourists who have a desire to experience nature in far off places without putting in any substantial physical effort, and without sacrificing the comforts of their homes. As such, you can imagine the extent of the infrastructure required to appease this type of demographic, and the subsequent environmental consequences of such infrastructure development (all too often occurring in pristine wilderness areas within protected national parks).

Environmental sustainability, outdoor education and awareness, and (of course) profit are the touted benefits of these developments. But as we will come to find there is only one clear cut and exclusive benefit to the commercialisation of national parks and destruction of wilderness. Can you guess what it is?

The ‘great walk’ can be traced back to two significant tracks – the Milford Track in New Zealand, and the Overland Track in Tasmania. Each track involves hut-to-hut accommodation alongside normal tent camping whilst traversing world-class terrain. Both tracks are incredibly successful, with a myriad of hikers swarming to book their place on the respective tracks year by year. It is no wonder that tourism boards desire to replicate the success of these tracks. But luxury walking experiences aren’t the main draw of these locations. Arguably the main draw of each track is the incredible environment in which they take place.

This leads to the development of the Three Capes Track; a 3 day walk that traverses the coastline of the Tasman Peninsula. The track was intended to succeed the Overland Track and become the next ‘iconic walk’ in Tasmania. The development involved extensive track ‘upgrades’ and the establishment of five lodges. Three lodges are operated by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, and the other two are exclusively operated by the Tasmanian Walking Company, a commercial guiding company. As of writing this article, to walk the trail in it’s intended fashion would incur the eye-watering price of $595 for the public huts and close to or over $3000 for the private huts. There is no option to camp along the route within the booking system. Each lodge is more akin to a small village than a backcountry hut, with extensive infrastructure taking the place of what was pristine coastal wilderness. Now that the infrastructure is there, the wilderness is lost.

The Three Capes Track is marketed as a luxury walking experience with various offering such as foot massages (I’m not kidding) and a general marketing copy that entices potential walkers with comfort. To quote TWC from their website:

“…Perhaps a massage or invigorating outdoor bath while dinner is being prepared? Your pick for day three – an adventure through silver gum forest out to Cape Pillar and the infamous Blade or lazing the day away at the lodge…”

It is clear that the intention is to provide a frictionless, luxury getaway. Free from all of natures challenges and not without any of the comforts of the modern world. I will say my bias in that I’m no fan of any sort of luxury experience – I see a 2-person tent as luxury. I don’t even take a pillow with me on backcountry adventures… but this doesn’t mean that I am against all offerings of luxury tourism, just those that take place within national parks and wilderness areas.

You would think that choosing land within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA) for a luxury tourism development would be inappropriate for the target demographic, but as James McCormack mentioned in his article ‘Luxury Lodges = Wilderness Lost’, Brett Godfrey (co-owner of the TWC) can be quoted as saying that the target demographic of the TWC is a “52-year-old single female who finds going into the wilderness not her cup of tea”.

“It isn’t to take his clients to appropriate locations; it’s to make locations ‘appropriate’ to his clients by removing wilderness from the equation.” – James McCormack.

Wilderness is marketable for the grandeur only. Not the physical hardship of traversing rough tracks, braving the weather, and spending multiple nights crammed into a tent. All else must be erased from the equation. As the wilderness is tamed, it ceases to be.

Spurred on by the objective ‘success’ of the Three Capes Track, the ‘great walk’ is spreading like a cancer across Australian national parks and wilderness. The Grampians Peaks Trail, Cooloola Great Walk, Green Gully Track, Lake Malbena, Hinchinbrook Island, The Tyndall Ranges and the highlight of this article, the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing.

Mount Feathertop (1922m) from Diamantina Spur, October 2022.

Backcountry Hut Versus Luxury Lodge:

I would firstly like to start by acknowledging that not all developments within national parks are inherently detrimental to the environment and to the public enjoyment of the land. This goes especially for backcountry huts, which serve as vital and necessary shelter in times of adverse weather. I especially want to point out the network of public huts managed by the Department of Conservation New Zealand, and how they are free to use, well maintained and modest in their scale.

For an Australian example, the network of huts managed by the Kosciuszko Hut Association also provides adequate emergency shelter within the typically harsh alpine weather of the Main Range whilst remaining free to the public. Through simple ‘hut etiquette’, it is understood that they are to be used as communal spaces outside of severe weather events and emergencies. Outside of said etiquette there are no restrictions for public use.

If new huts are to be built within a national park, land that “should be reserved and preserved and protected permanently for the benefit of the public” (according to National Parks legislation), they should be built for public use. Developments tied to establishing ‘great walk’ luxury holiday experiences build new huts with the intention to have said huts operated privately, turning what was public land into private real estate. If the public to private transfer wasn’t enough of a red flag, need I remind you again that this is occurring within protected national park land.

So, with that said, let’s dissect the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan…

Dissecting The Falls To Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan:

All quotes reference the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan unless quoted otherwise.

Beginning on page 8, the Master Plan summarizes it’s main objective and arguments for the success of the offering, including this statement not long after the opening of the document…

“The track will enable more comfortable hiking…” – page 8.

The main method of enabling “more comfortable hiking” is in the creation of 4 ‘overnight nodes’.

“Four overnight nodes on the trail will offer accommodation options to suit a diverse range of walker profiles. Separated from existing popular dispersed camp areas that will remain to operate as usual, new Hiker Camps will offer environmentally sound and more convenient platform tent-based camping, including new shelters to enable weather protected social engagement after the day’s walk, while the proposal of low-impact Operated Huts are tailored for those who desire an added level of comfort.” – page 8.

Although the plan suggests that it wishes to avoid tampering with dispersed camping within the region, it is later revealed that dispersed camping within 100m of a ‘hiker camp’ will be considered an offence. The proposed sites for these ‘hiker camps’ and ‘operated huts’ are currently used as dispersed camping grounds, and the current users of the region will have to relinquish their right to use public land, or pay excessive fees for amenities they mightn’t want or need at the new ‘hiker camps’.

The statement also highlights the desire for the trail to provide comfort, enticing luxury-based tourists to partake in the experience. I don’t believe the desire for ‘comfort based’ experiences should overrule the desire for challenging, natural experiences. There is a high likelihood that in the pursuit of comfort, the regions natural character will be lost. This is especially concerning Diamantina Spur and the proposed overnight node located on High Cone (Razorback Track junction with Diamantina Spur Track). In catering to a small demographic that currently has no footprint within the Alpine National Park, this project may alienate the majority of its current user base.

“World-class trail infrastructure will be durably constructed with environmentally sustainable materials and designed with sensitivity to the immediate environment. The walking experience will be improved… while keeping added infrastructure to a minimum to reduce environmental and visual impact. This will include new rest stops…, interpretive signage or artwork… and track upgrades to ease access for a wider range of walkers.” – page 8.

I do believe that national parks are for everyone. This includes wealthy tourists. No one should have their interests held above anyone else. National parks are installed to conserve the environment, and I certainly believe that the interests of a particular group of people should never exceed the need to protect national park land. Conservation should always be prioritised. If not, what is the purpose of a national park?

Then comes recreational access. Maintaining the Alpine National Park as it is right now would objectively restrict access to those physically unable to traverse the difficult terrain. I do not count ‘physically unwilling’ as without access – that comes down to choice. Anyone can put in the effort to grow their outdoor skills and increase their fitness to varying degrees. Regardless of where your skills and fitness stand, there is an experience in the Alpine National Park that would satisfy your desire for outdoor exploration. If your skills and fitness prevent you from accessing the park to your fullest desire, and you are physically unable (not unwilling) to amend this through training, then that is an unfortunate circumstance. However, the reality is that the world was not designed for all humans to explore all places. Geography is geography, you can either overcome it through persevering through the varying challenges of mother nature, or you can accept your position and move forward with your life, leaving nature as it is.

It is disgusting to suggest that we should beat mother nature into submission through extensive infrastructure just so a small group of people can stand atop a remote mountain in the name of access. You aren’t entitled to demand that wilderness be destroyed for your singular benefit. Place your interests below that of conservation, and this becomes more than understandable.

Dibbins Hut Campsite along current FHAC route.

“…the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will also appeal to a new target market not currently fully serviced — the experience seeker. This walker market is looking for immersive outdoor experiences with a choice of accommodation options, and a desire to combine other complementary experiences or activities. Many walkers in this market often look to tour operators to plan and guide their trips. Existing walks such as the Three Cape Track in Tasmania and the Milford Track in New Zealand successfully cater to this market.” – page 9.

This statement suggests that the target demographic for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Proposal is the same as the Three Capes Track. Based off of the infrastructure found across the Three Capes Track, you could estimate that the development for the FHAC would be very similar.

On page 34 of the Tyndall Range Feasibility Study, it is stated that “There are distinct walker market segments. More people (higher numbers) are interested in bushwalking as the level of comfort increases, and difficulty decreases…”. After a certain threshold of comfort, the activity of bushwalking ceases to be. I argue that this does not attract ‘more people’, rather different people, being the ‘experience seeker’ demographic.

The ‘experience seeker’ is only interested in the proposed experience if the difficulty is low and comfort is high, thus necessitating vast track developments and strings of lodge accommodation with at-home comforts.

Are these the right experiences to be offering inside of national parks and wilderness areas, or inside that of luxury resorts?

I argue that for many, bushwalking is not at all about comfort, it is about the challenges of nature. It is about learning outdoor skills and overcoming adversity. It is about outdoor adventure – which at its essence is not about prioritising comfort, otherwise you would stay at home!

If the ‘experience seeker’ is mainly interested in comfort in nature, why aren’t luxury developments kept outside of national parks and wilderness where luxury tourism can be better capitalised on – such as in wineries, spa retreats and 5-star resorts. It doesn’t seem that luxury walking experiences are a necessity to collect a profit from nature tourism. Is there not a more environmentally friendly alternative for tourism inside of Australia that prevents infrastructure development inside national parks and protected land, whilst also avoiding public alienation due to only catering to a small percentage of the population (who often aren’t even locals, let alone Australian citizens).

” The development of the trail will provide Victoria with a major icon that strengthens the state’s role as a premium provider of nature-based tourism in Australia…” – page 9.

Victoria already hosts 7 alpine resorts that operate year-round to accommodate for nature-based tourism. These are Mt Baw Baw, Lake Mountain, Mt Buffalo, Mt Hotham, Mt Buller, Mt Stirling, and Falls Creek.

Developments within national parks are not necessary to “[strengthen] the state’s role as a premium provider of nature-based tourism” when these resorts already do so.

“Societal benefits will be improved physical and mental health, creation of environmental awareness and improved opportunities for education.” – page 9.

All of these factors are not dependent on the creation of a new ‘great walk’. Conservation can still be upheld, and the natural character of the region can remain untouched whilst promoting environmental awareness and outdoor education. These benefits should not be used as an excuse to develop fragile national park land in the name of catering towards a wealthy tourism market.

In fact, I argue that ‘comfort-based’ walking experiences detract from a person’s connection to nature. Safeguarding persons from the realities of walking in nature only promotes the stagnation of outdoor skills acquisition and competence in the wilderness.

“Nature-based tourism is key to broadening the appeal of Victorian national parks and encouraging visitation. The ‘experience seekers’, who are the key market for nature-based tourism, are characterised by their desire to be actively immersed in a new place and to have a variety of authentic and personally compelling experiences while travelling.” – page 12.

We have established that to appeal to the ‘experienced-based’ demographic the difficulty must be low, and comfort must be high. To ensure comfort and accommodate this type of walker, a high degree of infrastructure must be built and maintained according to the existing model for developing ‘great walks’.

“The Alpine National Park is already an extremely popular destination for day walkers, but offers limited opportunities for extended stays in national parks. A portion of independent, self-guided ‘experience seeker’ walkers are currently undertaking overnight stays in the alps, but there is a large portion of walkers who seek extra support and are currently not being catered to. To connect more people to parks, a broader range of skill, ability and comfort levels need to be catered for in order to attract a wider community of walkers, including educational groups, social groups, and independent and supported walkers.” – page 12.

The Alpine National Park does not offer limited opportunities for extended stays. That is so out of touch and far from reality. There are numerous overnight walk opportunities available for varying degrees of walker competence.

Parks Victoria intends to make national parks more accessible to wealthy clientele – the park is already very accessible to “educational groups, social groups, and independent and supported walkers”, it’s just that these groups don’t have to be charged to access public land…

The people who aren’t catered to are those who have little interest in true hiking experiences in the Alpine National Park, and require a high degree of comfort and support to get into the outdoors. There is a small percentage of people who are unable to access the park due to physical limitations, but these natural places shouldn’t be developed in order to appeal to a any demographic. If you desire a nature experience that is challenging, and can’t overcome said challenge, development within wilderness is not the answer to increase accessibility. Again, hikers should increase their fitness and outdoor skills, or seek experiences that align with their abilities (to which plenty exist already with the park).

According to page 22, the plan is constructed around the understanding of the importance of conservation. Keep this in mind as we move forward…

“Biosis identified that, at a top level, there were no significant adverse environmental impacts of the track, and that priority risks could be adequately managed by following normal planning procedures and detailed on-ground assessments prior to construction.”

Track Development:

Page 40:

“…the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing forms part of a track network that criss-crosses over the High Country and includes well-established tracks linking to the adjacent mountain townships of Harrietville, Dinner Plain and, farther away, Bogong.”

Due to this very reason, I believe the cutting of new track to be unnecessary for the success of this walking route. The new route seeks to bypass a road to Tawonga Huts, requiring the development of 3km of new trail. I argue that the road should be utilized for the sake of avoiding the cutting of a new track through alpine/sub-alpine vegetation. Regardless of its length, 3km or more, the cutting of new tracks in protected areas such as the Bogong Highplains needs to be avoided due to the inherent environmental damages that will occur through construction, mitigated or otherwise. The region is already littered with roads and walking tracks. No more are necessary.

Page 52:

“The installation of a new track segment is required at the lower section of Diamantina Spur. This is required to minimise ongoing erosion occurring on the existing track and to circumnavigate rocky sections providing a more accessible, grade 4 connection.

The re-routing of the bottom section of the Diamantina Spur is an understandable necessity to allow for accessibility for tourism. If the rugged and natural character of the trail is maintained then I don’t see this as a negative – if the trail is ‘tamed’ through infrastructure to over-accommodate unfit/unskilled hikers, then this act of track cutting is unsuitable for the majority of users.

Most hikers do not want to walk on hardened, wide ‘pedestrian highway’ trails. A sense of ruggedness, and a lack of human interference I believe is a characteristic of the region that must be preserved. The plan suggests that the trails finish aims to resemble that of which is already found on the Razorback Track to Mt Feathertop, which at times can seem slightly excessive, but is otherwise a happy medium between no track at all and ‘superhighway’.

“Subject to detailed investigations, a new track is to be established on the northern side of the Diamantina River to create a richer walking experience and minimise walking time on the existing West Kiewa Logging Road.”

I agree with the track cutting alongside the logging road as it shouldn’t pose any severe environmental issues or detract from the experience of other users outside of the target demographic.

“The track design principles reflect two key considerations; the minimisation of environmental and visual impact of any built assets within the park, and the experiential quality of the track for walkers.” – page 52.

Handrails and other visually obtrusive elements are to be avoided “where possible”. Raised trails will be implemented across Alpine Bog. Duck-boarding sensitive areas is perfectly reasonable for the sake of preventing erosion. Under any circumstances I believe handrails within the depths of the Alpine National Park to be obtrusive through sheer presence. If you need a handrail to walk along a trail, you probably should not be walking along that trail…

Raised footpath on Overland Track – Credit: ‘The Australian’.

'Where Will Visitors Stay?' (Page 66):

This section of the Master Plan lays bare the primary issues of this development. Here are the most important points:

“As a 5-day, 4-night walking experience, each night of the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing will be located in an ‘overnight node’ providing new accommodation options: elevated camping platforms found at the ‘Hiker Camps’, or weather sealed huts with bedding at the ‘Operated Huts’.”
New restrictions include no camping within 100m of designated FHAC camping areas.
Hiker camps are areas of 12, 3 person raised platforms, with a communal area and toilet connected by boardwalks.
“Operated Huts provide an accommodation option that is less susceptible to seasonal weather changes, opening up opportunities for an extended walker season. Operated Huts will offer beds for two or three people per hut and are supported with a communal hut for dining and social life. A communal hut consisting of group dining areas and a separated kitchen enables the hut operator to provide fully catered hiking packages. Toilet facilities would be shared, and an extra hut for storage and accommodation is provided for the operational and maintenance personnel.”
“…the current preferred model is to provide a lease to a single private operator who would offer serviced hiking packages, similar to the private walking tours for the Overland Track in Tasmania and Milford Track in New Zealand.”
“…The track passes the Bogong Rover Chalet, currently leased by the Scouts Victoria. This building could be re-purposed to provide accommodation for walkers on the Crossing, subject to negotiations between Parks Victoria and Scouts Victoria.”

‘Overnight Node’ locations – Credit: Victorian National Parks Association.

There you have it. Privatized huts built on public land using public money.

These huts have no place in our national parks. If you are to develop infrastructure on public land it needs to be for the public.

According to the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA), infrastructure development will involve the creation of “80 new structures”:

Four new overnight accommodation hubs – each with up to nine catered huts for 2-3 people / 36 (2-4 person) huts.
31 rentable tent platforms.
Four large communal shelters.
A stand-alone 50-person hut for group gathering and cooking.
Huts for tourism operators and communal toilets.
Nine other structures including toilets, solar panels and picnic tables and access paths.

How is it possible that these structures, let alone the construction of said structures, or maintenance, have a minimal impact on the flora, fauna, or natural essence of the Bogong High Plains? A project that demands the creation of 80 new structures is too large in scale to be acceptable under any circumstances within the Alpine National Park, for public benefit or otherwise, this is excessive.

The operator hut complexes are set to be a group of 3-4 4x4m huts with a communal hut and connecting boardwalks. These are not small developments, and the placement of these complexes needs to be thought out very carefully. This is why it is to my surprise that an operator hut complex is intended to be built on the top of Diamantina Spur. This is absolutely outrageous, and goes against the stated principles of conservation and environmental protection as listed within the FHAC Master Plan. The placement of this complex is for nothing more than tourism appeal, with complete disregard to all environmental consequences.

The ‘hiker camps’ also take up a considerable footprint. 12, 4x4m tent platforms, with connecting boardwalks, a communal space, and toilets. There is no possible solution to have these developments not severely impact on the natural character of the region.

Parks Victoria also seeks to claim the Bogong Rover Chalet, a building that has belonged to Scouts Victoria for longer than Parks Victoria has acted as management for parks in Victoria. This building has deep, historic value to Scouts Victoria, and should not be used as a tool to funnel tourism into the region for private profits (as it will likely be privately operated once acquired).

The overnight node proposed to be located on the top section of Diamantina Spur will have a dramatic, negative impact on the character of the region. It is not an intelligent choice for an ‘overnight node’ as there are no benefits for anyone other than paying clientele and marketability. The hut complex will no doubt have a large visual impact on the area, and helicopters will be required for servicing, which again will take away from the natural character of the area.

This needs to be removed from planning as it is not within alignment of Parks Victoria’s own stated goals and beliefs within the master plan, let alone national parks legislation. This development is only for profit and marketability and will negatively impact all walkers in the region bar the small percentage of ‘experience seeker’ walkers.

“It is understood that operated or guided groups would consist of 8 to 10 participants. This would make up approximately 50% of the booking of accommodation options within the Hiker Camps, and around 80–100% within the Operated Huts.” – page 86.

The ‘operated huts’ are essentially entirely purpose built to accommodate the needs of the clients of private tour operators. The developers are not thinking of anyone other than those that will fill their bottomless pockets. For those of low income who cannot afford to exchange a few nights’ accommodation in a tent for a weeks’ worth of food, you’re out of luck. The FHAC isn’t for you.

This current plan displaces those with a low economic status in favor of those of high economic status. Income should not determine who gains the right to access a national park.

“Operated Huts will be leased and managed by the private sector. License agreements over the huts may extend to management models including the hiker camps.” – page 111.

Owned by the public, but managed privately. If there is to be a network of huts installed on this trail, they should at the very least be managed by Parks Victoria – providing new jobs for the public sector whilst retaining all of the profits made from the operated hut accommodation. As such, this increase in profit for Parks Victoria can be used for the wider benefit of the Alpine National Park, instead of for the benefit of private profiteers.

'The Market' (Page 92):

Listed as ‘current users’.

Adventure seekers:

“The ‘adventure seekers’ are a market which has been described as valuing the ‘wild’ experience and being self-sufficient. This group consists mainly of experienced to very experienced walkers who are fully independent in terms of drop-off and pick-up and for all equipment. They value solitude and wish to pit themselves against nature while being fully immersed in it and wish to ‘tread lightly’. This user profile is dictated by the relatively high level of difficulty of trail segments, together with the nature of the solely tent-based accommodation.”

Curious casuals [day walkers]:

“‘Curious casuals’ are predominately visitors to the alpine resorts or perhaps to Harrietville or Dinner Plain. Many are day-trippers and many of these are families. They are often visiting in the green season and seek a short sojourn to ‘check out the scenery’. They tend to embark on a 20 minute to 2 hour walk from their point of departure.”

Other users:

“On various neighbouring trails mountain biking is popular, with horse riders also having a presence, for example on Westons Spur and at Tawonga Huts. Cross-country skiing is popular in winter often increasing demand for huts and toilets within 5 km of Falls Creek. Four-wheel drive campers use the roads that are open for access to vehicles.”

Listed as the intended user of the FHAC:

Experience seekers:

“The ‘experience seeker’ market group range from the independent, experienced walker to those seeking creature comforts within a natural setting (the ‘comfort in nature market’). Experience seekers generally seek a challenging but not over-taxing walk, although some may seek more challenging options such as ascending Mount Feathertop. Their primary purpose is to enjoy scenery and to immerse themselves in nature. Many have an interest in flora and fauna and seek to be educated in cultural history”.”

“This indicates a gap in the market for the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing, and the potential for a wider range of visitors with potential increase in yield for the region. The levels of usage will largely be dictated by the supply: that is, the design of the trail itself and the nature of the accommodation and walking products provided.” – page 92.

I find it amusing that the plan aims to invite “a wider range of visitors” through this development. All evidence points towards this plan marginalising those of low income and diminishing access for all those outside of the ‘experience seeker’ demographic.

Preached benefits of ‘increased access’ are only for this specific demographic at the cost of all other users. To cater to these users large-scale developments are a necessity, countering the stated environmental benefits.

Other suggested benefits, being outdoor education and awareness of nature and the environment within national parks are not tied to luxury walking holiday experiences, they are a touted non-exclusive benefit – again, at the cost of conservation. Education and awareness can be instilled onto a wider demographic of people not through infrastructure development in sensitive natural areas, but, for example: free workshops situated in the nearby resorts, guided day walks within resort boundaries or on existing trails, social media campaigns and other online content. All of these suggestions do not require the destruction of wilderness and natural areas designated for conservation.

These examples could aim to provide critical skills development for people interested in outdoor adventure activities, thereby increasing access. The problem with this route is that it requires effort on behalf of the demographic that prefers a low degree of challenge and a high degree of comfort.

I argue that people who are genuinely interested in the outdoors would be willing to put in the effort to reach certain areas, and experience the national parks in a self-guided manner – or in the very least, a guided walk where exorbitant amounts of luxury comfort are not required for the experience to be enjoyable. This, of course, does restrict a small percentage of potential users to this new Falls to Hotham development who simply are physically unable to complete the walk without modern infrastructure.

The access argument seems to forget the fact that these areas are in national park land, land designated for conservation. Land that this environmentally significant for various reasons including rarity and fragility. By aiming to increase access, you are forgoing all logic in terms of conservation. Dramatically increasing foot traffic, let alone clearing large amounts of vegetation for extensive infrastructure development, is only going to have a sizable negative impact on the environment and there is no logical argument against this.

By the desire to increase access, you are forgetting the context. This issue is occurring on national park land, public land, land that should be strictly managed with the goal of environmental conservation. Recreational use of national parks should coexist with conservation in a mutually beneficial way. The trend of ‘great walks’ and privatized luxury infrastructure development in national park land is not balancing recreation and conservation, it is placing the interests of recreation of a select user group above the recreational use of national parks of all other users, as well as that of conservation efforts.

So, if all logic from an environmental standpoint points against the reasoning behind these developments, why do new developments continue to move forward? It obviously is not for conservation. It isn’t for public access. It isn’t for education. It isn’t for environmental awareness. I can only conclude that it is for profit.

Even then, how sound, and precise are the estimates of the economics behind this project? Does local business in Harrietville, Mt Beauty, Hotham Heights, and Falls Creek benefit from “on-mountain hut-based accommodation”? During the green season there is a lot of empty real estate within the alpine resorts that can be put to good use. Many beds remain empty from October to early June. Does the local economy benefit directly from this development, or only due to the increase in visitation to the area? If it is the latter, I am sure there are more effective methods of increasing visitation to the Alpine Shire that forgo environmental destruction…

Example of accommodation provided by TWC on the Three Capes Track. Credit: TWC

Suggested Benefits (Page 105):

Societal benefits:

“Surveys of walkers highlight the benefits of walking experiences such as the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing. Walkers report increased self-confidence and other enduring changes which enhance well-being. By fostering engagement with people, natural environments and the mastering of challenging tasks, long-distance walking is found to facilitate relationships, self-fulfilment and a sense of achievement. (Survey source: Saunders, R. et al. (2013) Personal Transformation Through Long Distance Walking, Southern Cross University).”

Environmental benefits:

“The master plan aims to promote a higher environmental sensitivity within the broader community by providing information and education to an increased number of visitors. Highest possible standards of environmentally sensitive design solutions protect and enhance the habitat of existing flora and fauna. A curated weed and pest control and management strategy will be applied utilising funding and volunteering support.”

These benefits seem more akin to excuses than they are to benefits. And what of the cost to achieve these benefits? The costs outweigh the benefits tenfold.

Economic benefits:

“The development of the trail will provide Victoria with a major nature-based tourism icon. The track will attract significantly more visitation to the region, generating demand for services that include the direct offer within the trailhead resorts and adjacent mountain villages such as Harrietville and Dinner plain, but also extend further out into the region. A number of walkers will extend their stay in the region by one or two additional nights, pre and post trail.”

Minimal trail upgrades throughout the region on existing tracks and correct advertising could achieve ‘significantly more visitation to the region’ as well. If tourism boards seek to push bushwalking in the region as a whole, then a wider demographic of people will be drawn to the area. This may not be as much of an economic benefit, as this specific development will mostly only draw wealthy clientele for guided walking companies. In any case, greater numbers of travelers will result in more spending in regions local to the trail, and this can be achieved in many ways, although to varying degrees of success.

I’m no business analyst, so I can’t personally comment on the feasibility of the economics of the project. Allegedly the ‘Business Case for the FHAC’ fails in it’s estimates on returns, with the VNPA suggesting that “there is doubt that the returns on the project will cover maintenance costs”. Walker number estimates also seem to be inaccurately high.

The VNPA also makes valid point in that the business case ‘was not assessed against other options for nature-based tourism in the region’, as though the developers were gung-ho on this plan and unwilling to even consider alternatives. I wonder why that would be…

Despite economic red flags, $34 million tax-payer dollars are being committed to this development. Seemingly with no questions asked.

Alpine National Park Protection Status (Page 112):

International status: “The Alpine National Park is assigned to the IUCN World Conservation Union Category II National Park in the United Nations list of Protected Areas. Category II areas are managed to protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying ecological structure and supporting environmental processes, and to promote education and recreation.”
National heritage listing: “The National Heritage List is Australia’s list of natural, historic and indigenous places of outstanding significance to the nation. In 2008, the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves were included on the National Heritage List of Australia, providing protection under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) for their natural environment, indigenous and historic values as well as their scientific importance.”
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: “This Act was established with the objective to provide protection of the environment and heritage, conserve and promote biodiversity and promote co-operative methods for protection and management, recognising the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity.”
Alpine Shire Planning Scheme: “Under the current Alpine Shire Planning Scheme issued on 9 June 2016, the Alpine National Park falls within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone. In order to enable accommodation development within this zone, an amendment to the current planning scheme may be required. The introduction of an incorporated plan into the schedule of the zone may be needed to allow this use. A planning scheme amendment would be required for a third party to lease huts within the Alpine National Park.”

Developers seek to change the protection status on the Alpine National Park as listed within the above planning scheme to accommodate their plans. How would potential changes impact the development of infrastructure within the Alpine National Park in the future?

What Does The Public Think?

The FHAC Master Plan has existed as a proposal since 2015, and throughout the period of time from then to now various surveys have been presented to the public for feedback. I am unfamiliar with exact questions and results from within the surveys prior to the survey conducted by Engage Victoria in August of 2022 – all I can comment on is hearsay as I do not have the original documents. Various articles speaking on the previous iterations of the plan suggest that it was even more outrageous, with documents released by Parks Victoria suggesting that nearly 90% of those surveyed ‘strongly opposed’ the development.

The recent survey taken between August and September of 2022 again saw the public voice their dissatisfaction with the proposal for numerous reasons – most of which I have pointed out already within this article.

The public rejected the plan based on the following concerns:

Environmental impacts through project construction, increased foot traffic, trail management and upkeep, whilst expressing concerns over the general fragility of the alpine environment. One submission states: “Given that the “Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing” project would likely remove up to 30 hectares of vegetation, or a significant portion of that area, exposing an enormous amount of bare, friable soil, the proposal is totally inappropriate for the Australian Alps.” – submission.
Inequitable access to the Alpine National Park due to cost, along with the major disruption to dispersed camping. One submission writes: “You should not have book through a commercial operator to use these facilities and should have equal access rights” – Engage Victoria survey.
The proposal encourages inexperienced persons to hike in a mountainous environment. The survey also captured the general sentiment that hiking within the Alpine National Park should be “earned by those able to undertake independent hiking and camping without the support of tour operators and huts”.
Commercialisation and exploitation of public land for private profit.
The plan goes against the primary purpose of national parks as outlined in various legislation such as the National Parks Act 1975 and Environmental Effects Act 1978. “National parks were created to preserve Victoria’s natural heritage for future generations” – submission.
Safety, similar to the objections surrounding inviting inexperienced hikers into the park.

And lastly, but of particular importance, the engagement process.

The public expressed dissatisfaction with the 2022 consultation process because “it did not provide opportunity to comment on the merits of the project, only details about the design”. The public was unable to express their opinion on the overall value of the project, with no option provided to oppose the project as a whole. Evidently, this did not stop the public from expressing their dissatisfaction.

There is clear and overwhelming negative public sentiment in relation to this development. The public, as demonstrated through the responses listed in the engagement summary report, clearly does not want the project to go ahead in its current form, or at all.

Despite this, the project continues. This is particularly concerning as this development is taking place on public land, and the general public should have their voice heard and concerns met. The interests of the public need to be met with such a proposed development. How is it, with so much disagreement, that this project is moving forward without contest. It is as though the opinions of the public hold no value in a matter that deeply concerns the public. There is no social license to this project whatsoever.

Protests against private lodge development in Cooloola National Park – Credit: Sunshine Coast News.

What Can We Do?

Based off of the response given by Parks Victoria in response to the 2022 survey results, apparently not much. But I’ll be damned if I sit around and watch idly as an area of such environment, cultural, and personal significance is desecrated by profiteers.

The Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing Master Plan seeks to sacrifice the integrity of the Bogong High Plains for private profit. The plan will involve large scale environmental destruction, projected to be over 30ha (300,000 m²), diminish access for the overwhelming majority of users of the Alpine National Park, effectively transfer public land to the private sector, waste potentially over $30 million taxpayer dollars on an ineffective business strategy, commercialise pristine nature areas, promote the stagnation of outdoor skills development in favour of unpreparedness, and infringe upon national parks legislation.

I don’t understand how such a plan cannot be considered criminal.

In a time of disease, changing climate, invasive species, bushfire and general ill-health of our alpine environment, how can it be possible that we sign off on further environmental destruction within our beloved Alpine National Park? Even outside from an environmental standpoint, this project is opposed on so many levels. If the government were to inject over $30 million dollars into the general maintenance and revitalization of the Alpine National Park, I am sure that the results would be astronomically beneficial.

If you, like I, have a desire to see our Alpine National Park ‘reserved, preserved and protected permanently for the benefit of the public’, we need to create our own opportunities to oppose this development. With the development of private, luxury infrastructure continuing to spread through the nations wilderness and national parks, a significant change must be made. Without presenting serious resistance against this trend, I can’t see a way that this ends – I only see the various ways in which this could escalate further than what it already has.

Currently the best course of action to show opposition to this development is to directly email the following persons (as of January 2024):

The Victorian Minister for Environment: Steve Dimopoulos (dimopoulos@parliament.vic.gov.au)
The Premier of Victoria: Jacinta Allan (allan@parliament.vic.gov.au)
Parks Victoria Engagement Team: (engage@parks.vic.gov.au), (FHAC@parks.vic.gov.au).
Minister for the Environment and Water: Tanya Plibersek (Minister.Plibersek@dcceew.gov.au)

If you choose to email any of the above, I suggest using the email template provided by Darren Edwards of Trail Hiking Australia through this link. Copy the text within the document and then directly email those above. I also recommend showing your support to the VNPA in their efforts to oppose this development. You can contact the VNPA via this email address (vnpa@vnpa.org.au).

You should also make use of the modern age and spread awareness of the issue on social media where possible. A quiet opposition is not going to see any results, make as much noise as possible.

I urge you to read through the FHAC Master Plan and form your own conclusions. See below for additional resources I’ve referenced within this article.

Lets do all we can to save our Alpine National Park.

Resources:

About The Author

"I'm Josh, the main author for Better Hiking. I hike for the challenge and love to explore Australia's most difficult trails. I write to provide my fellow hikers with the information they need to be safe on the trail, and to feel confident to try out new challenges of their own."

Josh Hamill

Main author for Better Hiking