Conclusion and recommendations of Mount Stirling EES

The conclusion and recommendations of the Mount Stirling Environmental Effects Statement are reproduced below:

9.0 Conclusions

This report has dealt with the issues raised in submissions to the Mount Stirling EES. It is now necessary to bring all the threads together and to arrive at some conclusions about the future of Mount Stirling.

It must first be acknowledged that there is no detailed or specific development proposal at issue. The assessment has therefore inevitably involved judgements about the likely impacts based on conceptual proposals. It is also inevitable, in a natural environmental setting like Mount Stirling, that those Options proposing greater disturbance to that environment would be seen as having greater environmental impacts. The question is, are these impacts offset by positive social and economic benefits of the various Options under consideration or are they able to be mitigated to an acceptable degree by an environmental management plan?

Having considered all the submissions and the matters placed before the Panel during its public hearings the Panel concluded that the major dividing point is between those Options which include provision of downhill skiing on Mount Stirling and those which do not. Consequently, the Panel has turned its mind to consideration of whether the economic and social benefits of the downhill Options outweigh the likely environmental impacts of them and whether there are acceptable and appropriate mitigating measures which might minimise or avoid those impacts. On both counts the Panel has concluded in the negative. The Panel therefore believes that the Options which include downhill skiing on Mount Stirling should be eliminated from further deliberations about the future of Mount Stirling. Its reasons are set out below.

First, there is no demonstrated demand or need for downhill skiing on Mount Stirling in addition to that already provided for at existing resorts. All parties, including the ARC, accept that the combined market for downhill or alpine skiing and associated sports such as snow boarding is basically static. The ARC produced figures showing that this is also the case in the United States of America with its vast market and numerous ski resorts. As a result, downhill skiing on Mount Stirling would effectively be competing with other Victorian, and to a lesser extent, Australian resorts for market share and financial viability. The Panel recognises the importance of competition as agreed by all Governments of Australia in the National Competition Policy. Indeed, whatever happens on Mount Stirling, the other Australian resorts will inevitably be obliged to engage in vigorous competition to secure their financial future, subject as they are to various climatic vicissitudes as well as commercial competition.

However, the Panel does not believe that there is a sufficiently strong case to bring a new entrant into that market in the face of expansion of existing resorts at Mount Hotham and Falls Creek and continued capacity at Mount Buller (except for a few weekends during the 16 week ski season) when that entry would be accompanied - indeed reliant upon - major adverse environmental impacts to what is valued by many members of the community as a natural environment which, though subject to impacts from past and present uses, retains important natural values and what many perceive as "wilderness" qualities. Those impacts include clearance of considerable tracts of native vegetation from public lands for ski runs, ski lifts, gondolas, sewage treatment plant, darns for water supply and snowmaking, erosion and sedimentation from construction and visual intrusion in a natural landscape setting.

Much of the equipment required and a proportion of the part-time winter jobs created would be sourced overseas. Jobs created during construction are to be greatly valued. Most of the jobs created during subsequent operations would be of short duration - 16 weeks during the ski season. Some jobs may well be lost from other resorts if the combined Buller/Stirling resort is successful. The undoubted social and economic benefits from the potential investment must therefore be somewhat discounted and, in the Panel's view, do not outweigh - in this particular circumstance - the negative environmental impacts.

Second, there are major concerns about the ability to maintain required standards of water quality with the development envisaged by Options D, E and F. Concerns about potential nutrient enrichment in the headwaters of rivers sourced on Mount Stirling come not only from the EPA but also from the Shires of Delatite and Wangaratta and the principal Catchment and Land Protection Board affected. This Board arises from a new initiative of the Government specifically to manage land use and development on a whole of catchment basis. It is not against development but is most concerned about nutrient enrichment caused by development - a concern shared by the EPA.

Mitigating measures contemplated for Options D, E and F to meet these concerns only raise further environmental concerns arising from the possible need for lengthy pipelines to be constructed through several kilometres of native forest and would still result in increased total nutrient loads. Construction and subsequent access requirements for maintenance are likely to lead to further soil erosion and sedimentation in what are currently ecologically healthy streams.

Third, the Government is committed by Agreement and legislation to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). These include the precautionary principle, conservation of biological diversity and inter and intra generational equity. On all counts Options D, E and F cannot be supported.

Despite all the caveats and concerns, the international scientific and governmental community has accepted the reality of the enhanced greenhouse effect and the role of humankind in its causes. The effects in time and degree (literally and figuratively) remain uncertain but the implications are clear. There is a very real chance that in thirty years time, the snowfields at Mount Buller and Mount Stirling will be in serious jeopardy in terms of their ability to ensure reliable snow cover suitable for skiing even with snow making machinery. There is a possibility of no skiable snow surviving at these altitudes. The real chance and the possibility both increase in degrees of certainty in a 50 year timeframe. In view of these uncertainties the precautionary principle to which the Government is committed must come into play. The Government should not endorse the environmental impacts that would be a prerequisite of Options D, E and F with this level of uncertainty about the sustainability of these Options.

Options D, E and F would directly affect biological diversity by the removal of vegetation and by sedimentation in streams arising from construction and changed runoff conditions and would certainly jeopardise habitats and endangered species of state and regional significance. This is contrary to the ESD principle of conserving biological diversity.

Taking up a significant part of Mount Stirling for an expensive sport and thus displacing a more affordable past-time may be seen as being inequitable. The Panel, however, is more impressed with the importance of the natural values of Mount Stirling for the education and personal development of our younger generation by whom it is greatly appreciated and for whom it provides a unique set of personal development experiences. The introduction of downhill skiing and all its attendant paraphernalia would seriously impair the ability of Mount Stirling to continue as the setting for these important life experiences,

Fourth, despite the potential economic benefits of Options D, E and F, there is little evidence that they could attract commercial support without considerable public sector investment. The Panel stands by its earlier comments that, although the financial analysis in the EES is not a commercial appraisal, the negative outcomes of that analysis are of such a magnitude as to make it seriously unlikely that any of Options D, E and F could attract commercial backing without considerable government support.

Fifth, the alternative Options are generally consistent with Tourism Victoria's view that nature based tourism is increasingly popular and should be fostered as part of the product range to attract tourists in a growing market as compared with the stagnant market for downhill skiing. It is possible to achieve a positive outcome for Mount Stirling that does not offend ESD principles, will provide positive benefits in the local community and has the potential to create a successful all season nature based destination. The opportunity should be seized.

It follows from this last point that the Panel, having concluded that there is no substantive case for pursuing Options D, E or F, is also of the view that Options A and B do not fully grasp the opportunities presented by the resource of Mount Stirling. Option A - the current situation - is a static approach that does not utilise the obvious potential to bring economic and social benefits to the region. Option B is not consistent with Mount Stirling's regional position offering a major recreational resource between metropolitan Melbourne and the Alpine National Park.

Option C best represents the potential of Mount Stirling. The Panel does not, however, endorse Option C in detail as proposed in the EES. It does endorse the basic principle that the future vision for Mount Stirling should be as an all season nature based tourist, recreational and educational resource but with no on-mountain accommodation. It should be managed and marketed as such.

20.0 Recommendations

The Panel recommends that:
STAV Home Page

Last Updated 14 May 1997