Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Science the biggest loser from Tasmanian World Heritage decision

By Mark Poynter - posted Thursday, 17 July 2014


There was a political incentive to misrepresent the proposed extension in this way because, under its operational guidelines, the World Heritage Committee can approve a 'minor' extension to an existing WHA property without the normal 18 months evaluation process required for a new nomination or a larger extension.

That the extension was pursued with undue haste for political purposes was confirmed by Greens Leader, Christine Milne, after the nomination was accepted, when she said: "In parallel with the IGA (ie. the 'forest peace deal') process, Bob Brown and I worked with Minister Tony Burke to develop this extension and get this World Heritage nomination in....... so that it could be decided ahead of the Federal Election."

Ms Milne's role as a key driver of the nomination also raised some concerns given that she is a former Vice President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which acts as an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee. It is also notable that Professor Mackey is an IUCN Regional Councillor for its Oceania (Asia-Pacific) Region. Whether these affiliations permitted any undue influence to be exerted over the outcome of the nomination is unknown, but they certainly created a perception of that possibility.

Advertisement

The haste with which the 2013 TWWHA extension was pursued also suggests that the Federal Labor Government used World Heritage listing as a tool to insulate these proposed forest reserves from the strong expectation that a new Tasmanian State Government would be elected in early 2014 with a mandate to reverse the unpopular Tasmanian Forest Agreement. As this has duly occurred, the former Federal Government's actions could be construed as subverting the Tasmanian Parliament's democratic right to act in the best interests of the majority of its constituents.

Despite some reported misgivings, the World Heritage Committee did indeed waive the normal requirement for exhaustive independent evaluation of the proposed extension's world heritage values, thereby allowing the 170,000 ha area to be World Heritage listed before the September 2013 Federal Election.

This outcome defied the reality that the Gillard Government's 2013 TWWHA extension nomination had included no new studies of the area's heritage values despite most of its component areas of State Forest being formally rejected for World Heritage listing just five years earlier.

In March 2008, a UNESCO Reactive Monitoring Mission had been sent to Tasmania by the World Heritage Committee to examine claims by local ENGOS that these same State forests should be added to the TWWHA. However, they had reported that there was no reason to extend the TWWHA boundaries because it already adequately represented forest values, and that similar values found in adjacent State forests were also being "well managed, but for both conservation and development purposes".

This was an acknowledgement that State forest management systems are effective in identifying and protecting significant environmental and cultural values, and that this can be achieved without reserving huge swathes of the landscape to exclude forest uses.

Undoubtedly there are special areas deserving of full landscape protection. However, in this instance, the 2013 nomination had neither established whether all of the areas proposed for addition to the TWWHA were deserving of landscape-scale protection, nor whether its forest or cultural values would be significantly disadvantaged if it remained as State forest.

Advertisement

Strangely, the 2013 nomination to extend the TWWHA made little or no mention of wilderness values despite it recommending additions to a 'wilderness world heritage property'. This was presumably because the most recent study of Tasmanian wilderness values undertaken in 1997 during the Regional Forests Agreement process, had found that the State forests component had low wilderness value. This had even been recognised during the IVG process in 2011, when Professor Mackey concluded that: "Forest wilderness issues warrant further consideration, especially in areas adjoining the TWWHA..... it will be important to assess the current extent of and potential to restore forested wilderness in areas which warrant formal assessment for World Heritage listing"

Yet no follow-up assessment of wilderness values had occurred prior to the 2013 nomination.In addition, no study of the proposed TWWHA extension's social and economic impacts had been undertaken despite this being required under the Tasmanian Forests Agreement which, in relation to World Heritage matters, had deferred to the 1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement.

Nor did the nomination provide any knowledge of the supposed indigenous cultural heritage values of the proposed extension. Indeed, when the TWWHA extension nomination was being considered, an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee had recommended that it be rejected due to its lack of cultural significance. However, this was able to be averted at the last minute by the personal intervention of Environment Minister Tony Burke who pledged $0.5 million of taxpayer funding to study of the extension's cultural heritage values should the nomination be accepted.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Poynter is a professional forester with 40 years experience. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and his book Going Green: Forests, fire, and a flawed conservation culture, was published by Connor Court in July 2018.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Poynter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mark Poynter
Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy