Tasmania’s World Heritage Area extension all about politics

Despite the ENGOs efforts, the Mission found that the State forests adjacent to the TWWHA were part of “a multiple use landscape” with a mix of old growth, mature, and regenerating forests from past timber harvesting (including a significant roading network), that was well managed and posed little threat to the TWWHA. An additional finding was that old growth tall wet eucalypt forest was already adequately represented in the already existing TWWHA and in other Tasmanian national parks and reserves. The 2008 Mission’s overall conclusion was that it “does not recommend any change to the boundaries of the property (the TWWHA) to deal with such threats”.   

On the question of cultural significance, the Mission noted that while there is a need to enhance the resources devoted to “protecting archeological and aboriginal sites within and adjacent to the property (the TWWHA), ... there is no need for extending the boundaries of the property for this purpose”.

Despite this 2008 advice, just five years later the World Heritage Committee accepted that these same areas were now worthy of World Heritage listing. This was somewhat bewildering given that the science shouldn’t have changed over the short intervening period. Accordingly this has raised concerns over the dominant role of Greens politicians and ENGOs in the preparation of the listing nomination and whether they may have misled the IUCN and World Heritage Committee.

This is centred on the later provision of hitherto unseen mapping to the World Heritage Committee that is suspected of not showing the extent to which Tasmania’s tall wet eucalypt forest were already reserved in national parks and other reserves outside the existing TWHHA. This may have created an enhanced perception of the need to expand the TWWHA. Concern over this has stimulated an FOI request to enable the veracity of all the information provided to the World Heritage Committee as part of the listing nomination process to be assessed.     

While the science shouldn’t have changed since 2008, the politics definitely had. In particular, the election of minority Labor Governments at both Federal and State level, and the ascension of a Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, who seemingly brought to the role an agenda to put substantially more land and ocean into permanent reserves irrespective of impacts on resource use industries. This was coupled with his zealous want use (or create) Federal Government powers to, where necessary, overide States in relation to environmental and resource use issues. 

Accordingly, Minister Burke strongly supported the Greens/ENGO push to expand the TWWHA from the start. When at the last minute, the World Heritage Committee was intending to reject the listing nomination due to doubts over its cultural significance, he personally intervened to pledge $500,000 of taxpayer’s money for detailed studies to establish the TWWHA’s cultural significance.

Burke’s determined support for the nomination also included flying a government entourage to the World Heritage Committee’s meeting in Phnom Penh at taxpayer’s expense. This ten-person delegation included senior staff from his department, a Tasmanian representative, an indigenous representative, and a technical advisor (none other than former ENGO lobbyist Peter Hitchcock). This official government presence was complemented by behind-the-scenes lobbying by half-a-dozen high profile ENGO activists who also travelled to Phnom Penh. Presumably this helped to turn the nomination into a listing.  

Minister Burke’s determination to ensure that the World Heritage extension nomination got over the line is emblematic of his primary role in driving Tasmanian forest policy changes to match the agenda of ENGO activists. This includes his earlier interventions on several occassions during the ‘forest peace deal’ negotiations to encourage and cajole industry and ENGO negotiators to reach a preferred outcome – and most notably, his eleventh-hour intervention to drag spent and disillusioned negotiators back to the table by committing $100 million of additional Federal funds as further incentive to force an agreement.

It is widely acknowledged that this effectively ‘bribed’ the ‘peace deal’ outcome from which then flowed the legislated Tasmanian Forests Agreement and, subsequently, the TWWHA extension nomination.

Despite denials by Minister Burke, the central role of domestic politics in the TWWHA extension was confirmed by Greens Leader, Christine Milne, who admitted after the nomination was accepted that “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.”

Of most significance has been the Australian and Tasmanian Governments’ determination to present the nomination as a ‘minor modification’ to the TWWHA. In fact, the 172,000 hectare addition represents a 12% increase to the TWWHA’s existing area. Presenting this as a ‘minor modification’ contravenes advice provided to the World Heritage Committee last year by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), that “A notional cut-off of 10% increase has generally been considered to be the absolute upper limit for a modification to be considered via the “minor modification” process,.......”

The political significance of this is that a greater than 10% modification to a World Heritage Site normally requires a full evaluation of the nominated values which typically takes 18 months of investigation, consultation and documentation; whereas under World Heritage operational guidelines a ‘minor modification’ can be accepted for listing without any meaningful evaluation of its claimed values and actual wilderness quality.