Community and forestry groups have raised concerns in relation to the Australian Government’s nominated 170,000 ha extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The massive extension has avoided scrutiny in detail by public hearings of the Legislative council’s Select Committee of Inquiry into the Forest Agreement Bill.
Environment Minister Tony Burke announced the nomination on January 31 but only lodged full details with UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee in Paris on the death knock for nominations, February 28, after the last day of the Select Committee hearings.
Objections have been filed in Paris by the Institute of Foresters, special timbers groups, community organisations, farmers and private landowners in areas affected by the nomination.
“The manner in which the nomination was handled is an affront to the Tasmanian people, the Tasmanian Parliament, and the Legislative Council in particular,” claimed Mr George Harris, President of the Huon Resource Development Group.
All the organisations contend the nomination is too large to be considered a minor boundary modification (it is a 12 per cent extension of the existing WHA) and should be rejected or treated as a fresh nomination.
The complex new listing will have substantial socio-economic impacts that the Australian Government has not had assessed, including restrictions on mining and recreation.
There has been lack of effective consultation with local communities or those impacted by a loss of specific resource.
Neighbours, none of whom were consulted, say the listing is a major threat to property and personal safety from wildfires arising from the change to objectives of management.
They fear access roads will not be maintained and will become unusable, further reducing the capacity for fire fighting, wildfire mitigation, weed suppression and access for beekeepers.
Some submissions alleged abuse of process and conflict of interest amongst groups and individuals involved in promoting the World Heritage Area extension, and in the manner in which the nomination was developed.
“This is now going to generate more conflict and division and it could have been avoided,” claimed special timbers advocate George Harris. “Minster Burke should have provided full details to the Legislative council, even if it meant delaying the controversial nomination.”
