Media release – Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association, 1 June 2021

WILDERNESS GUIDES WELCOME THE RELEASE OF THE TOURISM MASTER PLAN BUT SAY MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO PROTECT THE TWWHA

The Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association is pleased to see the TWWHA Tourism Master Plan released today but question why it took the Tasmanian Government so long.

Said President of the Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association, Ciara Smart, “The Plan was originally called for by the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission back in 2015 and yet we’ve heard nothing from the Tasmanian Government since the public consultation on the draft Master Plan closed in June 2020. Can anyone seriously believe it took almost 12 months for the final Plan to be written, especially when in the draft we were told the Plan would be released in July 2020?”

The Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association is strongly supportive of the Plan giving greater weight to protecting the Outstanding Universal Values of the TWWHA and strengthening the management role of Tasmanian Aboriginal people in presentation and interpretation of the cultural values of the TWWHA. We also welcome the Plan’s recognition that the wilderness experiences where people develop a strong connection to place often come about when infrastructure and facilities are minimised.

The Association supports the addition of new assessment guidelines for tourism developments in the TWWHA. We are particularly pleased to see the Plan gives more weight to the impact tourism can have on Tasmanian’s ability to care for and enjoy the TWWHA and that social impact assessments will now need to include an assessment of the recreational displacement created by tourism. We are also pleased the Plan recognises the importance of the protection of wilderness by requiring public and private tourism proposals to consider how their proposal will impact on wilderness values and requires PWS to undertake ongoing TWWHA-wide monitoring and reporting on wilderness values.

We welcome the Plan’s requirement that the review of the Overland Track Recreation Zone Plan should consider (amongst other things): experience impacts and risks to walkers from helicopters servicing infrastructure; improving standards in wastewater treatment, technology and compliance expectations; number and types of commercial operators on the track including appropriate sharing of costs for supporting infrastructure and servicing. We recognise people’s heightened concerns about, and calls for greater scrutiny over, the operations of commercial tour companies. This follows revelations in documents released under Right to Information laws that a PWS audit of the Tasmanian Walking Company’s greywater systems on the Overland Track had found deficiencies. In our Election Platform, we also called for a review of the licence and lease fees are calculated for businesses seeking exclusive use or occupation of Crown land.

While there is much to like about the Plan, the Association would like to have seen timeframes for when policies (such as the PWS Standing Camp Policy, the Aircraft Access Policy and the Fly Neighbourly Advice for the TWWHA), strategies (such as the Biosecurity Strategy for the TWWHA), protocols (such as the Cultural Heritage Decision Protocol) and new assessment guidelines will be developed and implemented.

Said Ciara Smart, “Without timeframes for implementation, the Master Plan is just empty words on a page. We want to know whether tourism development proposals currently making their way through the EOI and RAA processes will be subject to these new requirements or whether all this delaying on the release of the Master Plan means they’ll get a free pass. Plus, we need to know PWS is going to properly resourced (in terms of staff and budget) to carry out this Plan and rapidly develop the policies and work required for full activation”.

The Association remains concerned the Plan skimps on full implementation of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission’s 2015 recommendations. We do not believe the Plan explicitly defines what the balance between tourism development and the management and conservation of the cultural and natural values of the TWWHA should look like. This is because many of the most controversial matters – like aircraft traffic; a methodology for measuring wilderness values; definitions of terms like “standing camp”, “visitor accommodation” and “huts” and the appropriate type of facilities and services to be provided at each of these – are left up to PWS to determine at some undefined time.

Said Ciara Smart, “Not only does this negate the potential value of the Plan, it also means that many of the most controversial issues will not be subject to consultation and negotiation (as called for in the UN monitoring mission’s recommendation) because they will be resolved either by PWS developing internal, non-statutory guidelines or commercial tour operators getting approval for their development proposals.”

The Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association believes the only way to fully implement the Reactive Monitoring mission’s recommendations is through an overhaul of the current assessment and approval process for tourism developments in national parks. We are calling for:

and strengthening the management role of Tasmanian Aboriginal people in presentation and interpretation of the cultural values of the TWWHA. We also welcome the Plan’s recognition that the wilderness experiences where people develop a strong connection to place often come about when infrastructure and facilities are minimised.

The Association supports the addition of new assessment guidelines for tourism developments in the TWWHA. We are particularly pleased to see the Plan gives more weight to the impact tourism can have on Tasmanian’s ability to care for and enjoy the TWWHA and that social impact assessments will now need to include an assessment of the recreational displacement created by tourism. We are also pleased the Plan recognises the importance of the protection of wilderness by requiring public and private tourism proposals to consider how their proposal will impact on wilderness values and requires PWS to undertake ongoing TWWHA-wide monitoring and reporting on wilderness values.

We welcome the Plan’s requirement that the review of the Overland Track Recreation Zone Plan should consider (amongst other things): experience impacts and risks to walkers from helicopters servicing infrastructure; improving standards in wastewater treatment, technology and compliance expectations; number and types of commercial operators on the track including appropriate sharing of costs for supporting infrastructure and servicing. We recognise people’s heightened concerns about, and calls for greater scrutiny over, the operations of commercial tour companies. This follows revelations in documents released under Right to Information laws that a PWS audit of the Tasmanian Walking Company’s greywater systems on the Overland Track had found deficiencies. In our Election Platform, we also called for a review of the licence and lease fees are calculated for businesses seeking exclusive use or occupation of Crown land.

While there is much to like about the Plan, the Association would like to have seen timeframes for when policies (such as the PWS Standing Camp Policy, the Aircraft Access Policy and the Fly Neighbourly Advice for the TWWHA), strategies (such as the Biosecurity Strategy for the TWWHA), protocols (such as the Cultural Heritage Decision Protocol) and new assessment guidelines will be developed and implemented.

Said Ciara Smart, “Without timeframes for implementation, the Master Plan is just empty words on a page. We want to know whether tourism development proposals currently making their way through the EOI and RAA processes will be subject to these new requirements or whether all this delaying on the release of the Master Plan means they’ll get a free pass. Plus, we need to know PWS is going to properly resourced (in terms of staff and budget) to carry out this Plan and rapidly develop the policies and work required for full activation”.

The Association remains concerned the Plan skimps on full implementation of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission’s 2015 recommendations. We do not believe the Plan explicitly defines what the balance between tourism development and the management and conservation of the cultural and natural values of the TWWHA should look like. This is because many of the most controversial matters – like aircraft traffic; a methodology for measuring wilderness values; definitions of terms like “standing camp”, “visitor accommodation” and “huts” and the appropriate type of facilities and services to be provided at each of these – are left up to PWS to determine at some undefined time.

Said Ciara Smart, “Not only does this negate the potential value of the Plan, it also means that many of the most controversial issues will not be subject to consultation and negotiation (as called for in the UN monitoring mission’s recommendation) because they will be resolved either by PWS developing internal, non-statutory guidelines or commercial tour operators getting approval for their development proposals.”

The Tasmanian Wilderness Guides Association believes the only way to fully implement the Reactive Monitoring mission’s recommendations is through an overhaul of the current assessment and approval process for tourism developments in national parks. We are calling for:

  1. Respect for Management Plans – All proposed national park tourism developments should conform to relevant management plans.
  2. Legislation not evasion – Consideration of replacing the EOI and RAA processes with proper statutory processes and third party appeal rights.
  3. Transparency and community consultation – The public’s Right to Know should be front and centre of how public national parks are managed. Public consultation should be mandatory and there should be a requirement for a considered response to this consultation.
  4. Independence from vested interests – National park development proposals should be assessed by those with expertise and should not rely on the proponents’ own assessments of their proposals.
  5. High standards – Regular auditing and monitoring of commercial tourism operators.
  6. Fairness for tourism operators – There should be a review of the way licence and lease fees are calculated for businesses seeking exclusive use or occupation of Crown land.
  7. Increased funding for Parks – Investing in PWS can be a way to invest in nature tourism AND special places.

TAS GOVT: TWWHA Tourism Master Plan.

TASMANIAN TIMES: Tourism Plan is ‘Lipstick on Parks Privatisation Pig’.