Media release – Tasmanian Wilderness Society, 4 February 2022
Governments Mislead UNESCO on Tasmanian Wilderness
The Wilderness Society is concerned that the Australian Government’s State of the Conservation (SoC) Report on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) misleads UNESCO.
“The Australian and Tasmanian governments’ State of Conservation Report (SoC) on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is misleading and full of spin,” said Jimmy Cordwell, wilderness campaigner for the Wilderness Society.
Last year, the World Heritage Committee tabled a number of questions and concerns about the management of the Tasmanian wilderness. Perhaps most critically, given the Gutwein Government parks privatisation policy – “Unlocking the Potential in our Parks” – the Committee asked the Government “to avoid any development at the property before the Detailed Plan for a Comprehensive Cultural Assessment is implemented”. Neither of these things have happened.
“The SoC report is the Governments’ response to UNESCO’s questions and concerns and it’s simply not good enough. Its responses and explanations are more spin than substance.
“The parks privatisation policy remains on the table despite the Lake Malbena proponent withdrawing its planning application at the last minute. The only reason the Lake Malbena scheme got as far as it did was because of the parks privatisation policy. The planning application’s withdrawal suggests this policy needs reconsidering.
“The SoC claims “The 2016 Management Plan demonstrates the Tasmanian Government’s strong commitment to protecting the property’s Outstanding Universal Value” but in reality, the parks privatisation policy invites proposals that breach this statutory Management Plan [See Clause 5]. The Gutwein Government is committed to ignoring the Management Plan.
“The World Heritage Committee (WHC) asked for all developments to halt in the World Heritage Area so a Comprehensive Cultural Assessment can take place of Aboriginal heritage. The Government pretends this is happening but, in reality, it’s business as usual: developments are continuing and there’s no meaningful cultural assessment process in place.
“The WHC asked that National Parks be created out of the Future Potential Production Forest reserves around kooparoona niara / Great Western Tiers (Reactive Monitoring Mission, Recommendation 11). Seven years after this request was first made, it still hasn’t happened.
“The Tasmanian Government repeatedly promised to do so but, instead, years later and with 97% public support for national park protection, it says that it now intends to reserve them at the lowest possible level – namely conservation areas and regional reserves. Meanwhile, our petition to UNESCO asking the Government to honour its promises is heading towards 20,000 signatures.
“The Gutwein Gutwein says it wants lutruwita/Tasmania to become a global ecotourism destination, but trying to dud UNESCO suggests it’s not serious,” said Mr Cordwell.
The Wilderness Society responses to the individual points in the State of Conservation report:
“Under this legislation, a proposed action of this type is determined to be a ‘controlled action’ and must undergo assessment and a decision as to whether or not it can proceed.” p8
This is misleading. The minister can – and does – deem actions NOT controlled actions too. Precisely what happened with Lake Malbena. The previous Australian Environment Minister, Melissa Price, deemed Lake Malbena “not a controlled action” – effectively waving it through. Then it went through a weak – and ultimately unlawful – assessment process. The Lake Malbena process also involved:
-
Near universal public opposition in Tasmania, which was entirely ignored
-
The government joined with the proponent to help him fight his legal case
-
The lease and licence was agreed in secret BEFORE public consultation – which was ignored anyway
-
The lease remains in place – meaning Halls Island technically remains private
-
Civil servants secretly changed the world heritage zoning boundaries – in the Statutory Management Plan – specifically so that the Lake Malbena proposal could proceed
“The 2016 Management Plan demonstrates the Tasmanian Government’s strong commitment to protecting the property’s Outstanding Universal Value, while allowing opportunities for sensitive and appropriate tourism experiences to present the property for current and future generations (see also section 2.1.3 of this report on the Tourism Master Plan). p9
Two wilderness impact assessments found that about 5,000ha of World Heritage wilderness would be degraded if Lake Malbena went ahead – one survey was by Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service – which still supported the Lake Malbena proposal that it’s own assessment would negatively impact wilderness values! (The other was commissioned by the Wilderness Society.)
Tasmanian and Australian governments repeatedly promised to implement the recommendations of the RMM and they are failing to do so, most critically by failing to implement a comprehensive assessment of aboriginal cultural heritage BEFORE any development happens and by failing to create national parks of the FPPF reserves around kooparoona niara / Great Western Tiers that they promised they would.
The management plan has been watered down to allow for private commercial tourism development – EDO comparison of the before-and-after management plans.
The Tasmanian Govt’s tourism EOI process encourages parks privatisation and development, including helicopter tourism, and invites proposals that breach the statutory management plan.
“The Minister also announced a proposal for a further 22,550 hectares of FPPFL in the Tasmanian Wilderness to be formally reserved as either conservation area, or regional reserve (see Map 2).” p12
This is a broken promise. The Tasmanian and Australian govts promised these areas would be protected as national park. Instead, the Tasmanian Govt is proposing to protect them at the lowest possible conservation level. We are concerned that, if the Tas Govt weakens the management plan further, as it already has, it could leave these areas vulnerable to exploitation.
This process also ignores the fact that the public consultation found that 97% of respondents support a new national park but this was ignored and breaks the repeated promises to UNESCO.
“Commercial tourism proposals in the Tasmanian Wilderness undergo rigorous assessment and must meet the requirements as described in the 2016 Management Plan.” p18
This is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The tourism EOI process invites proposals that breach the management plan – see clause 5.
“A proposal at Lake Malbena, which has attracted significant public attention, remains the subject of ongoing assessment by the Tasmanian and Australian Governments.” p19
Incorrect. The proponent, Wild Drake, has withdrawn its the planning application after three long years of near-universal community opposition. Public attention? It’s attracted near-universal public opposition.
“Also urges the State Party to avoid any development at the property before the Detailed Plan for a Comprehensive Cultural Assessment is implemented, reminds the State Party of the importance of carrying out impact assessments, and to submit to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies, details of any project that may affect the property’s OUV, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.” p21
The Government is fudging its response to this request. UNESCO asked for a comprehensive cultural assessment. This assessment, as far as we are aware, has not been actioned. Pointing out some welcome work that has been done in a similar space does not constitute a comprehensive cultural assessment. When we spoke to Aboriginal leaders about this last year, they advised us that nothing was happening. Meanwhile, tourism and other developments are continuing within the TWWHA.
What this response amounts to is business as usual. Developments haven’t been halted and a Comprehensive Cultural Assessment hasn’t been conducted.
“All development proposals in the Tasmanian Wilderness are subject to requirements of the 2016 Management Plan, which was developed to meet Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.” p22
This is misleading. EOI tourism proposals – like Lake Malbena – are invited even if they breach the management plan.
The Management Plan requires that any development proposed within the property is subject to an environmental impact assessment process. – Lake Malbena didn’t go through an EIS.
Development proposals that may affect the property’s Outstanding Universal Value are assessed through statutory assessment processes, in accordance with both Tasmanian and Australian government environment protection legislation.
This is questionable. The Lake Malbena process went through a Reserve Activity Assessment, which is non-statutory.
“[The Lake Malbena] proposal seeks to establish a ‘standing camp’ to accommodate a maximum of six visitors and two guides for four-day stays. – it proposed permanent luxury accommodation that would be plumbed in, have solar panels attached etc. Not a standing camp.” p25
The Australian Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley MP, decided that the proposal should be a ‘controlled action’ in November 2020 – only because the Wilderness Society won our Federal Court case against the Government – forcing the decision to be remade. The Federal Court also found the government’s assessment processes were unlawful.
And the current minister changed the previous environment minister’s decision from ‘not a controlled action’ to a ‘controlled one’ – because the current minister was concerned at the impacts Lake Malbena would have on wilderness, threatened species and other natural values. (See Minister Ley’s Statement of Reasons for details.)
“The Cradle Mountain Visitor Experience Master Plan (Cradle Coast Authority 2016) identified that a cableway at Cradle Mountain would provide an improved access in all-weather and year-round, with reduced use of fossil fuels. This proposal has since been independently identified as the optimal primary transport option to connect the Cradle Mountain Visitor Centre with Dove Lake. It would provide a safe, scalable, high quality visitor experience which is low impact and disability compliant, within an iconic area of the Tasmanian Wilderness.” P25
Text from TNPA Release in September 2021:
“The PWS Cradle Mountain Shuttle Bus and Visitor Survey indicated most visitors were pretty happy with their entire experience of visiting the Cradle Mountain area and there is scope for increasing the capacity of the shuttle bus service if this is considered desirable. This professional survey of 600 actual visitors to Cradle Mountain was conducted in early 2021. Its main findings are very high levels of satisfaction with the shuttle bus service:
97% of respondents were ‘satisfied’ with the shuttle bus service;
Of these, 89% of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ with the shuttle bus service.
In addition, 87% of respondents reported that their trip to Cradle Mountain (in its entirety) had “met” or “exceeded” their expectations. The most frequently mentioned explanations for these levels of satisfaction included “beautiful/ good views/ scenery/ nature”. “Good walks/ walking tracks” were also frequently mentioned.”
P28 Re: Point 3 (Decision 44 COM 7B.75 (2021))
The 2015 Reactive Monitoring Mission Recommendations
In 2015, UNESCO visited Tasmania and its subsequent report made 20 Recommendations. All these were accepted by the Tasmanian and Australian governments. However, their implementation has been piecemeal.
See page 11 of our Kooparoona Niara submission for background on the governments’ broken promises
Recommendation 3. The State Party should confirm an unambiguous commitment that the property is off-limits to mineral exploration and extraction in its entirety and fully reflect this commitment in the Management Plan for the whole of the property.
The allocation of land as Regional Reserve is at odds with Recommendation 3 as this tenure allows ‘Mineral exploration and the development of mineral deposits in the area of land, and the controlled use of other natural resources of that area of land.”
Recommendation 6 – In line with a recent Committee request (Decision 39 COM 7B.35), the Management Plan should establish strict criteria for new tourism development within the property, which would be in line with the primary goal of protecting the property’s OUV, including its wilderness character and cultural attributes.
See our media release: on dodgy Tourism Master Plan
Recommendation 7 – The comprehensive Tourism Master Plan details should refine the balance between legitimate tourism development and the management and conservation of the cultural and natural values of the TWWHA based on further consultation and negotiation of competing interests.
See our media release: on dodgy Tourism Master Plan
Recommendation 9 – The “Wilderness Zone”, as currently used and interpreted, should be retained in the zonation of the TWWHA, while explicitly providing for Aboriginal access for cultural practices as an integral part of the management of the zone.
The State Government needs to clarify whether changes to the ‘wilderness’ zoning proposed for some areas of the FPPFL will occur. During the FPPFL consultation, it appears that the wilderness zoning was changed to ‘self reliant recreation’ or ‘recreational’ zoning, thereby shrinking the Wilderness Zone of the TWWHA.
Boundary secretly changed. Halls Island rezoned after tourism proposal received
Boundary also appears to have been shrunk by Govt’s dodgy consultation process – https://nre.tas.gov.au/about-
See our Kooparoona Niara proposal for more
Review came six years after WHC requested it!
Recommendation 10 – All land in the property should be managed in a way that is consistent with World Heritage status, and the recommended means to ensure such a consistent approach is to grant reserve status wherever possible. As long as there will be areas within the TWWHA not subject to the TWWHA Management Plan, adequate management of the property in its entirety should be ensured by an overarching Strategic Management Statement in line with obligations under the EPBC Act.
Govt’s parks privatisation plan breaches this requirement. The parks privatisation policy appears to have been scrubbed from the internet – apart from archive copies like this: “Unlocking the Potential in our Parks”
Recommendation 11 – Future Potential Production Forest Land (FPPFL) within the property should not be convertible to Permanent Timber Production Zone Land (PTPZL) and should be granted status as national park.
This has been all-but ignored by the Tasmanian Government. Instead of honouring its repeated promises, it is reserving these areas at the lowest possible level of conservation, which could leave them vulnerable.
