Government Senators
Dissenting Report
Introduction
The submission seeking a minor boundary modification was
sent to the World Heritage Committee on the 31st of January 2014, for a
decision to be announced in June.
Prior to the 2013 Federal election, the Coalition made an
election commitment to the Tasmanian people that it would strengthen the
forestry industry through more employment and investment. It has been
acknowledged that of all the States and Territories the Tasmanian economy had
suffered most because of the economic vandalism by the Labor-Green State
government.
The Coalition government has requested through the World
Heritage Committee agreement to excise 74,039 hectares from the Tasmanian
Wilderness World Heritage Area. In requesting this minor boundary modification,
the Government is removing areas that detract from the Overall Universal Value
of the property and diminish its overall integrity. The removal areas make up
less than 5% of the entire World Heritage Area.
Of the 74,039 hectares to be removed there are 117 disturbed
areas that contain pine and eucalypt plantations as well as areas that have
previously been impacted by forestry operations and other infrastructure.
Areas which were National Parks will remain in the World
Heritage Area. The high value tall forests and giant trees in the Styx-Tyenna,
Weld-Snowy, Huon Picton and Great Western Tiers areas will be retained and
remain protected.
The proposed boundary modification will deliver additional economic
and social outcomes for all Tasmanians while maintaining the Outstanding
Universal Value of the Tasmanian Wilderness.
Evidence for the excision
Whilst it is important to protect the environment and our
natural heritage, the loss of productivity and negative effect on the economy
warrants close consideration. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
(submission 13) presented figures showing the value of agriculture, forestry
and fisheries –
In 2010/11, the farm gate value of production (GVP) of
agriculture, forestry and fishing was $1.98 billion. This comprised:
agriculture – $1.150 billion; forestry – $235 million; and fishing – $597
million. Some 10,500 people were employed directly in agriculture forestry and
fishing. A further 8,500 people were employed in services to agriculture and
food and fibre value-adding. This is close to 9% of the working population in
Tasmania.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association pointed
out the extension of World Heritage Area as approved in 2013 has added
uncertainty and resultant economic loss –
Furthermore, the inclusion of forestry as a long cycle crop
enterprise in farming businesses in the state means that the overall economic
contribution must include these figures too. Our best estimate is that in
2009/10 this added a further $400 million to farm gate income. Clearly, as a
result of the uncertainty currently evident in this sector, that figure has
fallen significantly since then. Nonetheless, on a long term outlook, forestry
remains an integral part of a diversified farm business.
This was backed by the Huon Resource Development Group
which said the extension approved in 2013 is already hurting business (Hobart
hearing, Page 12)–
Mr Harris: "No. For example, almost all of the special
timber zone within the electorate of Franklin is locked up under this proposal.
Almost all of that is included in the World Heritage extension, and its impact
is devastating. The impact that we see in our community is of businesses that
no longer exist, rising levels of unemployment and that ancillary businesses
are well and truly suffering. When you look at a diesel supplier south of the
Huon River, having a $1 million drop in turnover, and the amount of
bankruptcies and vacancies in the township of Geeveston and around our area,
the impact is devastating."
Lack of consultation for those affected by the new
boundaries was also highlighted in the Association’s submission –
The Committee is reminded that private landowners were
excluded from that process and, indeed, told that the TFA and outcomes from the
process would not impact on them. This assertion has now proven to be
completely baseless and those who perpetrated this misinformation have moved
on. Nevertheless, private landowners are once again left counting the cost to
their businesses and farms
In its evidence, the Huon Resource Development Group
(submission 31) takes exception to the extension under the previous Labor
government. It refers to conflicting advice by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in relation to approval as a minor boundary
adjustment –
The IUCN report states in relation to the massive extension:
"IUCN notes that the size of the property is around the unofficial upper
level for consideration as a minor boundary modification (which has been
considered as typically c.10%)".
This claim is completely at odds with the IUCN advice to the
committee in 2012:
"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,"
This point was taken up by Senator Ruston during her
questioning of Mr. Geoffrey Law during the hearing in Hobart on the
31st of March (page 5) –
Senator RUSTON: The area that we are talking about for the
2013 successful application was greater than 10 per cent. In reading the
requirements of the approving body, one would suggest that it was more than a
10 per cent increase in the land area and it would have to be a whole new
listing and cannot be put through as the minor use of approval. How do we
reconcile that?
Mr Law: 10 per cent was only ever a rough guide. The
increase in the extent of the property in 2013 was 12 per cent. That is in the
order of 10 per cent and—
Senator RUSTON: So you just throw out the 10 per cent.
Mr Bayley: You also have to remember that this is in the
context of repeated requests from the World Heritage Committee to have this
issue addressed. When it is addressed and it comes out a per cent or two over
and above the rule of thumb, clearly both the IUCN and the World Heritage
Committee itself deduce that that rule of thumb is just that; it is a rule of
thumb and that this meets the values and the criteria, and it adds to the
integrity of the property and should be approved. And it was approved.
Government Senators consider that stakeholders which
generally oppose the Australian Government’s 2014 proposed minor boundary
adjustment (and supported the 2013 adjustment) have been inconsistent. We note
that witnesses at the Hobart hearing did not consider the 12% increase of TWWHA
in 2013 to be "significant" despite unambiguously clear IUCN advice
that all adjustments over 10% should be termed "significant" and
require a new WHA listing. Evidence given at Hobart by Mr Adam Beeson of the
Tasmanian Environment Defenders Office is quite revealing in this respect:
Senator RUSTON: I want to move on to comments in relation to
this minor variation-significant variation that we have been talking about. You
raised, in response to Senator Milne, the fact that this 10 per cent has never
really been a 'welded in stone' number, despite the fact that it has been
bandied around. You contend in your submission, at point 45:
ANEDO considers that the World Heritage Committee is
likely to consider the current application to reduce the area...to be a
"significant modification".
My understanding is that the amount of land that we are
talking about is less than half of the land that was annexed in the 2013
application—an application which people earlier this morning said was only
minor and should not have been considered significant. I am struggling to
reconcile how something 12 months ago that was twice the size was not
significant, and yet when there is the reversal of a decision, then only a
matter of minutes later all of a sudden it has become significant.
Mr Beeson: As I said earlier, you do have to look at the
objectives of the convention. I suppose the other point to make is the only
example we have, which is the one from Tanzania—that was about 500 square
kilometres that was proposed to be removed—went through a very tortuous process
through the World Heritage Committee—
Senator RUSTON: That is 500,000 square metres?
Mr Beeson: Five hundred square kilometres, is that what I
just said?
Senator RUSTON: Apples with apples: so how does that relate
to my 74,000?
Mr Beeson: It is not really that important.
Senator RUSTON: It is important to me.
Further evidence from Mr Beeson revealed a biased
perspective and a lack of any intention to counsel any view alternative to his
own.
While such stakeholders consider the 12% increase in 2013 to
be "minor", these stakeholders consider a proposed excision of less
than 5% of the TWWHA to be "significant" despite it falling well
beneath the IUCN's 10% threshold. This is a blatant and completely unjustified
double standard which disrespects the process and strongly discredits stakeholders
who oppose the 2014 "minor" boundary adjustment application on this
basis.
The Institute of Foresters Australia declared the case
for extending the World Heritage Area in 2013 was not based on known facts and
evidence -
However, the process and conclusions were in fact a hasty
and superficial analysis of conservation values where no peer review was undertaken
and many claims and conclusions were based on limited information. These claims
were open to scientific interpretation and, in many situations, have been shown
to be in error.
And
The Institute believes that this major extension will result
in perverse outcomes to forest management and socioeconomic livelihoods of
affected communities, and even to biodiversity conservation. We believe that
socioeconomic and biodiversity conservation impact statements would prove this
to be the case if they were done. The State of forests report 2013 identifies
that, in 2011, 20 per cent of Tasmania's forests were in World Heritage areas,
which is 3½ times that of any other state or territory. With the extension,
this has now increased even further. We believe the government should have
justified why a further extension and inclusion of state forests used for
production was warranted.
There was a suggestion from the Tasmanian Special Timbers
Alliance, which employed 2,000 people plus a further 8,500 in ancillary industries,
that the extension in 2013 is invalid, is flawed and was based on incorrect
information- (submission 96)
-
The 2013 TWWA 172,000 ha extension breached Federal Government
obligations under the
-
1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement.
-
The 2013 TWWA 172,000ha extension damages Tasmanian Intangible
Cultural Heritage.
-
The 2013 TWWHA 172,000ha extension was only possible as an
outcome from the Tasmanian Forest Agreement in which the broader specialty
timber sector was excluded.
-
The TFA Act 2013 which was only passed by Tasmania's Upper House
by one vote after misleading and factually incorrect information was presented
to the Parliament.
Its submission painted a gloomy picture for its survival –
The specialty timber sector is facing certain collapse under
the TFA and the 2013 TWWHA extension is a substantial contributor to that
outcome. If a proper assessment had been carried out, our sector would not be
in such difficult circumstances now.
Government Senators are concerned at the inference that
further areas of Tasmania could in future be earmarked to be included in
the TWWHA (Hobart hearing, Page 5) -
Senator RUSTON: Do you think there is more area in Tasmania
that should be added to this heritage area?
Mr Bayley: There are absolutely areas that meet World
Heritage criteria and should be added to the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area, be they areas that are currently excluded on the west coast of
Tasmania or additional areas of cultural heritage in the south-east of
Tasmania.
This is also of clear concern to the forestry industry,
which considers opposition to the 2014 application to be more an attack on
livelihoods in a sustainable industry than any genuinely altruistic attempt to
preserve Tasmania’s wilderness areas, with considerable negative implications
for jobs in Tasmania:
Mr Ruzicka: A comment like that says to me that it is quite
obvious that the process of pushing the native species logging to its very
limits is definitely on the agenda with the NGOs. I do not think it is actually
going to provide any further peace in the forest or stability in the
marketplace if that sort of thing continues. It sends the wrong messages around
the world in our international markets and it also sends the wrong messages to
the regional people about the confidence they can get out of having an
agreement that is already standing there. We need to work at it, we need to
massage it and we need to get it in the right place. If that means bringing
back the entire World Heritage area application into a proper process of full
consultation with all the stakeholders then that is probably the most confident
thing that could actually come out of this process. If they have other areas
they wish to submit, to put up then they should put them up now. We should then
get this on the table and get it clear where they bloody stand.
The question of impartiality in the assessment process
was an issue for Government Senators. At the Hobart hearing, Senator Ruston
raised her concerns during questioning of private witness Peter Hitchcock
(Hansard page 40) –
Senator RUSTON: I was just trying to get to the bottom of
this—and Senator Whish-Wilson raised the issue of impartiality. I think the
concerns that have been raised have been more around the fact that you
potentially could have been involved in setting the agenda for the application
and then, in your role as somebody who assessed that application, you sat as
judge and jury on your own submission.
Mr Hitchcock: When I provide advice on what constitutes
World Heritage—that is, what constitutes outstanding universal value—I provide
that to whoever is seeking that advice. That is my specialty and I am a
professional consultant in that field.
Senator RUSTON: When you were providing that advice to the
Australian government in the lead-up to the 2013 application, did the
Australian government also seek advice from a consultant who perhaps was not as
committed to increasing boundaries as your reputation suggests you are and that
you committed to in your dissenting report in 1989? Obviously, you have a
position that you clearly adhere to. Did the government at the same time, as
far as you are aware, seek to have somebody give it advice who perhaps was not
so wedded to the position that you obviously have been all your life?
Mr Hitchcock: You would have to address that to the
department. The department obviously was in contact with a lot of different
people, including in the Tasmanian government at that time.
Senator RUSTON: It just appears as if your advice has
perhaps been most influential in the outcome.
A second private witness, Mr Sean Cadman, was also
questioned about his links to environmental groups and his independence in the
process – (Hansard page 45)
Senator RUSTON: As Mr Hitchcock said before, have you been
engaged to undertake work either paid or unpaid for any of these ENGOs who
originally sought to have the submission submitted—for example, the Wilderness
Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation? Are you a member? Do you work
for them? Do you consult to them?
Mr Cadman: I have never been a member of any political
party. So let's put that on the table.
Senator RUSTON: I was not asking about political parties.
Mr Cadman: And I am not a member of any ENGO. However, I
have worked for almost every large ENGO in the country as a consultant and, in
the case of the Wilderness Society, for 2½ years as their forest campaign
coordinator. I have also worked for the Commonwealth government and for private
individuals. I am a consultant.
Senator RUSTON: Finally, on your comment about me googling
you, I did google you and I found that you run guided walk tours. Just for the
record, whereabouts does your business occur and could there be any suggestion
that you could possibly be benefiting financially in your own personal venture from—
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Like a private landowner.
Senator RUSTON: Excuse me, I am speaking.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Sorry, I cannot control my cynicism
sometimes.
Mr Cadman: I am quite happy to answer the question.
Senator RUSTON: Thank you.
Mr Cadman: Yes, I am blessed to live in the valley of
Jackeys Marsh—which has been at the centre of a storm of political controversy
around logging for 30 years—and proud of it. My wife and I set up an eco-lodge
at the base of Quamby Bluff in order to demonstrate there were economic
alternatives to generate income from the forest than logging. Long before the
IVG was set up I came to a commercial arrangement with Forestry Tasmania in
respect of the areas which we use for our business. So the short answer to your
question is, no, there was no conflict of interest. We had already secured our
interest before this process began.
Senator RUSTON: But you might have to concede that there
could be those who might think that there is a conflict of interest.
Government Senators consider that the evidence suggests
that Mr Hitchcock's impartiality is somewhat questionable.
SUMMARY
The Australian Government will honour its forestry
election commitments in Tasmania to ensure the industry is sustainable in the
long-term and is not hampered by self-interest groups.
On the question of cultural heritage, Government Senators
acknowledge that Australia will report on the progress on identification of
cultural values for the property in the next State of Conservation report to be
prepared in response to Decision 36 COM 7B.36 for consideration at the 39th
session of the World Heritage Committee in 2015.
-
The EPBC Act and the World Heritage area management arrangements
recognise that Aboriginal heritage, together with natural heritage, forms the
Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Should the World Heritage
Committee accept the Australian Government’s proposed boundary modification,
forestry operations undertaken in accordance with the Tasmanian Regional Forest
Agreement, and outside of the world heritage area, can continue; subject to
Tasmanian Government approval.
-
The Australian Government is committed to sustainable forest
management. The extension of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement will mean
an appropriate balance of economic, social and environmental outcomes for our
forests continues.
-
These commitments will move the industry forward, providing
opportunities for market growth and the certainty industry needs for
investment.
-
The Government will support the strength of our forestry industry
and we will encourage more investment and stronger jobs growth in the sector.
Senator
John Williams Senator Anne
Ruston
Deputy
Chair Senator
for South Australia
Senator for
New South Wales
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page