Chapter 2
Reasons for the 2014 modification
Introduction
2.1
As outlined in the previous chapter, the Government's proposal advanced
the following reasons for the 2014 boundary modification request:
-
inclusion of degraded areas in the 2013 extension, specifically
plantations and previously logged forests;
-
objections from adjoining landholders and communities; and
-
social and economic reasons, including the need for sustainable
forest industry in Tasmania, and to assist the long term viability of the special
species timber sector.
2.2
This chapter critically examines these reasons in turn below.
Inclusion of degraded areas
2.3
The 2014 boundary modification proposal states that it:
...seeks to remove a number of areas in the extension approved
by the [World Heritage] Committee in June 2013 that contain pine and eucalypt
plantations and previously logged forest. The Australian Government considers
these areas detract from the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and
its overall integrity and that the assessment work that included such areas in
the property did not sufficiently take this in to account.[1]
2.4
This issue was also highlighted in the letter from the Environment
Minister, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, on 18 December 2013, to the Chair of the World
Heritage Committee conveying the Australian Government's intention to undertake
a reassessment of the extension and to request a minor boundary modification
in 2014. The letter stated that the government was:
...concerned that the extension approved by the World Heritage
Committee in June 2013 includes a number of pine and eucalypt plantations along
with some areas of forest that have previously been subject to heavy logging.
These areas detract from the overall outstanding universal values of the
property.[2]
Extent of 'degraded' areas in the
2013 extension
2.5
The committee notes that the Government's 2014 proposal provides very
little detail on the areas in the proposed excision which have actually been
logged or contain plantations. Indeed, some witnesses were highly critical of
this lack of detail.[3]
For example, Mr Adam Beeson, a solicitor from the Environmental Defender's
Office in Tasmania (EDO (Tas)) told the committee that the government has
failed 'to detail the so‑called degraded areas they heavily relied on in
the proposal':
The government submission does not spell out where and how
large those areas are nor does it spell out what terms like 'degraded' or
'disturbed' or 'logged' mean.[4]
2.6
Mr Peter Hitchcock, a world heritage consultant who was involved in the
independent verification process leading up to the 2013 extension, described
the government's proposal dossier as 'extraordinary for a submission to the
World Heritage Committee in the lack of information about World Heritage
matters'.[5]
2.7
Several submissions urged this committee to obtain precise data on the
areas within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area that have been logged
and their current state, including plans for rehabilitation.[6]
The Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices (ANEDO) noted that:
The failure to publicly release the details of the allegedly
'disturbed' areas, which the Australian government argues warrant the proposed
modification, is unfortunate.[7]
2.8
Indeed, evidence to this inquiry revealed that the vast majority of the 74,000
hectares proposed for excision is in fact intact natural vegetation which is in
no way degraded. Many argued more than 90 per cent of the excision area has
high conservation values and has not been logged.[8]
As Mr Geoff Law observed on behalf of The Wilderness Society, 'the overwhelming
majority of the area proposed for excision by the current government is
ecologically intact natural vegetation'.[9]
2.9
The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and
Environment Tasmania submitted that within the 74,039 hectares proposed to be
excised from the World Heritage Area:
-
approximately 7,600 hectares had been logged post-1960 (or around
10 per cent of the proposed excision);
-
approximately 30,000 hectares is old growth forest (around 40 per
cent of the proposed excision); and
-
almost all remaining vegetation consists of other natural
vegetation such as buttongrass or other types of unlogged forest.[10]
2.10
They concluded that the claims about logged areas and plantations are 'grossly
overstated' and 'blatantly misleading if not downright dishonest'.[11]
2.11
Indeed, a number of other submitters and witnesses described the
government's 2014 proposal as 'misleading' and 'incorrect'.[12]
For example, Mr Geoff Law, a consultant for The Wilderness Society, expressed
the view that:
The Australian government's claim that large areas of this
proposed excision are degraded is grossly misleading. We believe that the
government is being deceitful in pushing that argument out to the public. The
figures show that it is only about 10 per cent of the area proposed for
excision that has previously been logged, and the area of plantations is
negligible.[13]
2.12
The Wilderness Society, ACF and Environment Tasmania cited the example
of the area of the Upper Florentine Valley, where they claimed that the logged
area comprises about one per cent of the excision, with old growth forest
comprising over 50 per cent.[14]
2.13
Mr Sean Cadman, an environmental consultant, who had been involved in the
independent verification process prior to the 2013 extension, advised that his
work indicated that in the areas proposed for excision:
...the level of disturbance overall is low. Only four per cent
of the area was identified as being heavily disturbed. The majority of the 7,300-odd
hectares that have been logged since 1960 has recovered or is recovering... For
all intents and purposes the areas proposed for retention and excision are in
similar condition and contain similar values. The most significant difference
is the amount of potentially available timber in the areas proposed for
excision compared to the areas proposed to be retained.[15]
2.14
In contrast, both the Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance and Mr George
Harris from the Huon Resource Development Group argued that other areas in the
proposed excision, such as almost all of Recherche Bay, had been extensively
and intensively logged.[16]
2.15
In order to establish the extent of disturbance in the proposed excision
area, the committee wrote to Forestry Tasmania requesting further details as to
the amount of old growth forest in the area proposed to be excised from the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Forestry Tasmania advised that the
'proposed excision area contains approximately 28,530 hectares of mapped old
growth forest' – or around 38 per cent of the proposed excision area.[17]
2.16
The Department of the Environment confirmed, in response to the committee's
questioning, that only four per cent of the 74,000 hectares could be described
as heavily disturbed.[18]
However, they also advised that:
The degraded areas are not in a uniform and singular place
within the area; they are scattered throughout it. The government is concerned
that those areas together detract from the value of the property and has
submitted an application for consideration by the World Heritage Committee that
retains what we would call a sensible boundary that joins the pre-existing
national parks onto the new World Heritage area and takes into account the
values that exist across it.[19]
Degraded areas – plantations
2.17
In terms of plantations, the committee notes that 218 hectares of
plantations were contained in the whole of the 2013 extension to the World
Heritage Area. This was specifically stated in the information provided by the
Australian Government to the World Heritage Committee in 2013:
Several existing plantations, covering 218 hectares, have
been included in the proposed addition. These include young Eucalyptus
nitens, a species introduced to Tasmania and therefore capable of invading
and interbreeding with local Tasmanian eucalypt species. These plantations are
a potential source of invasive species and consideration will be given to
removal of trees to avoid seed dispersal. These sites are to be rehabilitated.[20]
2.18
The precise area of plantations in the excision area was not spelled out
in the Government's 2014 proposal to the World Heritage Committee. The only
areas identified as containing plantations are
the Styx-Tyenna area and the Florentine.[21]
2.19
Witnesses and submitters told the committee that the amount of
plantation in the proposed excision area is 'negligible', or around
8–10 hectares of the
74,000 hectares proposed to be excised from the World Heritage Area.[22]
2.20
The committee notes that, since the original extension contained 218
hectares of plantations, this means over 200 hectares of plantations will
remain in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. As Mr Law observed:
The government's proposal, which is supposedly all about
removing areas of unacceptable plantation within the World Heritage area,
actually leaves other areas of plantation within the World Heritage area, some
of which are undergoing rehabilitation...it certainly adds an element of
inconsistency and ecological irrationality to the government's proposal.[23]
2.21
In any case, it was suggested that any areas of plantation that are
within the extension 'can be removed and rehabilitated'.[24]
Indeed, the Department advised that government funding of $1,237,500 over two
years had been provided in July 2013 for work to restore former plantations back
to native forests in the area.[25]
A departmental representative advised that this rehabilitation work was being
conducted in areas that are not proposed to be excised from the World Heritage
Area.[26]
Reasons for including 'degraded'
areas
2.22
Many submitters and witnesses pointed out that the World Heritage
Committee was well aware of the presence of these 'degraded' areas when it approved the 2013 extension, and that the Australian
Government's 2013 submission had made it clear that some areas within the
proposed modification had been logged and others contained plantations.[27]
It was also noted that the extension was in response to a long history of
requests by the World Heritage Committee as evidence of its willingness for these
areas to be included.[28]
For example, Mr Nick Sawyer, Secretary of the Tasmanian National Parks
Association, observed that:
The World Heritage Committee was well aware of the existence
of coops and plantations in the area of the 2013 extension at the time it was
evaluated...So I find it extraordinary that they [the government] should now use
the existence of these as an argument for reversing that nomination.[29]
2.23
In addition, submitters commented that, in any case, under the World
Heritage Convention and associated Operational Guidelines, World Heritage areas
do not need to be 'pristine'.[30]
While it was noted that the World Heritage Operational Guidelines require
properties to meet the conditions of 'integrity',[31]
some submitters pointed out that the Operational Guidelines make it clear that
'integrity' does not require a complete absence of disturbance.[32]
The Operational Guidelines state:
For all properties nominated under criteria (vii) - (x),
bio-physical processes and landform features should be relatively intact.
However, it is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all natural
areas are in a dynamic state, and to some extent involve contact with people.
Human activities, including those of traditional societies and local
communities, often occur in natural areas. These activities may be consistent
with the Outstanding Universal Value of the area where they are ecologically
sustainable.[33]
2.24
Mr Adam Beeson from the EDO (Tasmania) explained further:
...the convention and the operational guidelines that are used
to apply it are clear in that World Heritage areas do not have to be completely
pristine. That is the case throughout a number of areas around the world and
indeed in Tasmania. For example, in 2010 an area in Melaleuca was included
within a World Heritage listing which had been extensively tin mined. It is a
furphy to say that an area has to be completely pristine and untouched. It is
also somewhat insulting to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to an extent. It
is a furphy to say that it has to be pristine and untouched in order to be
included as a World Heritage area.[34]
2.25
Several submitters and witnesses noted that there were good reasons for
including the 'degraded' areas in the 2013 extensions, such as ecological
connectivity and boundary integrity.[35]
Indeed, many argued that the 2013 extension had contributed to a 'more rational
and contiguous boundary' for the World Heritage Area.[36]
Mr Vica Bayley, from The Wilderness Society, told the committee that:
Including some of those degraded areas, irrespective of the
statistics, is a very deliberate and very conscious decision in order to
deliver boundary integrity, sensible reserve design...and sensible long-term
reserve management.[37]
2.26
Similarly, Mr Sawyer of the Tasmanian National Parks Association observed
that:
...boundary integrity is a practical consideration for drawing
boundaries...The boundary of the World Heritage area, ever since it was first
proclaimed, has always been something of a political compromise rather than
being based on sound ecological parameters. The 2013 extensions may not have
been perfect but they were a major step towards giving us a more ecologically
sound boundary. The revocations are basically reversing this.[38]
2.27
Other submissions emphasised the importance of the extension for
connectivity of a corridor of tall eucalypt forests.[39]
The Tasmanian National Parks Association pointed out that:
The whole is obviously greater than the sum of its parts and
the tall eucalypt forests now included within the TWWHA [Tasmanian Wilderness
World Heritage Area] form a near continuous connected ribbon of forest
extending for more than 180 km. The global significance of a connected area of
tall eucalypt forests, albeit involving some restoration, added a major new
dimension to the TWWHA.[40]
2.28
Mr Peter Hitchcock explained that the tall eucalypt forest in the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area:
...should not be seen as simply patches of different pieces of
forest disjunct. They are in fact part of a continuum up the eastern boundary,
which takes in the full altitudinal range, from near sea level at the bay to
more than 1,000 metres in the Upper Derwent. It is a corridor of forest and you
simply cannot take out pieces without having a serious impact on the integrity
of those values, and that is what is being proposed.[41]
2.29
In response to questioning as to how the same data was used to draw up
different boundaries, representatives of the Department of the Environment
advised that 'there is a degree of subjectivity in the construction of boundaries
around natural properties' and that the Department had attempted to 'map a
boundary that assured connectivity between the existing protected areas' and
that was 'practical in management terms'.[42]
2.30
However, the Wilderness Society, ACF and Environment Tasmania argued, by
way of example, that the excision proposal in Upper Florentine 'fails to
consider boundary coherence, connectivity, habitat, cultural sites, karst or
any other features in that critical valley'.[43]
Other features in 'degraded' areas
2.31
Submitters and witnesses noted that some of the previously logged areas
to be excised from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area contain other
significant features which need to be taken into consideration. This included
geomorphological features such as karst and cave systems, glacial landscapes,
wildlife habitat as well as cultural heritage sites.[44]
2.32
For example, the Tasmanian National Parks Association submitted that the
other values in the area include:
...glacial and karst features, additional primitive flora and
fauna groups, increased representation of endemic species within the TWWHA and
addition of new species, and additional important habitat for threatened and
rare species, including the Tasmanian devil, Spotted-tailed quoll and the
Denison Rain Crayfish.[45]
2.33
Dr Kevin Kiernan argued that the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
Area contains significant geomorphic features, and that the 2013 extension had
increased 'the integrity of the geomorphic features'.[46]
Indeed, he questioned the quality of technical advice behind the decision to
propose revocation of certain areas from the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area:
...it would appear that an exclusively biocentric perspective
has been adopted while overlooking the geodiversity and geoheritage values of
areas contained within the areas involved and their relevance in terms of the
World Heritage Operational Guidelines and Criteria.[47]
2.34
Dr Kiernan gave the example of the Navarre Plains in the Upper Derwent
area, describing their calibre as 'undoubtedly world heritage', as an area
'noteworthy for its glacial geomorphological phenomena'.[48]
Noting that the boundary of this glacial feature had been 'chopped off', Dr
Kiernan submitted that the proposed revocation of the Navarre Plains area:
...directly targets a site with very clearly demonstrable world
heritage values from a geomorphological perspective. From the fact that
revocation is proposed, I can only presume that the officials or politicians
responsible for proposing revocation of this area either haven't properly
investigated the World Heritage values involved, haven't had sufficient
expertise to recognise those values, or simply don't care.[49]
2.35
Dr Kiernan's view was supported by other witnesses. Mr Hitchcock, for
example, told the committee that the areas proposed for delisting contain:
...numerous important attributes and values that make important
contributions to the integrity of the outstanding universal values which make
up the World Heritage area. It is not just the very important tall eucalypt
forests—because they have been front and centre of the whole exercise—but a
range of other important features, such as karsts, caves, glacial features,
threatened species and threatened communities.[50]
2.36
Mr Geoff Law for The Wilderness Society explained that:
...when it comes to glacial landscapes...the fact that there has
been some logging in some of the forests on the landscape, is neither here nor
there ...other than to say it is necessary to rehabilitate them for the future
integrity of the area.[51]
2.37
The Wilderness Society, ACF and Environment Tasmania also noted that:
...the inclusion, protection and rehabilitation of previously
logged areas within crucial parts of the hydrological system is essential to
safeguard the natural processes that create and maintain caves, cave
decorations and other karst features. For this reason, several logged and
recovering areas in the Florentine and Tyenna valleys are within the World
Heritage property because they are part of the outstanding Junee-Florentine
karst system.[52]
2.38
A representative of the Department of the Environment advised that other
features were considered in developing the dossier for the 2014 request for a
minor boundary modification:
In developing the dossier for the request for a minor
boundary modification, ...consideration was given to both maintaining
connectivity and retaining areas with important values, such as habitat for
threatened species, cultural sites, karsts or other features that contribute to
the outstanding universal value of the property.[53]
2.39
The process followed by the Department in preparing the 2014 boundary
modification proposal is discussed in further detail in the next chapter.
Rehabilitation of 'degraded' areas
2.40
As noted earlier in the context of plantations, the potential for rehabilitation
of degraded areas was also raised during the committee's inquiry. The committee
was told that the World Heritage Convention recognises, provides for and,
indeed, imposes a duty to rehabilitate World Heritage.[54]
For example, ANEDO stated that the World Heritage Convention 'clearly envisages
the inclusion of areas with natural values, which require rehabilitation or
active management'.[55]
2.41
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust argued that the 'degraded' areas could
be rehabilitated and this would enhance the world heritage values of the whole
area:
Contrary to claims made by the Australian Government, the
retention and rehabilitation of areas affected by logging will result in the
best outcome for the values within those areas, areas immediately surrounding
them and for the entire TWWHA.[56]
2.42
Mr Peter Hitchcock expressed the view that the majority of degraded
areas included in the June 2013 extension 'are capable of rapid natural
rehabilitation with minimal intervention'.[57]
2.43
The Tasmanian National Parks Association pointed out that:
Past logging practices may add to a perception of loss of
value greater than is actually the case. A not uncommon practice, and one used
overseas, known as strategic logging is to first log the upper reaches of a
valley so as to claim that the values of the whole valley have been diminished.
Where this has occurred, such practices should not be rewarded. This would be
akin to punching a small hole in the Mona Lisa and then claiming the whole
picture has been destroyed. Obviously we would repair the picture, just as we
can with the valley.[58]
2.44
Several submitters cited examples of areas added to the Tasmanian Wilderness
World Heritage Area in the past which had undergone rehabilitation. The addition
of the Melaleuca‑Cox Bight area, which had been the subject of mining
activities in 2012 was provided as evidence of the World Heritage Committee's
willingness to include disturbed areas within a World Heritage boundary and,
indeed, in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.[59]
2.45
Dr Kevin Kiernan pointed to the example of Exit Cave, where quarrying of
limestone had occurred in the past. The area was added to the Tasmanian
Wilderness World Heritage Area in 1989 and rehabilitated with 'good results'.
Dr Kiernan submitted that 'rehabilitation of areas that have simply been logged
is a far less complicated matter'.[60]
2.46
Mr Geoff Law, for The Wilderness Society, commented that there are also
examples from other World Heritage areas where degraded areas had been included:
...the basic premise that a World Heritage area cannot contain
some areas that have previously been degraded and which are being subject to rehabilitation
is fatally flawed...there are many World Heritage areas around the world which
contain forests that were damaged prior to their inscription.[61]
2.47
Several submitters noted that a large part of the World Heritage listed California
Redwood Forests had been logged prior to listing, and were being rehabilitated.
Mr Law explained that these 'the inclusion of these [logged] areas was accepted
because they were essential for proper catchment management'.[62]
He also noted that, in the context of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
Area extension:
Rehabilitating those small logged areas within those ancient
landscapes is absolutely critical to protecting the integrity of landscapes
that have been created by the action of glaciers or which have been created by
the action of water making its way through soluble rocks such as dolomite and
limestone. The protection of those catchments is absolutely critical to the
integrity and establishment of long-term viable boundaries for the Tasmanian
wilderness World Heritage area.[63]
Objections from adjoining landholders and communities
2.48
As noted in Chapter 1, another justification put forward in the 2014
boundary modification proposal is a concern that:
...when taking its decision in June 2013, the World Heritage
Committee was not fully aware that a number of communities and landholders
whose properties adjoin the revised boundary did not support the extension and
did not consider they had adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed
change.[64]
2.49
However, ANEDO noted that little information had been provided on these
objections:
The facts behind the argument that adjoining landholders were
not supportive of the 2013 Extension are not provided in the 2014 Proposal. The
2014 Proposal gives no particulars of the landholders; where their properties
are situated or why they were unsupportive.[65]
2.50
Some groups, such as the Huon Resource Development Group, told the committee
that they had put in a letter of objection to the World Heritage Centre but
that no response had been received.[66]
2.51
In response to the committee's questioning as to the number of
landholders that had objected to the extension, the Department of the
Environment advised that it was a 'relatively small number of landholders'.[67]
2.52
It was noted in other evidence that the major adjacent landowner for the
overwhelming majority of the boundary is actually Forestry Tasmania, which
supported the 2013 minor modification. For example, The Wilderness Society, ACF
and Environment Tasmania submitted that:
Only a small proportion of the proposed excisions adjoin
private land (parts of Great Western Tiers, Central Plateau, Mersey and Dove
River). The vast majority of the proposed excisions adjoin other public land,
predominantly State forest managed by Forestry Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania has
supported the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, which gave rise to the 2013 World
Heritage minor modification...[68]
2.53
In addition, as ANEDO observed, it is 'clear from the IUCN report into
the 2013 extension, that objections to that modification were received and
considered'.[69]
The committee notes that the IUCN Evaluation Report stated that:
IUCN has taken note that some letters of objection were
received by the World Heritage Centre to the nomination, and that a reply to
the points raised has been provided to the World Heritage Centre by the State
Party.[70]
2.54
However, some submitters and witnesses expressed concern about the
adequacy of consultation during the process leading up to the 2013 listing.
Indeed, of the submissions which supported the proposed excision, one of the
key reasons put forward was criticism of, and concerns about, the process leading
up to the 2013 listing. This included concerns about the independent
verification process and the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, such as the adequacy
of consultation and socioeconomic impact assessments.[71]
As a result of these concerns, some submitters called for the entire 2013 extension
to be withdrawn or reviewed.[72]
2.55
For example, Mr Andrew Denman of the Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance argued
that these processes were 'not inclusive of our sector nor many other sectors
in the Tasmanian economy'.[73]
Mr Denman told the committee that 'the areas that were included in the 2013
extension actually took a substantial portion of the specialty timber resource
in Tasmania'.[74]
He further argued that the 2013 extension breached Federal Government
obligations under the 1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, which required
'full consideration' of the 'potential social and economic consequences of any
World Heritage nomination of places in Tasmania and that any such nomination
will only occur after the fullest consultation'.[75]
2.56
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association were similarly concerned
that private landowners were excluded from the Tasmanian Forest Agreement
process which led to the boundary extension.[76]
The Association also pointed to the lack of information provided to landholders
whose properties might be affected:
The failure to undertake a simple communication process with
landowners underscores the greater failure of the World Heritage Extension
process and, more broadly, the Tasmanian Forest Agreement in garnering broad
community support.[77]
2.57
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association concluded that:
...there has been a critical failure in not only engaging with
the community but in providing adequate and relevant information to those most
impacted. Ultimately, this has contributed to a feeling of distrust and
suspicion about the process and its authenticity.[78]
2.58
However, the committee received evidence which expressed support for,
and confidence in, the 2013 process, including the Tasmanian Forest Agreement
and the independent verification process leading up to the World Heritage
nomination.[79]
For example, the Florentine Protection Society claimed that, as a result of the
independent verification process and Tasmanian Forest Agreement:
...the world heritage values of the 2013 extension forests are
widely recognised and their inclusion in the TWWHA is supported by broad
sections of the Tasmanian community, including the majority of the forest industry.[80]
2.59
Indeed, the committee heard from a number of witnesses who were involved
in the Independent Verification Group (IVG) process.[81]
One member of the IVG, Professor Brendan Mackey, told the committee that the
IVG undertook 'the most comprehensive, regional-scaled environment and heritage
forest evaluation ever undertaken in Australia' and that:
Our approach was thoroughly reviewed by the reference group
of signatory representatives and also by expert peer review...[82]
2.60
Professor Mackey expressed the view that the Government's 2013 proposal:
...was based on a detailed examination of each relevant forest
block in terms of OUV and integrity, connectivity and restoration context and
in my professional opinion was a first class proposal that is consistent with
the evidence and conclusions of the IVG.[83]
2.61
The committee also received evidence from Mr Peter Matthews, the project
manager for the IVG. Mr Matthews explained that the IVG 'conducted a lot of
research over five months'. Their work included meetings and consultation with
a signatories reference group, which 'covered the spectrum of parties ranging
from forestry through to conservation'. He also stated that the research and
verification work was undertaken independently 'without any political
interference or any cross‑sector interference', and that it was a 'very
transparent process'—all the work and reports were made publicly available.[84]
2.62
In response to the committee's questioning, a representative of the
Department of the Environment acknowledged that 'the 2013 independent
verification process was extremely detailed' and 'thorough'.[85]
Social and economic outcomes
2.63
The final rationale in the Government's 2014 boundary modification proposal
is encompassed in the statement that the proposal 'will deliver additional
economic and social outcomes' and that:
The Australian Government believes there should be a long
term sustainable forest industry in Tasmania. The proposed amendment to the
World Heritage Area boundary extension will assist the long term viability of
the special species timber sector and local communities...[86]
2.64
The intention to log the delisted areas appears to be confirmed from the
evidence received by the committee. A departmental representative confirmed
that the new Tasmanian Government has indicated that, if the land is excised
from the World Heritage area, it is proposed to 'be added to the Future Potential
Production Forest zone'.[87]
2.65
Many submitters expressed the view that providing access to the delisted
areas for forestry-related activities is the Government's main reason for
removing the areas from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.[88]
Mr Bayley from The Wilderness Society was concerned that the proposal:
...is deeply political and ideological in its motivations and
is explicitly driven by a policy to open up this area for logging. It appears
to have absolutely no appreciation for World Heritage criteria or processes and
certainly shows a deep lack of respect for the World Heritage Convention.[89]
2.66
The Wilderness Society, ACF and Environment Tasmania argued that the
proposal 'arises—at least partly—from a political commitment to the logging
industry'.[90]
2.67
The committee notes that, during the 2013 federal election campaign, the
Coalition stated that it would seek to have the World Heritage extension
removed.[91]
The Department of the Environment's evidence indicated that the starting
premise of the boundary modification proposal was indeed the election
commitment made by the Coalition in 2013 to seek a reduction in the World
Heritage boundary.[92]
Impact on the Tasmanian Forest
Agreement
2.68
Some submitters also expressed concern the proposed revocation will
undermine the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.[93]
The committee heard from some witnesses and submitters that the Tasmanian
Forest Agreement and resultant World Heritage extension had resolved decades of
conflict in Tasmania over the area. For example, Mr Bayley from The Wilderness
Society argued that the World Heritage extension:
...resolved 30 years worth of community, scientific and indeed
committee conflict over the placement of the eastern and northern boundary of
the World Heritage area.[94]
2.69
The West Wellington Protection Group agreed:
...the 2013 additions to the Tasmanian WHA [World Heritage
Area] were drawn up as an integral part of an over-arching agreement between
broad, representative swathes of both the forestry sector and that of
conservationists. This agreement represents an historical compromise between
two factions that have been in conflict for generations... To wind back on the
WHA extensions in 2014 would jeopardise the compromise reached and negate the
years of negotiations that took place to reach this point. It would also be a
betrayal and a breach of trust...[95]
2.70
Mr Bayley from The Wilderness Society explained that the proposed
excision 'strikes at the heart of the conservation deliverables from the
Tasmanian Forest Agreement'.[96]
He continued that the proposal jeopardises a 'whole range of outcomes that are
on offer for Tasmania by the Tasmanian Forests Agreement', including investor
and market confidence in the Tasmanian forest industry.[97]
However, the committee notes that newly elected Tasmanian Government has in any
case indicated its intention to repeal the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.[98]
2.71
The committee notes that some of the key signatories to the Tasmanian
Forest Agreement, including forest industry groups such as the Forest
Industries Association of Tasmania, have expressed concern in the media about
the proposed revocation and its impact on the industry.[99]
Unfortunately, they did not provide evidence to this inquiry, despite the committee's
repeated invitations.
Impact on the forestry industry
2.72
Submitters and witnesses also cautioned that the proposed delisting
could actually be detrimental to the Tasmanian forestry industry, the very
industry it aims to benefit. For example, The Florentine Protection Society
submitted that:
...the request for delisting is based on a spurious assumption
that by releasing wood back to the forestry industry this will somehow revive
the unsustainable forestry industry in Tasmania.[100]
2.73
Markets for Change similarly warned against the assumption that excising
the area and opening it up for logging would benefit the forest industry:
...wood product arising from forests delisted from the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, should such a delisting proceed, will
be unacceptable in the markets. Delisting would also tarnish the reputation of
wood supply from Tasmania more generally due to a sense that environmental
protections are subject to reversal in this jurisdiction and that Australia
does not respect World Heritage obligations. It would not only be an
environmentally irresponsible course of action to proceed with the application
to delist the forests, it would be counter-productive to efforts to stabilise
the industry and its markets.[101]
2.74
A particular concern was expressed about access to Forest Stewardship
Council certification for Tasmanian forest products. It was argued that the
Government's proposal would ultimately jeopardise this certification and thus
market demand for Tasmanian forest products.[102]
As Mr Tom Baxterobserved, the problem for most of the Tasmanian forestry industry
is 'no longer a supply-side one'. Rather, customers are demanding Forest
Stewardship Council certification. He stated:
The problem is really a demand driven one and that Forest
Stewardship Council certification that customers are now demanding...there is
nothing more certain to scare customers away from Tasmanian forest products
than the delisting of areas that are currently in the Tasmanian Wilderness
World Heritage area and the starting up of logging there. That is going to send
an appalling message internationally to the markets who are looking for...controversy-free
timber.[103]
2.75
At the same time, the committee heard that the impact of the 2013 World
Heritage extension on the special timbers industry and related communities has
been 'devastating'.[104]
The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance explained that:
Special timbers are named as such because they are truly
special not only to the manufacturers and end users but because of the physical
properties they contain. The majority of these timbers are slow grown and in
many cases take a minimum of 200-400 years to reach commercial maturity.
Species such as Celery Top Pine, Black Heart Sassafras, Myrtle, Silver Wattle
and Blackwood are still commercially harvested and our other most highly valued
special timbers Huon pine and King Billy pine are still available in limited
quantities from salvage operations but have not been harvested commercially for
decades.
The common link to all these species is that they generally
come from Tasmania's old growth rainforest areas...[105]
2.76
The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance submitted that, prior to the
Tasmanian Forest Agreement, Forestry Tasmania's 2010 Special Timbers
Strategy had set aside '97,300ha of specialty timber rich areas'. The
Alliance submitted that:
...15,600ha of this 97,300ha, including some of the best stands
of non‑blackwood special timbers, were reserved in the 2013 TWWHA
extension. Our sector had requested that these areas not be included in the
TWWHA as no wood resource supply scenarios had been conducted for special
timbers during the IVG process.[106]
2.77
The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance further noted that the problem
was compounded because 'other large tracts of significant special timber
resource were reserved under the TFA [Tasmanian Forest Agreement]'.[107]
2.78
However, Mr Bayley from The Wilderness Society argued that the specialty
timber sector 'can be accommodated within the areas that have been very
specifically and very deliberately set aside for specialty timber harvest'.[108]
2.79
The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance responded to this argument and
noted that the Speciality Craft Timber Zone (SCTZ), which was 'meant to be the
major supply area of special timbers' under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement,
'was chosen by ENGO [environmental non-government organisation] Signatories
without any input from the special timber sector'. The Alliance raised concerns
that the areas set aside contain 'little in the way of speciality timbers for
the industry'.[109]
The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance explained that:
If the SCTZ, at 37,954ha, was largely made up of high quality
specialty timber areas then the industry was looking at a 40-50% reduction in
available special timber harvest areas. Now that the SCTZ has been proven to
consist of very poor quality and unsuitable special timber areas...this figure
would be around an 80% reduction in available areas for non‑blackwood
special species harvesting – a shocking outcome for the industry.[110]
2.80
The committee further notes that a Special Timbers Management Plan was
to have been prepared under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.[111]
However, the committee received little evidence on this and is unclear as to
the status of this plan.
2.81
The committee also heard evidence that the World Heritage listing would
not necessarily preclude access to the area by the special timber industry. Mr
Tom Baxter told the committee that:
If the specialist species industry believe they can extract
their wood without having a significant impact and can do it consistently with
the World Heritage Convention then legally under Australian law it could occur
at the moment. We do not need to be seeking a delisting...[112]
Other social and economic impacts
2.82
Submitters also expressed concern about the proposed excision and its
impact on other sectors of the Tasmanian economy, in particular, on the tourism
industry.[113]
For example, Mr Peter Hitchcock noted that the World Heritage Convention
requires parties:
...to provide opportunities for people to appreciate a World
Heritage area. Some of the areas that have been proposed for delisting I would
regard as being prime examples of opportunities for nature based tourism...In
particular, the Upper Florentine, the Weld, Mount Wedge and, especially, the
Navarre Plain, are all areas which—because they are on the eastern side of the
World Heritage area and are already accessible from Hobart—would be
opportunities foregone. In the case of the Upper Florentine there are already
world-famous walking tracks through the area that is proposed to be delisted.[114]
2.83
The Tasmanian National Parks Association observed that 'the outstanding
natural and cultural values currently protected within Tasmania's national
parks and WHA are one of the central tenets of Brand Tasmania'. TNPA were
concerned that the proposed delisting, and any subsequent logging, could result
in a World Heritage 'in danger' listing which could be a 'disaster' for the
Tasmanian tourism industry.[115]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page