Parks Minister Jacquie Petrusma rejects UNESCO’s criticism of state’s tourism master plan

A UNESCO committee’s concerns over development of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area are “not warranted”, the state’s Parks Minister says.

THE concerns expressed in a UNESCO committee draft decision about the state government’s tourism master plan are not warranted, Parks Minister Jacquie Petrusma says.

The Mercury reported on Wednesday that the committee had made a draft decision calling on the state government to avoid any development inside the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area before a detailed plan for a comprehensive cultural assessment is implemented.

It draft decision also said the committee “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 outstanding universal values”.

Ms Petrusma said there were some elements of the draft decision that did not reflect the latest information and may be impractical to implement.

“The concerns expressed about the tourism master plan in the draft decision relate to previous drafts of the TMP, and are not warranted,” she said.

“The feedback as published in the draft decision was taken into account in the final version of the TMP and the government believes that the TMP addresses the concerns of the WHC.

“In relation to development in the TWWHA, the government is also concerned that the WHC has published a draft decision that is impractical, and potentially is outside the functions of the WHC.”

Halls Island in Lake Malbena is the site of one of the controversial developments approved in the state’s World Heritage Area. Picture: Rob Blakers

Ms Petrusma said the state government would work with the federal government in recommending to the WHC a “realistic, practical and commonsense alternative”.

“Subjecting all developments – potentially including any works by the parks and wildlife service in providing facilities, maintaining existing infrastructure, or safety for visitors – to another layer of approvals does not acknowledge that we have an approved management plan in place and a robust assessment process at both state and commonwealth level,” she said.

“The Australian government already reports to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on projects that may cause a significant impact to World Heritage properties, such as the Tasmanian wilderness, on a quarterly basis.

“This more than fulfils the requirements of the World Heritage Committee.”

Parks Minister Jacquie Petrusma at the launch of the Tourism Master Plan this month. Picture: Chris Kidd

Greens leader Cassy O’Connor said that on the same day UNESCO declared the Great Barrier Reef in danger the World Heritage Committee “delivered a hefty smack to the Liberals’ expressions of interest process for development in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area”.

“The Liberals’ development-at-any-cost chickens are coming home to roost,” she said.

“When we asked the Premier about it in parliament, he said he hadn’t read UNESCO’s draft decision.

“Despite that, unsurprisingly, he still had plenty to say about it.

“The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is a priceless and globally significant wilderness area.

“It’s the jewel in Tasmania’s crown, and the Premier couldn’t even be bothered reading the World Heritage Committee’s report highlighting growing concerns within UNESCO about the Liberals’ ‘management’ of wilderness and cultural values in the TWWHA.”

The Wilderness Society of Tasmania has backed UNESCO’s call for a moratorium on further development of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Wilderness Society campaign manager Tom Allen said an Aboriginal cultural values survey, with the support and active involvement of the palawa, should be undertaken first.

“We agree with UNESCO that the logical approach would be to conduct the cultural assessment first and pause any further tourism development but believe that this logic will be ignored because, in reality, the Gutwein government has a development-at-any-cost approach and its talk about conservation and sensitive development is essentially meaningless,” he said.