Forum rules
Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.Parks 21
Sat 06 Dec, 2014 4:27 pm
From Todays Mercury
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 7146610338
TASMANIA’S Parks and Wildlife Service and the state’s tourism industry will enter into a historic agreement to get an extra 175,000 people into the state’s National Parks and Reserves each year.
In an Australian first between custodians of a state’s protected areas and the local tourism industry, the PWS and the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania will commit to an agreement called Parks 21.
Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania chief Luke Martin described the agreement as an important step in creating a strategic and agreed approach to tourism in Tasmania’s protected areas.
He said the move would “recognise the fundamental importance of our parks and reserves to the Tasmanian visitor experience”.
But the deal is set to face fierce opposition from environmental groups who are already sceptical of the Government’s moves to promote development in the state’s World Heritage
areas, expressing alarm that the deal aimed to bring about a fundamental shift in PWS’s core responsibility.
“It’s a shift from nature stewardship to that of a ‘tourism business’, even referring to PWS as a ‘significant tourism agency’, which is in fact the role of Tourism Tasmania,” Environment Tasmania forests spokesman Andrew Perry said.
The Government is remaining tight-lipped about details of the deal, that is expected to be launched today.
Former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is already threatening to refer the agreement to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.
PWS and TICT have identified a number of “objectives and strategies” for Parks 21 across a range of areas, including research and knowledge sharing, branding and marketing, infrastructure planning, workforce development, innovation, conservation and responsible tourism, Aboriginal engagement, performance management and service standards, compliance and more.
Under the plan, PWS and TICT would release five-year reviews and annual reports to evaluate the Parks 21 project.
The tourism industry believes the agreement could be a world-first.
“It will provide a clear framework for tourism operators to engage with parks and wildlife around licensing and leases to operate within parks and reserves,” Mr Martin said.
“This is about recognising the role Parks and Wildlife within our industry as ... a central pillar and driver of Tasmanian tourism.”
Environmental groups say the move is another tourism industry bid for development in protected places.
Mr Perry welcomed the tourism council’s recognition that PWS should be better funded but said Environment Tasmania was alarmed by the “corporatised” language of the agreement.
“Even Tasmanians are considered tourists, and their backyards a product,” Mr Perry said.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 7146610338
TASMANIA’S Parks and Wildlife Service and the state’s tourism industry will enter into a historic agreement to get an extra 175,000 people into the state’s National Parks and Reserves each year.
In an Australian first between custodians of a state’s protected areas and the local tourism industry, the PWS and the Tourism Industry Council Tasmania will commit to an agreement called Parks 21.
Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania chief Luke Martin described the agreement as an important step in creating a strategic and agreed approach to tourism in Tasmania’s protected areas.
He said the move would “recognise the fundamental importance of our parks and reserves to the Tasmanian visitor experience”.
But the deal is set to face fierce opposition from environmental groups who are already sceptical of the Government’s moves to promote development in the state’s World Heritage
areas, expressing alarm that the deal aimed to bring about a fundamental shift in PWS’s core responsibility.
“It’s a shift from nature stewardship to that of a ‘tourism business’, even referring to PWS as a ‘significant tourism agency’, which is in fact the role of Tourism Tasmania,” Environment Tasmania forests spokesman Andrew Perry said.
The Government is remaining tight-lipped about details of the deal, that is expected to be launched today.
Former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is already threatening to refer the agreement to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.
PWS and TICT have identified a number of “objectives and strategies” for Parks 21 across a range of areas, including research and knowledge sharing, branding and marketing, infrastructure planning, workforce development, innovation, conservation and responsible tourism, Aboriginal engagement, performance management and service standards, compliance and more.
Under the plan, PWS and TICT would release five-year reviews and annual reports to evaluate the Parks 21 project.
The tourism industry believes the agreement could be a world-first.
“It will provide a clear framework for tourism operators to engage with parks and wildlife around licensing and leases to operate within parks and reserves,” Mr Martin said.
“This is about recognising the role Parks and Wildlife within our industry as ... a central pillar and driver of Tasmanian tourism.”
Environmental groups say the move is another tourism industry bid for development in protected places.
Mr Perry welcomed the tourism council’s recognition that PWS should be better funded but said Environment Tasmania was alarmed by the “corporatised” language of the agreement.
“Even Tasmanians are considered tourists, and their backyards a product,” Mr Perry said.
Re: Parks 21
Sun 07 Dec, 2014 7:46 am
“This is about recognising the role Parks and Wildlife within our industry as ... a central pillar and driver of Tasmanian tourism.”
This is really about emasculating TasPAWS' primary purpose of protecting and preserving our natural environment.
Re: Parks 21
Sun 07 Dec, 2014 5:49 pm
Overlandman wrote:“It’s a shift from nature stewardship to that of a ‘tourism business’, even referring to PWS as a ‘significant tourism agency’, which is in fact the role of Tourism Tasmania,” Environment Tasmania forests spokesman Andrew Perry said.
I have to wonder that this is a move to have PWS to takeover all the failed FT tourism locations??
Re: Parks 21
Sun 07 Dec, 2014 9:11 pm
Sounds rather similar to what Jim Bacon tried to do back in the early 2000s with putting Tourism Tasmania and the various natural/cultural heritage agencies under one departmental roof, in the hope a more integrated approach to managing and promoting our touristic assets would help to further develop them while increasing visitorship.
Was a fairly logical notion, I thought, but TT were never particularly great at collaboration, or for that matter sharing budget, and of course jumped ship months after Jim's passing.
PWS's role in conservation and interpretation is important, obviously, but the money to fund it all has to come from somewhere. Going cap in hand to the government each year for a share of shrinking general revenue hasn't worked so well of late, and I don't see it improving any time soon. As always, the devil will be in the detail...
Was a fairly logical notion, I thought, but TT were never particularly great at collaboration, or for that matter sharing budget, and of course jumped ship months after Jim's passing.
PWS's role in conservation and interpretation is important, obviously, but the money to fund it all has to come from somewhere. Going cap in hand to the government each year for a share of shrinking general revenue hasn't worked so well of late, and I don't see it improving any time soon. As always, the devil will be in the detail...
Re: Parks 21
Mon 08 Dec, 2014 8:52 am
Collaboration across industry and govt will become important. With the health budget forecast to overtake the entire state budget in coming years, then changes in approach have to be made somewhere. PWS and Tourism is a natural fit, PWS have not been actively involved in nature conservation since Jim Bacons DTPHA, this has instead been fragmented across DPIPWE on a shoestring budget. If Tourism/Parks can be done sensitively and sensibly then this approach can be a win/win situation. Sure some areas may be sacrificed a bit, but that could mean more dollars to protect those really special areas elsewhere. Of course we need more detail.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.