Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan

[Old Fart]

Hardly inspires confidence this article from the ABC, that proper planning will occur and will also have some serious implications for other areas http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-24/f ... ns/6044604

[Scottyk]

well done Dan (step by step)
https://www.facebook.com/Bob.Brown.Foun ... =1&theater

[Nuts]

Hardly inspires confidence this article from the ABC, that proper planning will occur and will also have some serious implications for other areas http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-24/f ... ns/6044604

Tas parks are a barely adequate business 'partner' as is (sorry, you just are, it's a fact!) If it wasn't for a few passionate souls i'd rank them down there with tourism tas. I can believe (in TPWS case) that funding has indeed been an issue in the past, to further cut that funding is ridiculous.

And it's not even particularly an issue of concern that will be 'fixed' by any standing government (or other), don't believe that! The money is there, this will just grow as an issue and incursion in fits and starts. At the very least, those 'greenest' should really represent conservation in it's purest form on this. That would have been my hope. The one time we need someone ready to admit designated wilderness should indeed be locked up (in a political sense) we get a weak political stance ('some' developments are ok )

[stepbystep]

Unfortunately we need to deal with the cards on the table. Idealism is for fools, at either end of the spectrum. It's extremely important certain areas are off limits, certain activities in other areas are not possible and other ventures are encouraged and create worlds best practice. We are extremely lucky to have the TWWHA area and it will be defended in the best way possible one proposal at a time.

Cheers scottyk

[Nuts]

Simply another, lesser, ideal. One I don't feel a need to share.

[AndyP]

It's extremely important certain areas are off limits, certain activities in other areas are not possible and other ventures are encouraged and create worlds best practice.

You're right, and the best chance the bushwalking community has for ensuring this is the case is to decide on what these areas etc are and present a united front.

The longer-term plan of the government would be to replace as much public funding of PWS as possible with private contributions from businesses relying on access to National Parks. I'd be really interested to see the financial modelling. Does anyone know if the income for government from existing Parks-based businesses is on the public record?

[tastrax]

You're right, and the best chance the bushwalking community has for ensuring this is the case is to decide on what these areas etc are and present a united front.

The longer-term plan of the government would be to replace as much public funding of PWS as possible with private contributions from businesses relying on access to National Parks. I'd be really interested to see the financial modelling. Does anyone know if the income for government from existing Parks-based businesses is on the public record?

I will bet its not available (commercial in confidence) and it might just show how little Parks actually gets back from some of the operators. There might be a return to the state in relation to overall tourism spending but not much to PWS.

Check here for most of the details on operating a business on Crown Land http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=933

I cant single out the items in the DPIPWE annual report - http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/DPIP ... 202014.pdf

[Nuts]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... wilderness

(It wasn't WHA nor a national park in Gustav and Kate's day. They purchased the land and likely had a wholesome, quaint view of what a national park was or could mean. Given the obviously altruistic motive through their story, and the bigger picture i'm sure they would be appalled at the precedent used in a modern context. Not against the LSC development (maybe there is ssope for more rezoning around the edges as a better plan), the attitude and use of the reference to WHA 'locked up' are concerning )

[Mountain Rocket]

The EDO has compiled a list of relevant articles here:
http://www.edotas.org.au/draft-twwha-ma ... -released/

[Lones]

Hi all, could I please urge everybody to get on board and support whatever the local conservation groups DO do in response to all of this? Would be great if bushwalkers/bushwalking groups were really vocal - the more groups are represented the better.....

[Nuts]

I can't disagree there, each to their own, but I would think a good place to start with this would be not to miss a submission in the draft stage (see above) There's every chance conservation groups aren't independent from political motive... (i mean what part of 'conservation' excuses any unnecessary destruction..) (anyhow..) Independent submissions, meanwhile, are harder to lump into the 'green whinge' category.

That said, i'm not entirely sure what focus a casual walker could have? There are some definite concerns for those commercially involved but the terms of submission (mentioned earlier) seem to confound general concerns over the direction, pretty hard to argue something that will just be an inconvenience in an area visited once or twice/ wont be a good 'look'. Some direction for offering a submission would help, an example or suggestions?

[AndyP]

So 24 of the 37 expressions of interest proceeding to the next stage, consisting of, according to Matt Groom "Things like walks, other natural experiences in our natural areas and there are some proposals that involve low-level, very sensitive development."

However, just read in the Examiner that he also said he's hoping to run another expression of interest process later in the year.

This really does emphasise the importance of submitting a response to the consultation. This first round of development appears to be just the beginning.

[stepbystep]

Matthew Groom announces first 5 expressions of interest to go through to stage 2 of the process.

From ABC radio...

The Tasmanian Government has unveiled the details of five tourism projects proposed for the state's national parks and world heritage area.

An expert panel has recommended 24 projects proceed to the next stage in the governments assessment process, details of five have been announced today.

They include the construction of five huts along the south coast track in the south-west national park, a plan for boat trips in the port davey and bathurst harbour area, a three day mountain bike experience including accomodation pods in the north east, an adventure precinct at narawntapu national park and a five day walk on flinders island.

The minister for the environment parks and heritage Matthew groom says these projects will now move into the leasing and licensing phase.

Discuss...

[tastrax]

No sign of the Port Davey floating hotels with all the jet skis tagging along yet?

[tastrax]

got any links to documents? - cant find anything online!

[stepbystep]

http://www.cg.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... OBrien.pdf

http://www.cg.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... n_H....pdf

[Nuts]

Submissions of concern on the draft management plan will no doubt center around these leases. Yet the leases will proceed while the final date for submissions is March 22. Why bother with consultation or indeed a draft? Twitter!

[Happy Wanderer]

Hi tastrax,
There is an article on the Mercury website:

http://www.themercury.com.au/lifestyle/ ... 7219469602

At this stage it looks as though only the potentially least controversial proposals are being publicised - i.e. ones on the boundaries/edges; and I am not sure that there aren't a couple that are not in WHA (you might know better than me). I still find it difficult to understand proposals being passed to the next stage on the basis of a plan that is still only draft and still open to submissions.

I await with interest and trepidation on the next drip-feed...

[tastrax]

http://www.cg.tas.gov.au/?a=98277

For the rest of the proposals

[tastrax]

Well I have just sent off my first email to the Coordinator General attempting to get more detail on these proposals and suggesting that an extension to the WHA plan comment period may be required so there can be sufficient public scrutiny of the proposals, especially the ones that might arrive just days before the consultation period ends.

[Nuts]

Good on you Phil, i'm not sure what public scrutiny will reveal other than at an emotional level, though even asking is a good thing.
Are they all there Phil, 19 appear to be missing in a 'chart below'?

Equally important alongside the environmental and social cost and ongoing precedent, is 'of what public benefit are these proposals'?. Return for an oddly triaged 6mill for the South Coast Track (odd in that other tracks need funding for documented, pressing environmental issues & that there is some flippant gambling if the desire is economic, ie 'fix it an they'll come'), is it simply a $350 total annual fee for leased huts for instance?.. And if so (?), if it's 'bugger all', is the cost of providing a service, lets put some positive spin on it- to those at some level- disabled (to me- by not having a shower and chardonnay) really worth considering for such pitiful public return. It seems weight of numbers would be of more benefit than exclusive use (to the economy at large) whoever does the math. Is this not the crux of questioning a new direction, economy? Then again, we aren't being asked to agree with the direction are we, appears it's being dictated.

[tastrax]

I have asked about the other 19 as well - you can bet the controversial ones will be the last to be announced!

[Grindelwalddave]

The Government media unit are skilfully handling this process. Firstly by announcing the process on the same day as opening Pumphouse Point. Message to public - "hey developments in sensitive areas aren't too bad - look at Pumphouse Point". Now the tactic is to selectively release proposals by wrapping up a couple of sensitive ones with relatively benign ones and include a mountain bike proposal the week after the new 20km trail around Derby was opened. Message to public this time - "hey these greenies are against everything even mountain bike tracks in the north east which are universally acclaimed." This media management makes critical analysis of the proposals very difficult for the general public without access via mass media to the merits or otherwise of sensitive developments.

[geoskid]

Matthew Groom announces first 5 expressions of interest to go through to stage 2 of the process.

From ABC radio...

The Tasmanian Government has unveiled the details of five tourism projects proposed for the state's national parks and world heritage area.

An expert panel has recommended 24 projects proceed to the next stage in the governments assessment process, details of five have been announced today.

They include the construction of five huts along the south coast track in the south-west national park, a plan for boat trips in the port davey and bathurst harbour area, a three day mountain bike experience including accomodation pods in the north east, an adventure precinct at narawntapu national park and a five day walk on flinders island.

The minister for the environment parks and heritage Matthew groom says these projects will now move into the leasing and licensing phase.

Discuss...

Does anyone here know who is on the expert panel? If so, can they please post that info here?
Thanks

[Nuts]

I have asked about the other 19 as well - you can bet the controversial ones will be the last to be announced!

Nothing against successful operators (I just don't agree with unnecessary infrastructure in private hands or WHA simply, so easily, traded for a $)
Yes. I bet the players get bigger & more 'remote'.. as well

g
The panel includes new coordinator general John Perry, Tourism Tasmania chief John Fitzgerald, DPIPWE head John Whittington, Tourism Tasmania boss John Fitzgerald, National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Committee chairman Malcolm Wells and an independent member, Mr Rohan Boman. (mercury)

[scrub boy]

Anything commercial (ie all the EOI stuff) in a reserve requires a licence/lease from the minister. My understanding is that the ability of a minister to do this is not directly restricted in any way by a management plan. For example a commercial hut based walk on the south coast track can happen now under the current WHA plan (or previous plan) as much as this draft plan. (it seems to make sense that a management plan can't restrict an elected representative, particularly as ministers and governments change over the life of a plan and should be able to implement whatever policy they think they have a mandate for, for example the current WHA plan was approved in '99, a long time in politics). It just seems that the current plan doesn't make this clear whereas the draft plan sort of does (in the table of use). So there really isn't any connection between the consultation period for the plan and the EOI process because the draft plan doesn't need to allow for any specific proposal. That's how its seems to me anyway.

[Nuts]

No argument from me scrub boy, I would have preferred privately operated 'commercial' huts weren't ever considered in Tasmania, so to me you accurately describe the status quo. Never mind restricting an elected representative, it would seem this time the plan was penned by him. Some courtesy of a moral mandate in the public process & implementing what the public are going to get, an account of income from such leasehold, past or envisaged (for those whose focus is economic one), alternatives investigated and excuses given, 'Time' (probably more than this government has). These are important escalations at the least not ever likely to be undone.

[tastrax]

Not 100% correct scrub boy. The management plan can and does spell out the management zoning of land and then each zoning has acceptable levels of development/management. In that respect you are correct about the southcoast track and possible huts (in an existing recreation zone).

A minister cannot overrule that unless there is a public comment period on any change to those zone prescriptions (ie by amendment of the plan, which triggers public consultation). That's why its a worry that some of the zoning around Port Davey has changed. Previously the recreation zone was ONLY in the water. It now extends onto the land (in some strange places) allowing for things such as infrastructure, huts etc. The change now allows "development" despite the fact that there are no known proposals (and some would say no need) for such changes. (maps on page 174 and 175 of the new draft plan). Also there is no mapping along the southcoast in the plan so its hard to determine where these new huts by Maria Island walks might be placed as they would need to be within the recreation zone (which is not actually mapped but it is defined as within 200 metres either side of the track). A more detailed proposal by the proponent may well show those locations (which may or may not comply with the zone prescriptions)

Having said that, commercial operations can occur in ANY zone but the rules and regulations change accordingly. For instance a company could have an operation taking walking tours on the Franklin, Wilmot or De Witt Ranges but the number of clients allowed would be much lower and the conditions much stricter.

[Grindelwalddave]

As I posted above, here is a demonstration how the media management is designed to make it difficult for the casual observer to discriminate between benign and potentially harmful projects.
Check out some of the comments here
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/288384 ... qus_thread
Predictably the media possibly through no fault of their own are portraying people who are questioning the process as being "against mountain bike tracks". Watch out for the next release of projects you will get the acceptable lumped in with the contraversial.

[scrub boy]

i think we'll need to agree to disagree tastrax because i think that the zoning etc. that you talk about in a plan applies to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife not the minister of the day. So under the current plan Parks can't build public huts on the SCT as such infrastructure is prohibited by the plan in the SW national park but could do under the draft plan which allows for it but only in the rec zone, the minister however could issue a lease for commercial huts under either plan and in any zone. This is why I think the table of use in the draft plan shows that commercial accommodation etc. requiring a lease or licence is possible in all zones, this is not a policy position but simply a statement of fact. Anyway...
PS Nuts suggests the plan was penned by the minister and i reckon that's true in a way because all plans require ministerial approval according to the information available on the process so of course it's going reflect what the government wants where ever possible as the the minister is effectively the author (and ultimately responsible for the outcomes).