The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Australia)
The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Australia)
A Case for Long-lasting Civil Society Involvement in Protecting World Heritage Geoff Law AM
The Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia) Four natural criteria: Wild coast, ancient rainforests, giant trees, glaciated mountains, lakes, moorlands, marsupial carnivores, large wilderness.
The Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia) Three cultural heritage criteria: - Deposits in limestone up to 35,000 years BP; - Tasmanian Aboriginal people most southerly people on Earth in glacial maximum (18,000 years BP); - Cave paintings some of the earliest known works of art.
1970s: ENGOs develop and promote concept of World Heritage Journals, magazines, picture books, films, posters, car bumper stickers
World Heritage Nomination November 1981 - Bi-partisan political support - Support at state and national levels - Response to long-term efforts of ENGOs
1982: Conflict develops over World Heritage - New Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray committed to Franklin dams, seeks withdrawal of World Heritage nomination, starts dam construction - Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser ensures WH nomination proceeds
Hobart Mercury, 18 September 1982
Tasmanian Wilderness Listed as World Heritage 14 December 1982 Franklin River Blockade begins on same day – over 1300 peaceful protesters arrested in three months
World Heritage Committee expresses concern The Committee is seriously concerned at the likely effects of dam construction in the area on those natural and cultural characteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value. In particular, it considers that flooding of parts of the river valley would destroy a number of natural and cultural features of great significance, as identified in the ICOMOS and IUCN reports. The Committee therefore recommends that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property. The Committee suggests that the Australian authorities should ask the Committee to place the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the question of dam construction is resolved. (World Heritage Committee, UNESCO 1982)
New Government elected March 1983 - ‘The dam will not be built.’ (PM-elect Bob Hawke, election night, 5 March)
- World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 - Tasmanian government challenges Act, keeps building dam
- High Court case is heard in June 1983. ENGOs represented in court.
High Court Decision 1 July 1983 confirms Australian Government’s power to protect World Heritage
Implications - National responsibility and power to protect World Heritage confirmed. New legislation to protect World Heritage sites nationally* - World Heritage Committee’s statements give ENGOs high moral ground - World Heritage Convention tested and upheld. Civil society empowered *These laws subsequently subsumed into broader Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Ancient eucalypt forests containing world’s tallest hardwood trees unprotected and adjacent to the World Heritage Area ENGOs develop case for WH Listing
Large-scale clear-cutting and burning destroying oldgrowth forest, giant trees, habitat and wilderness. Impacts on Outstanding Universal Values outside WHA.
1986: Violent reaction by logging industry to ENGOs’ peaceful protests galvanizes public and causes another intervention in Tasmania by the Australian Government
Flawed World Heritage Extension 1989 - Most qualifying tall forests left out - Major issues of integrity not addressed - IUCN’s advice and warnings not fully heeded – future confrontation over boundaries inevitable - ICOMOS identified serious gaps in knowledge of cultural heritage
- Limits to power of WH Convention and civil society
Reactive Monitoring Mission to Tasmanian WHA, March 2008 A trying period for relations between Committee, advisory bodies, state party and ENGOs
Reactive Mission 2008 Disappoints - Default position of Mission was to prioritise input and arguments from governments
- Mission report largely backed the status quo - No apparent formal channel for civil society to challenge or correct Mission’s assumptions and findings
World Heritage Committee and IUCN stand firm The WH Committee … reiterates its request to the State Party to consider, at its own discretion, extension of the property to include appropriate areas of tall eucalyptus forest, having regard to the advice of IUCN . (WH Committee, Quebec, 2008)
ENGOs help solve bitter forestry dispute, paving way for WH boundary modification - Tasmanian Forest Agreement (November 2012) says: The Signatories recommend that Government nominate to the World Heritage Committee, for consideration in June 2013, the … proposed minor extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area…
Australian Government proposes minor modification January 2013 - Response to requests from World Heritage Committee 2008, 2010 and 2012; - State and federal government support.
Response to proposed Minor Modification. IUCN: YES ICOMOS: NOT YET (REFER) Draft Decision: NOT YET (REFER) Collaboration between ENGOs, Australian Government and indigenous representative in Phnom Penh influenced Committee decision World Heritage Committee: YES (UNANIMOUS)
2014: New Australian Government attempts to de-list 74,039 ha of Tasmanian Wilderness - Tall forests, giant trees and karst listed in 2013 - Claim that revocation will ‘enhance WH List’ - Overtly political reasons given (election promise to allow logging)
Civil society public mobilization Rallies, media coverage, Senate Inquiry, public submissions by ENGOs, law groups, indigenous groups, opposition to de-listing by industry
WH Advisory Bodies Recommend Rejection of Excision
- IUCN: ‘… proposed excisions would reduce integrity of key natural attributes…’ - ICOMOS: ‘… proposal fails to make a case that excluding areas of significant cultural attributes will strengthen credibility of the WH List…’
38th World Heritage Committee meeting, Doha, 2014 Committee takes just 10 minutes to unanimously reject the proposal to excise 74,039 ha from the Tasmanian Wilderness Proposal described as ‘feeble’
Australian Government proposal dismissed (23 June 2014) Indigenous groups opposed excision and lobbied in Doha
A powerful affirmation of World Heritage objectives - Australia could not act unilaterally to de-list World Heritage - Civil society in Australia played a major role in holding Australia to account
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area as of June 2013
Management of the Tasmanian Wilderness NGOs opposing government moves to log, mine, develop and abandon wilderness. Cultural-heritage survey needed.
Extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness NGOs push for additional areas of rainforest, mountains, moorlands, rivers, coast and cultural landscapes in WH area
Conclusions Conclusions • Photography combined with combined people power builtpower public • Evocative photography with people ownership of public Worldownership Heritageofsite built World Heritage site’s future • Engagement with WH necessary but • Engagement withprocesses WH processes necessary butnot not sufficient sufficient – local actionstrongly also crucial • WH bodies should engage with NGOs which are often the •best of knowledge andwith corporate memory WH sources bodies should engage strongly NGOs which are
the best sources of knowledge andassist corporate memory • Formal often recognition of wilderness would in recognition and listing of large-scale landscapes • Formal recognition of wilderness would assist in recognition listing of large-scale landscapes • In Tasmania, the and World Heritage Convention has been provided•enduring protection, transcending localhas politics. In Tasmania, the World Heritage Convention been provided enduring protection, transcending local politics
Government initiates inquiry ENGOs organise research, lobbying, books of beautiful photos, flights over the wilderness for journalists and politicians, and major public rallies
Future of World Heritage Depends on Mobilization of Public Support
Importance of World Heritage for landscape conservation - Federal-government power a back-up to state management; - Clear boundaries, legislative protection, management plans and regular monitoring enshrined; - Concept of ‘integrity’ of WH attributes recognised (Operational Guidelines, 8795).
2014: New Australian Government seeks to de-list World Heritage forests
A Case for Long-lasting Civil Society Involvement in Protecting World Heritage Geoff Law AM
The Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia) Four natural criteria: Wild coast, ancient rainforests, giant trees, glaciated mountains, lakes, moorlands, marsupial carnivores, large wilderness.
The Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia) Three cultural heritage criteria: - Deposits in limestone up to 35,000 years BP; - Tasmanian Aboriginal people most southerly people on Earth in glacial maximum (18,000 years BP); - Cave paintings some of the earliest known works of art.
1970s: ENGOs develop and promote concept of World Heritage Journals, magazines, picture books, films, posters, car bumper stickers
World Heritage Nomination November 1981 - Bi-partisan political support - Support at state and national levels - Response to long-term efforts of ENGOs
1982: Conflict develops over World Heritage - New Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray committed to Franklin dams, seeks withdrawal of World Heritage nomination, starts dam construction - Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser ensures WH nomination proceeds
Hobart Mercury, 18 September 1982
Tasmanian Wilderness Listed as World Heritage 14 December 1982 Franklin River Blockade begins on same day – over 1300 peaceful protesters arrested in three months
World Heritage Committee expresses concern The Committee is seriously concerned at the likely effects of dam construction in the area on those natural and cultural characteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value. In particular, it considers that flooding of parts of the river valley would destroy a number of natural and cultural features of great significance, as identified in the ICOMOS and IUCN reports. The Committee therefore recommends that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property. The Committee suggests that the Australian authorities should ask the Committee to place the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the question of dam construction is resolved. (World Heritage Committee, UNESCO 1982)
New Government elected March 1983 - ‘The dam will not be built.’ (PM-elect Bob Hawke, election night, 5 March)
- World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 - Tasmanian government challenges Act, keeps building dam
- High Court case is heard in June 1983. ENGOs represented in court.
High Court Decision 1 July 1983 confirms Australian Government’s power to protect World Heritage
Implications - National responsibility and power to protect World Heritage confirmed. New legislation to protect World Heritage sites nationally* - World Heritage Committee’s statements give ENGOs high moral ground - World Heritage Convention tested and upheld. Civil society empowered *These laws subsequently subsumed into broader Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Ancient eucalypt forests containing world’s tallest hardwood trees unprotected and adjacent to the World Heritage Area ENGOs develop case for WH Listing
Large-scale clear-cutting and burning destroying oldgrowth forest, giant trees, habitat and wilderness. Impacts on Outstanding Universal Values outside WHA.
1986: Violent reaction by logging industry to ENGOs’ peaceful protests galvanizes public and causes another intervention in Tasmania by the Australian Government
Flawed World Heritage Extension 1989 - Most qualifying tall forests left out - Major issues of integrity not addressed - IUCN’s advice and warnings not fully heeded – future confrontation over boundaries inevitable - ICOMOS identified serious gaps in knowledge of cultural heritage
- Limits to power of WH Convention and civil society
Reactive Monitoring Mission to Tasmanian WHA, March 2008 A trying period for relations between Committee, advisory bodies, state party and ENGOs
Reactive Mission 2008 Disappoints - Default position of Mission was to prioritise input and arguments from governments
- Mission report largely backed the status quo - No apparent formal channel for civil society to challenge or correct Mission’s assumptions and findings
World Heritage Committee and IUCN stand firm The WH Committee … reiterates its request to the State Party to consider, at its own discretion, extension of the property to include appropriate areas of tall eucalyptus forest, having regard to the advice of IUCN . (WH Committee, Quebec, 2008)
ENGOs help solve bitter forestry dispute, paving way for WH boundary modification - Tasmanian Forest Agreement (November 2012) says: The Signatories recommend that Government nominate to the World Heritage Committee, for consideration in June 2013, the … proposed minor extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area…
Australian Government proposes minor modification January 2013 - Response to requests from World Heritage Committee 2008, 2010 and 2012; - State and federal government support.
Response to proposed Minor Modification. IUCN: YES ICOMOS: NOT YET (REFER) Draft Decision: NOT YET (REFER) Collaboration between ENGOs, Australian Government and indigenous representative in Phnom Penh influenced Committee decision World Heritage Committee: YES (UNANIMOUS)
2014: New Australian Government attempts to de-list 74,039 ha of Tasmanian Wilderness - Tall forests, giant trees and karst listed in 2013 - Claim that revocation will ‘enhance WH List’ - Overtly political reasons given (election promise to allow logging)
Civil society public mobilization Rallies, media coverage, Senate Inquiry, public submissions by ENGOs, law groups, indigenous groups, opposition to de-listing by industry
WH Advisory Bodies Recommend Rejection of Excision
- IUCN: ‘… proposed excisions would reduce integrity of key natural attributes…’ - ICOMOS: ‘… proposal fails to make a case that excluding areas of significant cultural attributes will strengthen credibility of the WH List…’
38th World Heritage Committee meeting, Doha, 2014 Committee takes just 10 minutes to unanimously reject the proposal to excise 74,039 ha from the Tasmanian Wilderness Proposal described as ‘feeble’
Australian Government proposal dismissed (23 June 2014) Indigenous groups opposed excision and lobbied in Doha
A powerful affirmation of World Heritage objectives - Australia could not act unilaterally to de-list World Heritage - Civil society in Australia played a major role in holding Australia to account
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area as of June 2013
Management of the Tasmanian Wilderness NGOs opposing government moves to log, mine, develop and abandon wilderness. Cultural-heritage survey needed.
Extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness NGOs push for additional areas of rainforest, mountains, moorlands, rivers, coast and cultural landscapes in WH area
Conclusions Conclusions • Photography combined with combined people power builtpower public • Evocative photography with people ownership of public Worldownership Heritageofsite built World Heritage site’s future • Engagement with WH necessary but • Engagement withprocesses WH processes necessary butnot not sufficient sufficient – local actionstrongly also crucial • WH bodies should engage with NGOs which are often the •best of knowledge andwith corporate memory WH sources bodies should engage strongly NGOs which are
the best sources of knowledge andassist corporate memory • Formal often recognition of wilderness would in recognition and listing of large-scale landscapes • Formal recognition of wilderness would assist in recognition listing of large-scale landscapes • In Tasmania, the and World Heritage Convention has been provided•enduring protection, transcending localhas politics. In Tasmania, the World Heritage Convention been provided enduring protection, transcending local politics
Government initiates inquiry ENGOs organise research, lobbying, books of beautiful photos, flights over the wilderness for journalists and politicians, and major public rallies
Future of World Heritage Depends on Mobilization of Public Support
Importance of World Heritage for landscape conservation - Federal-government power a back-up to state management; - Clear boundaries, legislative protection, management plans and regular monitoring enshrined; - Concept of ‘integrity’ of WH attributes recognised (Operational Guidelines, 8795).
2014: New Australian Government seeks to de-list World Heritage forests
