 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive of Past ActionsThe Tasmania National Parks Association has played a leading role in ensuring that the integrity of Tasmania's magnificent national parks is not lost due to innappropriate developments and mismanagement. The Association has achieved great success in many of its actions over the short period that the Association has been active.
1. Maria Island DevelopmentThe following information was originally published Friday, 27 June 2003. Subsequent campaigning by the TNPA was successful in preventing this development.
The Tasmanian National Parks Association would like you to be aware that the Labor government had secretly negotiated with an east coast developer to have two six-month periods of exclusivity to formulate convention center development plans for Maria Island. The developer is also interested in securing exclusive ferry access to the island.
The TNPA strongly believes that developments ought to be kept outside of our National Park boundaries in order to protect the extremely precious cultural and also natural values of the island. The development could be appropriately sited on the east coast and outside the National Park, where the local community can reap some benefits to their own economy.
Tourists and locals are attracted to Maria Island because of its isolation, natural beauty as well as the amazing undeveloped heritage buildings and other infrastructure of our convict history. You can escape from the modern world and immerse yourself in amongst history and nature. You can choose to camp amongst superb coastal scenery or spend a night in the old convict penitentiary, or just visit for a few hours. Maria Island is a very special place to many people. These include those with historical family links, school groups, scouting groups, artists, bushwalking clubs and many recreationalists, tourists and locals.
In our current political climate we are discovering that developers have approached our government (Department of Economic Development and also Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts) with their intentions to develop in our National Parks. We may hear later that "in-confidence" deals have been negotiated as is the case with Maria Island currently. In some cases Management Plans have been reviewed and re-written to allow developments. Yes keep an eye out as the Management Plan for Maria Island is due to be reviewed and potentially rewritten this year, most likely to allow for the large convention center development. The TNPA will be trying to gather as much information as we can and keep you informed.
And with reference to the management of Maria Island from Freedom of Information material received:
"The Parks and Wildlife Service are involved in provision of services that are better provided for by the private sector". (Maria Island Management Report, Nov 2000)
"An ongoing partnership agreement for the private sector to provide the basic management functions on Maria should be established. This would free up skilled staff to perform more appropriate duties on mainland Tasmania".(Maria Island Management Report, Nov 2000).
The TNPA feels strongly that the Parks and Wildlife staff should remain on Maria Island and continue to do the fantastic work that they do. Our National Parks are not prime pieces of real estate to be given away, along with the management of such precious places!
Its interesting to quote our Premier Jim Bacon (Minister for Tourism, Parks and Heritage ) on the 1st January 2003 "I have said unequivocally and on many occasions that I do not support commercial tourism developments in our National Parks". Then on the 13 March, 2003 on his own website he quotes "I have said on any number of occasions that I don't, as a rule, favour developments in National Parks." And in reference to the Maria Island deal "In the past there was a need to have exclusivity agreements in place because we needed to attract investors".
The TNPA believes strongly NO! NO! NO! we don't need to attract investors to our National Parks, our sacred wild places where nature conservation is first priority. It is our public land and we encourage you to make a stand. Let us ensure that our National Parks remain protected in such a manner that future generations receive them in as good or better condition.
The Tasmanian National Parks Association would like to encourage you to make a submission to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) regarding the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Port Davey and the Kent Group. Efforts to protect the waters around the Kent Group in Bass Strait began over twenty years ago and around Port Davey ten years ago. After public comment, proposals for these two Tamanian Marine Protected Areas will be presented to the Minister.
Issues that ought be raised include:
1. Both areas are National Parks, and creating new marine boundaries for conservation provides a good integration of both the marine and terrestrial elements. These connections may ease the challenge of resource management. 3. Fortescue Bay DevelopmentsThe following information was originally published Tuesday, 18 February 2003. The issue is still ongoing, with the recent sale of land at Canoe Bay giving cause for concern - for details see our current campaigns. The Tasmanian National Parks Association (TNPA) is concerned about a number of options presented in the recently released Draft Plan of the Fortescue Bay Site Plan December 2002. In section 3.5 Built Structures- Guidelines of the Draft Plan, we totally disagree on the point of allowing commercial accommodation developments within our National Parks. Our Parks are not there to use as pieces of prime real estate. However we do support sensitive developments outside the National park boundaries, adjacent to our National Parks. Strahan and Cradle Valley are excellent examples of this. There is plenty of attractive real estate on the Tasman Peninsula outside the Tasman National Park suitable for accommodation developments. It is crucial for the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service to protect the values that made the area a National Park in the first place. Other built structures such as visitor facilities, picnic shelters or amenities blocks we may consider appropriate, depending on the environmental impact and site specific details. It is the commercial accommodation developments within Parks that the TNPA is strongly opposed to. Parks cannot simply be rezoned as a Visitor Services Zone (VSZ) and then choose to allow commercial accommodation developments because the new VSZ allows this!! Parks are for Nature Conservation and any accommodation development at Canoe Bay (in either node), or in any area in the Park south of Fortescue Bay is totally inappropriate and will erode not only the natural values of the Park, but also the economic advantage that Tasmania has over the rest of the world, with its "so far" pristine National Parks. We believe that the penguin rookeries that exist between Fortescue Bay and Canoe Bay ought to be conserved with the least impact possible. Instead the Draft Plan proposes allowing two potential commercial accommodation developments in this area. The TNPS re-iterates its belief that National parks are for Nature Conservation, and this penguin rookery and the area itself needs to be protected for its intrinsic values. In the same grain we disagree with section 3.6.2 Commercial Accommodation. We do not support any built commercial accommodation anywhere in the Park. This includes proposals for the VSZ, south of the Park, linked licensed camps anywhere in the Park. All will degrade the natural values of the Park. There are many areas nearby outside the Park boundaries that could have commercial accommodation. In terms of allowing commercial walking operations within the Park, the TNPA would disagree with anything other than completely self contained backpacking commercial operations in the Park. However, group sizes need to be carefully managed in order not to impact adversely on tracks and campsites. The TNPA strongly recommends that the Fortescue Bay Site Plan be amended so that it does not allow any commercial accommodation developments or linked licenced camps (also known as standing camps) within the current Tasman National Park boundaries. This is vital in order to retain the natural values of the park for future generations.
4. Pumphouse Point CampaignThis information was originally published on Tuesday, 18 February 2003. The TNPA was successful in encouraging the proposed developer to withdraw.The Tasmanian National Parks Association (TNPA) is strongly opposed to the Pumphouse Point development within the Cradle Mountain Lake St Clair National Park and the World Heritage Area. Our reason for disallowing the development proposed at Pumphouse Point is that such a development within a National Park, will degrade the natural values of the area. The reason Pumphouse Point has been included within not only National Park boundaries but the Wilderness World Heritage Area as well, was primarily because of these world class natural values. The overall management objective as stated in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan 1999 (page 30) is "to identify, protect, conserve, present and where appropriate, rehabilitate, the World Heritage and other cultural and natural values of the WHA". Development of the site will not help achieve the above objectives. Quoted from page 178 of the TWWHAMP under New Facilities "If adequate facilities or services exist or can be developed outside the WHA that meet visitor needs, such facilities and services will not be provided as concessions within the WHA". Excellent alternative sites exist outside the National Park. We encourage Doherty Hotels to site this development at Derwent Bridge or nearby environs outside the Park. Not only will it protect the values of the Park but it will benefit the local community more substantially. This development would not pass Ecotourism Accreditation ( a well known tourism scheme promoting environmentally friendly tourism businesses) as:
5. Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park - Dove Lake CarparkThe PWS has commenced development of an expanded carpark and shelter on the shores of Dove Lake. The TNPA wrote to the Premier (and the then relevant Minister, Mr Jim Bacon) expressing its concern over the lack of proper planning procedures and that this development ignored numerous recommendations that the carpark be sited back from the lake and in a more sheltered location. Regrettably, the carpark expansion has been completed at the very shores of Tasmania's most famous lake and the opportunity to enhance the beauty of this iconic location has been ignored.
6. Other Activities"Our Parks are Not For Sale" Post CardsAs part of the campaign run during the first half of 2003 concerning the resort development proposed for Maria Island, Avant Cards printed 10,000 post cards (one enclosed) with the caption "Our Parks are Not For Sale" and a comment addressed to the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Jim Bacon. These cards were distributed and recipients were requested to provide a comment on the back then sign and return the cards to the TNPA. With the return of around 1000 cards, a presentation was made to the Premier (via his office) in early December. A mock auction of National Parks was also undertaken in association with the presentation. The event was included in the local TV news that evening and there was also some print media coverage.Park RangersThe TNPA met with a representative of the Tasmanian PWS Rangers Association in mid-November to discuss a number of issues relating to the employment and conditions facing rangers working within Tasmania's National Parks. In particular, concern was expressed about the decline in the number of rangers: while land under management, and visitor numbers, have increased over time (from 1.75 million hectares in 1991 to 2.6 million hectares in 2003) the number of rangers has decreased (from 96 rangers in 1991 to 60 rangers in 2003). The lack of rangers and resources is leading to a lack of on-the-ground services (eg. visitor interpretation) and reductions in monitoring programs (eg wildlife monitoring, controlling phytopthera). There are also morale problems. A number of options highlighting the need for a well-staffed and well-resourced Park ranger service will be pursued as a priority issue in 2004, including a report to the relevant Minister outlining ongoing concerns in the Park Service.
ABN: 38 875 435 295. |
