Let’s not go down path to bitter division
IF
people come and see it, they will want to protect it.” That was Bob Brown in 2016 advocating for a new multi-day walk in the Tarkine rainforests. He is right, of course. Only the most cynical could not have their environmental conscience triggered when experiencing for ourselves great natural areas in all their raw glory.
The truth is tourism and conservation go hand-inhand. Our tourism industry knows it. The conservation movement knows it.
Our natural areas are the number one reason visitors come to Tasmania, and our magnificent national parks underpin vibrant visitor economies across regional Tasmania.
Some of the earliest material from the Save the Franklin campaign spruiked the tourism potential of saving Tasmania’s great wild rivers with a vision for tour boats and walks down the Gordon and Franklin, and seemingly every great Tasmanian environmental battle since has at some point cited tourism as a core argument in the campaign for conservation.
For these reasons it is bitterly disappointing to find our industry at loggerheads with the conservation movement over tourism in our protected areas.
Whether you agree or disagree with their politics, you must respect the conservation movement for all it has achieved in defending and campaigning for the conservation and protection of Tasmania’s natural landscapes. It’s been hardearned, and it is in their DNA to scrutinise and publicly question any activity they believe might compromise their conservation values.
But over recent weeks we’ve witnessed a ferocious attack on what is a relatively insignificant tourism venture proposed for Halls Island on a site that has experienced decades of human activity.
The long and complex process by state and federal government agencies over several years to assess their proposal is being questioned.
It has been over the top. Whether you support or oppose any proposal in Tasmania’s protected areas, surely we all agree decisions should be grounded in science and sober analysis. Not hysterics. I expect the campaign against the Lake Malbena project is only a teaser of the campaigns to come against other proposals in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
Can Tasmania realise its potential as one the world’s leading ecotourism destinations without a bitter and protracted debate among us every step of the way?
We believe Tasmania can be a global example of sustainable and quality commercial tourism activity in protected areas that add to our global brand and create economic activity in the most regional parts of the state.
We have many outstanding examples of low-impact tourism in these areas. There are more than 200 commercial tourism operators with leases or licences to operate in Tasmania’s reserve system.
There is no logical reason we can’t sensibly grow this sector and strike a balance between practical conservation and enabling Tasmanians with vision to create a new generation of visitor experiences that will draw visitors from across the globe. I believe most Tasmanians would support this aspiration.
The point of contention is the resistance by some groups to private infrastructure on public lands, the impact of standing camps and huts for guests, and the perception that public access to some sites may then be compromised. These are all legitimate concerns that should be tested by experts in our Parks and Wildlife Service and the Federal Government through robust assessment. But surely we can strive for balance that enables new investment, while respecting the enduring rights of all Tasmanians to our natural environment.
The Lake Malbena project is permitted under the World Heritage Area Management Plan approved by UNESCO. It has been approved by State and Federal Government. The proponents have met every requirement put before them. They deserve a fair go.
How we resolve this debate could set the tone for the conservation-tourism relationship for years.
Can we find some middle ground, or are we defining the rules of engagement for another divisive Tasmanian battleground?