24
November 1999
Dear
Minister,
Draft
Pitt Water/Orielton Lagoon Ramsar Site (including the Pitt Water Nature Reserve)
Management Plan - September 1999 - Submission
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust wishes to make a submission regarding the above
draft management plan. Our submission is in two parts. Part 1 deals with general
matters regarding the draft plan and Part 2 addresses specific comment on the
proposed management prescriptions.
Part
1 - General
Reservation and Marine Farming Planning Process
1.
We are extremely disappointed with the draft plan. As long ago as March 1990,
the TCT wrote to the then Minister for Parks, Wildlife and Heritage urging him
"...to create a Nature Reserve for Pitt Water/Orielton Lagoon, covering the
area proposed in the original 1981 nomination prepared by the then National Parks
and Wildlife Service". It is therefore depressing to see that almost a decade
later the best that the draft plan can do is to state that: "following resolution
of the marine farm planning process for the Pitt Water area, pursue the appropriate
reservation of all unreserved areas within the Ramsar boundary to protect their
natural and cultural values".
2.
There is no earthly reason why it is necessary to wait for the marine farm
planning process, but even if there were, it could be a long wait. In February
1995, the then Minister for Environment and Land Management is reported in the
Mercury newspaper as saying: "...a decision about making the remaining
Pitt Water area a wildlife reserve has been deferred until the Pitt Water Marine
Farming Development Plan is completed later this year". Almost five years
later, advice to the TCT from the Marine Farming Branch (DPIWE) is that the Pitt
Water Marine Farming Development Plan "is not yet ready for public release".
3.
In their submission to the State of the Environment Report 1997, the then
Department of Environment and Land Management (DELM) said that: "...wetlands
throughout the state should be protected to the highest degree possible through
reservation, planning instruments or management agreements. DELM suggested that
those wetlands of greatest conservation significance should be reserved, listed
under and managed according to the Ramsar Convention". This submission led
to the following recommendations in the SOE report: "It is recommended that
the Tasmanian Government reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970
all wetlands on Crown Land that are listed under the Ramsar Convention." Well
perhaps in the next decade or so!
4.
In the same letter to the Minister for Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, in March
1990, we advised the Minister that the Tasmanian government had violated the Ramsar
Convention, specifically Articles 3.1 and 4.1. Article 3.1 provides that: "The
Contracting Parties shall formulate and implement their planning so as to promote
the conservation of the wetlands included in the List, and as far as possible
the wise use of wetlands in their territory." Article 4.1 provides that: "Each
Contracting Party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by
establishing nature reserves on wetlands, whether they are included in the List
or not, and provide adequately for their wardening." A decade later Tasmania
remains in breach of its international obligations with no evidence of any resolution
in sight.
Recommendation
The Parks and Wildlife Service should immediately pursue the appropriate reservation
of all unreserved areas within the Ramsar site. Negotiation should commence immediately
with the Marine Farming Branch of DPIWE to determine those areas that are not
of any interest for marine farming, and these should be declared a Nature Reserve
without delay.
Nature
Reserve Objectives Exclude Tourism and Recreation
5.
The draft plan is deliberately in breach of the provisions of the National
Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 in spite of the statement on page (ii) that: "for
the five areas which make up the Pitt Water Nature Reserve this management plan
has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part IV of the National
Parks and Wildlife Act 1970." Section 21(I) of the Act (contained in Part
IV) states in part: "A management plan for any reserved land is to specify
the purposes for which the land was reserved and if the management plan relates
to a specified class of reserved land, is to specify any or all of the management
objectives for that class of reserved land as the objectives for which the land
is to be managed."
6.
Schedule 4 of the Act lays down objectives for management of reserve lands.
Nature Reserve is the only category of public reserved land that does not have
as a management objective the encouragement of tourism, recreational use and enjoyment
consistent with the values of the reserved land. This is rightly in keeping with
the IUCN Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Yet at section 3.2
of the draft plan, a specific objective for the Pitt Water Nature Reserve is to:
"provide for visitor access consistent with maintaining the natural and cultural
values of the reserve".
7.
As if being in breach of the Ramsar Convention and the National Parks and
Wildlife Act is not enough, after almost a decade the first paragraph in the draft
plan (page (ii)) advises us that: "With respect to areas of the Ramsar site
not included in the nature reserve, the management plan does not have statutory
force."
Recommendation
The draft plan must be corrected to ensure it is not in breach of the National
Parks and Wildlife Act with respect to tourism and recreation. There may be areas
outside of that which is to be declared as a Nature Reserve that may provide for
a low level of tourism and recreation . For example, the area described at section
5.2 dot point 3 as unallocated Crown Land to the east of the Tasman Highway near
Pitt Water Bluff may be an appropriate viewing area.
Limited
Public Consultation
8.
The draft plan has been an extremely long time coming. In April 1995, the
then Minister for National Parks and Wildlife advised the TCT that: "an officer
is about to be appointed to the task of drafting management plans for the ten
Ramsar sites within Tasmania, including the Pitt Water Nature Reserve, over the
next eighteen months." Allowing that the eighteen months expanded to fifty-five
months, the public consultation process did not improve with age. As best we can
establish, some special interest individuals were interviewed/consulted during
the fifty-five months, but it seems fairly certain that the community have been
excluded from any consideration prior to the preparation of the draft plan.
9.
This is in stark contrast to the level of community consultation and involvement
undertaken by departmental officers preparing the draft management plans for the
Tasman National Park and the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area. In the case of the
latter, the community, in addition to being fully and extensively consulted has
the opportunity to comment on a consultation draft and a draft plan. Considering
the intimate proximity of Pitt Water/Orielton to urban areas it would seem sensible
and prudent to undertake a similar level of community consultation.
Recommendation
The management planning process should be immediately halted and a level of genuine
public consultation initiated that at least compares to that being conducted for
the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area. Another 1-2 month delay after fifty-five
months is of little consequence and it will enable PWS to initiate the reservation
of the remainder of the Ramsar site as a Nature Reserve.
Resourcing
One Hundred and Twenty-eight (128) Management Prescriptions
10.
Part C of the draft plan lists eighty (80) "key management prescriptions"
contained in the plan and identifies the position or areas of PWS with coordinating
responsibility for the task. In fact, these 80 'key management prescriptions"
are selected from the 128 management prescriptions contained in Part B, and can
at best be described as a wish list. Whilst the TCT has no particular problem
with many of the management prescriptions, one can only wonder at the reality
of such a wish list when existing resources cannot even maintain the present situation
let alone achieve some of these prescriptions - key or otherwise.
11.
To set out 128 or 80 management prescriptions which, in our view,
have little hope of being implemented, is bordering on deceit. It will build up
the expectations of local residents and Tasmanians who care about our wetlands
and waterbirds. If they cannot be achieved they will bring into disrepute the
whole process of reserve management planning. Achieving the prescriptions set
out in the draft plan will require a many fold increase in resources over existing
levels - resources that we all know are not there.
Recommendation
Part C of the draft plan must be rewritten to cover all management prescriptions
and include a table detailing the resourcing required for each prescription and
a time frame for its delivery. Under the Living Marine Resources Act, it is the
Marine Resources Group within DPIWE that is responsible for management of seagrass
and fish and specifically the Pitt Water Protected Shark Nursery Area. The group
should fund and participate in the implementation of recommendations regarding
seagrass and sharks.
Integration
with the RMPS
12.
Section 19 of Part B deals with "Managing Developments", but does not make
it explicit as to how works associated with the prescriptions are to be approved.
Of a more fundamental nature, it appears as though the plan still fails to recognise
the responsibility for approvals within the Resource Management and Planning System.
This is a matter on which the TCT has a strong position. Why should PWS be allowed
to develop facilities, carry out works and undertake actions that change resources
without proper public scrutiny? Why should an adjoining landowner have to be subject
to a public process whilst PWS can do what it wishes without effective public
scrutiny. The establishment of separate approvals system by PWS is one of the
reasons why there is such public resistance and opposition to the activities of
the Service. This is particularly critical given the inherent weaknesses in this
plan. The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act is quite clear that the "Crown is
bound". It is the TCT's view that any works defined in the Act should be subject
to an approval process that is transparent and allows for effective third party
involvement. We note that the plan does not even accept the overarching objective
for sustainable development as set out in the Resource Management and Planning
System.
13.
It is insulting to find that at section 6 dot point 6 it is prescribed that
effective channels of communication are to be in place with Councils so that development
applications and changes to planning schemes which affect adjacent areas are referred
to PWS for comment. It is a pity that PWS do not respect Council planning schemes
and refer their development proposals to the relevant local government authority
for approval.
