AEF calls on Unesco world heritage committee to back Coalition plan to delist 74,000 ha of Tasmanian forests from protection

An environment-focused group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs has lobbied countries to allow Australia to strip world heritage protection from large areas of Tasmania’s forest, it has emerged.

The Australian Environment Foundation, set up by interests including libertarian think tank the IPA in 2004, has written to each member of Unesco’s 21-nation world heritage committee calling on them to back the Australian government’s plan to delist 74,000 hectares of forest from protection.

An analysis conducted by AEF argues that the expansion of Tasmania’s world heritage area by the previous Labor government flouts international principles that natural areas should balance human needs with the protection of biodiversity.

The Coalition is looking to revoke part of Labor’s nomination, which has already been accepted by the world heritage committee, claiming that it unfairly “locks up” areas of degraded forest from the logging industry, constraining economic activity.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature is set to reveal its recommendation on the Coalition’s application to change the boundary of the protected area on Saturday.

A Senate inquiry, published on Thursday, concluded that the government’s proposed delisting is “fundamentally flawed” and should be withdrawn. The Senate committee stated that evidence shows only a small proportion of the 74,000ha could be described as degraded by previous logging, with 48% containing old-growth forest.

“It can only be concluded that the vast majority of the area proposed for delisting is intact native vegetation and not degraded areas,” the Senate report states. “The committee further notes that even though an area may be considered 'degraded', this does not, in itself, automatically justify its exclusion from world heritage listing.”

The committee said it was concerned a delisting could “damage Australia's international reputation and set a terrible precedent for other countries”.

The committee, however, split down party lines over these conclusions, with Coalition senators John Williams and Anne Rushton dissenting from their colleagues.

The AEF, which argues that windfarms cause ill health, claims mainstream climate science is false and rails against “green thuggery”, stresses that it isn’t currently backed by the IPA. It has, however, provided funding for an IPA book which challenges widely accepted theories on climate change.

Max Rheese, executive director of AEF, told Guardian Australia that the previous expansion of Tasmania’s forests was the largest of its kind in the world and went against world heritage principles.

“It seems it was done for political expediency, with no conservation merit in it,” he said. “The world heritage committee should start all over again.



“We are locking up ever increase amounts of forest from resource use, whether that be timber harvesting, mining or grazing. I don’t see any of those things being incompatible with conservation, they’ve operated side by side for many years.”

Rheese said Tony Abbott’s assertion that there is too much forest in national parks is “probably valid”. He also backed the prime minister’s claim that loggers are the “ultimate conservationists”.

Rheese added: “I’ve certainly spoken to the government on environmental issues and I don’t think there is disagreement on any of the issues – climate change in general, the renewable energy target particularly, and the folly of wind energy.

“In government there is a stronger sceptical outlook on the more alarmist climate change scenarios that have been put forward. I think it’s healthy to have a higher degree of scepticism. We should’ve been challenging it more solidly five or six years ago before we put in place climate programs that have no benefit to the environment.”

Vica Bayley, campaign manager at the Wilderness Society, said the AEF was a “climate denying, conservative group that’s not a legitimate conservation organisation”.

Bayley told Guardian Australia: “The real question is why are they engaging on the issue and does the government support them in some way. The experts have said the government’s application is an embarrassing affront to world heritage values and should be rejected.

“The federal government can still withdraw this. We can still avoid the shame of being a developed country that’s delisting an incredibly important area of trees, some of them 120 metres tall, in order for them to be logged.”

Asked about the Senate report, a spokesman for Greg Hunt, the environment minister, said: "The matter is being considered by the world heritage committee and we await their decision."

