Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
cradle mountain
‘Who can say if there is any place on earth completely untouched by humanity?’ Photograph: AAP
‘Who can say if there is any place on earth completely untouched by humanity?’ Photograph: AAP

Is development in Tasmania's world heritage areas the end of 'wilderness'?

This article is more than 9 years old

If tourism development is to happen in Tasmania’s world heritage areas without degrading the environment, we need to start by defining what we mean by ‘wilderness’

The Pumphouse Point hotel was opened by Will Hodgman, the premier of Tasmania, last week. Situated on Lake St Clair inside a former 1940s hydro-electric pumphouse, the hotel is in the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park, which is also part of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

“Reserve a room in Tasmania’s wilderness”, the hotel’s website invites visitors, promoting “wilderness accommodation” in “two gently transformed industrial buildings”.

Wilderness and industrial? It is cheeky marketing; a contradiction pointing to a pressing need to redefine the distinctions between wilderness, world heritage and national park. At the same time it begs the question: does true wilderness still exist?

The UN’s International Union for Conservation of Nature defines wilderness as an area “without permanent or significant human habitation”. National parks are defined as large natural or near natural areas which also provide “a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities”.

When the hydro pumphouse was built in 1940 during an expansionist era, it raised the level of the lake by three metres, flooding picturesque Frankland Beach, as well as some small islands. It sparked “one of the first instances of public indignation about development in Tasmania’s reserves,” according to Greg Buckland, author of Tasmania’s Wilderness Battles.

Typically, developers hate the technical definition of wilderness, but love the marketing allure of the term.

Simon Currant, the developer behind Cradle Mountain Chateau, Strahan Village, Peppermint Bay, and now Pumphouse Point, knows the battle of wilderness well. He hopes his new hotel will open the floodgates for further developments in national parks and world heritage areas, instead of locking it up, as “the anti-everything brigade would want”.

After all, it was the keen botanists Gustave and Kate Weindorfer who opened the first chalet in Cradle Mountain back in 1912. Maybe that’s what the Weindorfers would have wanted when they first saw their vision for the area back in January 1910. From the summit of Cradle Mountain, Gustave proclaimed:

This must be a national park for the people for all time. It is magnificent and people must know about it and enjoy it.

Last weekend, when Hodgman flew into the area via seaplane to open the hotel, he used the occasion to announce a draft management plan allowing new tourism ventures in previously untouched areas of Tasmania’s world heritage area. The draft plan would scrap the wilderness zone and replace it with a “remote recreation zone”, which would allow for more “sensible and attractive developments like Pumphouse Point that allow tourists and locals to experience Tasmania’s incredible wilderness areas”.

Some members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community were outraged they hadn’t been factored in as land owners, others explained how wilderness is what they call home. The Wilderness Society said the plan undermined wilderness values. Federal environment minister Greg Hunt reminded the Hodgman Liberal government of his legal obligation to consider proposals that could impact matters of national environmental significance. And the state opposition, while supporting the development of Pumphouse Point, said that inciting conflict was not a good place for the government to start if it wanted to introduce new tourism projects.

To minimise these collisions, Hodgman would do well to first define his terms. For example, what does he mean by “sensible” and “appropriate” development in wilderness areas? Who will be the judge? What are the criteria? And, how will he reassure those who remember the damming of Lake Pedder, despite it being declared a national park 18 years earlier?

Even supporters of the Pumphouse Point hotel wonder why the government seems keen to push into new wilderness areas when it is already struggling to complete its existing plans. For example, the ambitious Three Capes Track on the Tasman Peninsula, rated by Lonely Planet as the world’s most spectacular coastal walk for travellers, is only currently funded to be two capes, with the state government still seeking further federal money to complete stage three.

For the Wild foundation, wilderness represents “the most intact, undisturbed wild natural areas left on our planet – those last truly wild places that humans do not control and have not developed with roads, pipelines or other industrial infrastructure”.

Who can say if there is any place on earth completely untouched by humanity? If you hear a seaplane in the wilderness, is it still wilderness? Does a forest felled 200 years ago that has grown back still qualify? Can a world heritage area destined to be a business opportunity still be labelled “wilderness”?

These questions are challenging for the Greens who have long been accused of wanting to “lock up wilderness” and preventing development over species conservation. How will their relatively fundamentalist position on conserving wilderness survive in a world more “half-wild” than ever?

Should we accept that “sensitive” development can make wilderness areas accessible to more people? Or, is losing the word “wilderness” the start of an even more slippery slope towards further exploitation of natural resources?

These are questions Hodgman needs to answer as a premier with an ambitious vision for national parks and world heritage areas. He may well think of wilderness as a fragile environment that can never be re-made. Or, he may care to tender a less romantic and pristine sense of wilderness; let’s say, our natural garden. Either way, the state has a responsibility to care for it and manage it well.

But perhaps he might start by re-thinking the phrase “remote recreation zone” which would seem to offer more hope to robots than humans.

On 30 January 2015, this article was amended to correct a reference to the Cradle Mountain Lodge to the Cradle Mountain Chateau.

Most viewed

Most viewed