So let me see if I got this right, you can't find any scientific body that doesn't welcome this decision, but somehow science is the looser...and your scientific credentials are.....

Of course there is absolutely no bias in your point of view....
The other bit i find funny in your peices Mark is that you very rarely point out there are people in the forestry industry that agreed to this deal. I guess that is a fact you want to ignore.

Cobber

You are confusing forest science with the timber industry, and you are also reiterating my central point about science being overridden by politics. Why should it matter if some "people in the forestry industry agreed to this deal"?

The fact is that World Heritage listing is supposed to be based upon a thorough scientific evaluation of a nominated area's values to see whether they are appropriate - not simply on whether some elements of an industry bargaining under the threat of losing their livelihoods agrees with some non-Governmental Environmental groups that WHA listing would be a good idea.

DEAR MARK...I LIVE IN REDLANDS[WEHAVE IN OUR CITY CENTER]..A NATIONAL PARK /REGROWTH REMNANT AREA/BEING HUGELY DISPOILED

sorry about caps/computer=dying

anyhow there is huge abuses re fire managment
destroying mature trees[bY RUBBISH ARROUND THEIR TRUNKS[UP TO 3 FEET DEEP..IN PLACS ..AS WELL AS HUGE CONCENTRATED CLUMPS OF SLOW BURNING MULCH

ITS A MESS [THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY[WE GOT 5 FOOT THICK TREES GOING TODIE THE NEXT FIRE/ COUNCIL IS DRAINING THE SWAMPS AND THERE ARE FENCES INJURING AND TRAPPING WILDLIFE EVERYWHERE[SEE STATES PARCELLED OUT LAND THIS WAS THE LEFT OVERS/BUT WITH HUGE POTENTIAL[they could become a grand thing

maybe its time these folks came and heard what im trying to put forward[that they can take globally

things end/but energy cant be created nor destroyed.
[one door opens/the other closes\..I HAVE SEEN THE VISIONING
BUT ESSENTIALLY ITS ABOUT DOING IT PROPERLY OR NOT AT ALL[IF THEY SUPPORT JUST BURNING IM GLAD THEIR GONE[BUT IF THEIR INTO EVOLVING A NEW VISION/..COME ON DOWN[WALK ARROUND/I GOT HOME CITES IWITHIN THE REDLANDS CITY-CENTER..JUST WAITING TO REAP THEIR FRUITS

I think I speak for most Australians, when I say, I've had a real bellyful of a control freak section of society, with a hidden agenda, (depopulation) and that is little more than a tail trying to wag the dog.
And to end that nonsense, I believe our best interests and real democracy would be served, if we rescinded our world heritage agreement altogether?
Or at least put it to a national referendum, so all of us could have a say, rather than the few dozen, we know best elitists, who signed in our name, to impose this blatant stupidity on the rest of us.
Of course we shouldn't allow any further clear felling of whole forests!
But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, and allow a return to selective logging as practiced by native peoples' for millennium, without harm, to either flora or fauna.
But rather, just enduring benefits.
Some bright spark has just discovered, that fine sediment is able to double the diseases, affecting or killing coral.
It has taken quite a while for the "experts" to catch up, but as human populations have increased along with their turbid outfall, coral populations have perished in inverse proportion.
Barrow Island, where the test were carried out, has gone from an uninhabited Island, to one with a large enough resident population, to carry a profitable air service!
Of course there have been changes, and ones created by patently, other things, than the "coupled" Gladstone harbor dredging!
However, I can dredge without creating an ocean outfall or increased ocean turbidity.
It just requires a different method, (Cutter bar and pump) and a reasonable amount of onshore land, which can be used to collect the fine particles, and store them in special evaporation tenements/sediment dams.
In any event, we should decide what areas we develop, not a bunch of foreign Academics!
Enough already, of forgone conclusions and our economic sovereignty stolen by stealth, and or, blindingly patent misinformation!?
Rhrosty.

Science the biggest loser from Tasmanian World Heritage decision
Mark Poynter,
Overall, scientists, not science have been losers. Too many align themselves with the achievements of a few others.
The problem with science is that it is not merit based when the funding organisations fill the trough for the academic snouts.

To counter the claims presented by Peter Hitchcock on behalf of the ENGOs, the 2008 Rudd ALP majority Government advised the World Heritage Committee: “In 1989 the TWWHA was extended by 78 per cent from its previous boundaries to 20 per cent of the land mass of Tasmania. Australia is not contemplating further extensions to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage property.”

“Old growth forest protection in Tasmania far exceeds the 10 per cent target set by IUCN and the 60 per cent national reserve criterion. Approximately 80 per cent of old growth forest in Tasmania is protected in reserves.”

The ALP went on “As a result of the RFA and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement in 2005 (TCFA), almost one million of the 1.2 million hectares (or about 80 per cent) of old growth forest areas are now protected in identified reserves. Approximately 406,000 hectares of RFA-defined old growth forest are located within the TWWHA – about one third of the property’s area.

The ALP government explained:
“Australia has an agreed approach to heritage assessment at a national level and, under the RFA, for extensions to the reserve system and the TWWHA in Tasmania. This approach is consistent with the requirement under the World Heritage Convention to consider the environmental, social and economic aspects of World Heritage nominations... any World Heritage nominations of any part of the Forest Estate (i.e. State forest and private forest managed for production) will be from the Dedicated Reserve elements of the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system.”

The 2003 amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 established the National Heritage List. The April 2004 National Heritage Protocol outlined arrangements for the coordination of Australian, State and Territory Governments systems for the protection of heritage. Under that protocol it was agreed that, as a general principle, future nominations for World Heritage listing would only be drawn from the National Heritage List.

So why did the 2013 nomination include harvested and disturbed forest that was not part of the reserve system, nor on the National Heritage List. Was it politics or science?