IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v17y2017i6d10.1007_s10784-016-9338-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The World Heritage Convention and Tasmania’s tall-eucalypt forests: can an international treaty on environmental protection transcend the vicissitudes of domestic politics?

Author

Listed:
  • Geoff Law

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Lorne Kriwoken

    (University of Tasmania)

Abstract

UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention provides for the protection of natural and cultural heritage deemed to be of Outstanding Universal Value. The 1031 sites inscribed on World Heritage List are a source of prestige for the countries where they occur. However, conflicts between protection of Outstanding Universal Value and resource extraction can arise within large-scale natural landscapes. The tall-eucalypt forests of the Australian island of Tasmania have been at the heart of such a conflict for over 30 years. The aim of this paper is to analyse how the processes of the Convention respond to contrasting approaches by a State Party. The paper traces the history of the dispute over Tasmania’s tall-eucalypt forests through the Convention’s processes of evaluation, inscription and boundary modification. In particular, it considers the processes and outcomes pertaining to two diametrically opposed proposals for minor modification to the boundaries of the Tasmanian Wilderness made by consecutive Australian governments in 2013 and 2014: the first was for the purpose of protecting the forests, and the second for opening them to logging in order to fulfil a domestic election promise. In each case, criteria weighted in favour of long-term heritage protection played a critical role. The application of these criteria, combined with strong domestic concern and the ability of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to prioritize heritage protection, has resulted in the protection of these forests and the enhancement of the ecological resilience of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The paper concludes that the power of an international treaty can transcend the vicissitudes of domestic politics and provide enduring protection of Outstanding Universal Value, particularly when backed by strong domestic scrutiny and community support.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoff Law & Lorne Kriwoken, 2017. "The World Heritage Convention and Tasmania’s tall-eucalypt forests: can an international treaty on environmental protection transcend the vicissitudes of domestic politics?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 839-854, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9338-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-016-9338-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-016-9338-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-016-9338-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carmen Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco & Sarah L. Burns & Lukas Giessen, 2019. "Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: institutional elements, conflicts and synergies," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 187-205, April.
    2. Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, 2022. "The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 245-262, June.
    3. Matilda Petersson & Peter Stoett, 2022. "Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 333-352, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-016-9338-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.