The committee is meeting in Germany, and its agenda includes consideration of Tasmanian government proposals to allow more tourism, mining and logging in the state's wilderness. The Wilderness Society has sent representatives to the Bonn meeting to lobby against the government proposals.

A commentary on the proposal to allow greater mining and logging would be understandable. But, restrictions on greater scope for tourism would surely be counter-productive.

Tasmania has sacrificed much in economic potential, for the sake of more than half the state being reserved from development. More than one million hectares is reserved in World Heritage Area.

Only the most hedonistic person would tolerate grandiose tourism development in our wilderness, or a resumption of logging and mining.

But sensitive eco-tourism has a place, whether it is located inside World Heritage boundaries or on the fringes.

Kakadu's World Heritage Area has a Tourism Master Plan. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has a plan for sustainable multiple usage which incorporates tourism.

The Queensland wet tropics World Heritage Area has a master plan which balances tourism against protection.

Given our history of land use conflict, spanning almost half a century, a tourism management plan for Tasmania's wilderness should be a given. A walk in the park, as the saying goes.

Sensitive development such as Freycinet Lodge and Pumphouse Point shows that we can get the balance right.

We should restrict aviation, limit roads, impose building conditions and manage tourism arrivals, but locking up these areas from managed public access is nonsense.

It would be bizarre if uncontrolled tourism damaged the very reason why tourists are attracted to Tasmania, but at the same time we have to pay our way. Other states show no interest in compensating Tasmania for being dubbed that big national park on welfare.