Whilst touring Tasmania’s highland country in 2009, we stopped over in the old rural town of Bothwell.

A pastoral Bothwell ~ an ode to the British countryside

.

Bothwell is historically known for its colonial exploration dating back to 1806, its convict past dating back to the 1820’s, and for its soldiers’ barracks, and for its pastoral colonial heritage.

Its namesake was derived from a town in Lanarkshire, Scotland; likewise the naming of the River Clyde.

Bothwell

.

Few will know of the prior Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage of the 5 bands of the traditional Tasmanian tribe (kinship group) the ‘Teen Toomle Mennenyer‘ of this highland and river region.  Many were either massacred, rounded up and put into missions, or succumbed to European diseases.  Most were dispersed from their traditional lands by 1832.  This otherwise labelled ‘Big River Tribe‘ likely due to the big river country characterising this fertile inland region; rivers of which subsequently named the Derwent, Ouse, Clyde, Shannon, Weld, Styx, Plenty, Jordan, Lake, Isis and Pine, amongst others.

Traditional Aboriginal Territories of Tasmania

.

Even fewer will know of the extensive tall Tasmanian Swamp Gum forest that for thousands for years blanketed this lush river valley, prior to it being clear-felled for timber and to make way for colonial pasture.

‘Dead Heritage’

.

.

.

Fifty kilometres down the road from Bothwell on the tourist drive, lies the old colonial town of Oatlands. The old Callington Flour Mill in the town has become a tourist attraction and has recently been restored aided by a $1.2 million grant by Australia’s Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in 2007.

.

Part of that restoration involved adding new structural posts in its interior.  The following photo is of  a rather new looking hardwood post inside the mill.  It looks like local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), generically marketed as ‘Tasmanian Oak‘.

.

Other local timbers sold as ‘Tasmanian Oak’ are Alpine Ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis) and Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans).

On Mainland Australia, Eucalytus regnans is referred to as Mountain Ash ~ once the world’s tallest tree species, once taller than the Californian Redwood.

The environmental cost of  Tasmanian Tourism

.

.

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

.

Australia’s native Powerful Owl with native prey – a juvenile Brushtail Possum (2kg?)

.

Powerful Owl Call

.

.

Drought, bushfires…it’ll take years to find out what’s happened to Victoria’s Forest Owls

.

.

‘What’s happened to Victoria’s carnivorous owls? A significant number have vanished, and the (Victorian) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) isn’t sure what’s going on.

It’s assumed the top end of the woodland food chain is either starving to death because its food source has been killed off by the drought and fires, or it is relocating to parts unknown, but it will take years to find an answer.

The DSE has been monitoring the owl populations – including that of the Powerful Owl, Australia’s largest owl – since 2000. Since then, detection rates in South Gippsland and the Bunyip State Park have dropped by half.

In some areas of the Bunyip State Park – half of which was lost to the Black Saturday fires – detections of the Sooty Owl have dropped to a third.

DSE owl specialist Ed McNabb says: ”We don’t know what’s happened to them. We can only assume that drought has played a major role. We noticed the downward trend before the fires. They’re very mobile birds, but the fires would have had an impact on their prey.”

Powerful and sooty owls, both officially listed as vulnerable, mainly eat sugar gliders and ringtail possums. The possums in particular are known to have little resistance to chronic hot weather, and their failure to thrive in the drought is the main reason why owl numbers have dropped.

While owls may have escaped (Victoria’s) Black Saturday fires, many possums would have been incinerated.

.

McNabb says the smaller carnivorous birds, such as the barking owl, are able to sustain themselves on insects. Powerful and sooty owls can also eat rabbits and birds such as magpies and kookaburras, but they need to make the change in their diet before energy loss reduces their ability to effectively hunt.

”They’ll either starve or take something else,” said McNabb.

Equally disastrous for the owls was the loss of old trees with large hollows that they require for nesting. They might have shifted elsewhere to recolonise, but this would mean taking over an already occupied territory. ”And there tends to be a home-ground advantage in these battles,” said Mr McNabb.  The occupying bird has inside knowledge of the territory and a greater capacity to defend its patch, because it’s energy store will be higher. Flying great distances in search of food saps the strength from large birds and even causes them to starve.

The DSE’s biodiversity team leader for West Gippsland, Dr Rolf Willig, said:

The top order carnivores were ”an indicator species as to the well-being of the ecosystem.

Theoretically, if they’re happy, the rest are happy.”

.

For five years Dr Willig has been running a playback monitoring program in South Gippsland, where recordings of owl calls are played into the dark and answering calls are recorded. The number of birds answering calls have dropped significantly this year.

”The results indicate we may be having a delayed reaction from the fires,” he said. ”The possums not actually killed in the fires might have been exposed afterward, and the owls picked them off, eating all the food that was left.”

It will take years to find out what’s happened. ”And not just three or five years. We’ll be out here for a long time,” said Dr Willig.’

.

.

‘Conservation through Knowledge’ – a motto of leadership

The Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union is Australia’s largest non-government, non-profit, bird conservation organisation. It has sensibly branded itself as ‘Birds Australia‘, which in just two words says all that it is about, and the Emu family graphic is uniquely representative of Australia ~ the Emu being Australia’s largest bird.

Similarly sensible is its motto ‘Conservation through knowledge‘ which provides inspiration for conservation leadership, beyond Ornithology.  The organisation was founded way back in 1901 to promote the study and conservation of the native bird species of Australia and adjacent regions, making it Australia’s oldest national birding association.

The Powerful Owl call above is sourced courtesy of Birds Australia.

.

.

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua)

http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/our-projects/powerful-owl-wbc.html

Powerful Owl (weighs under 1.5 kg)

.

A noctural top-order predator of tall old forests, the Powerful Owl is territorial, sedentary and monogamous ~ it calls one place home and mates for life   (a lifestyle model for many humans).

.

HABITAT

Throughout most of its range this species typically inhabits open and tall wet sclerophyll forest, mainly in sheltered, densely vegetated gullies containing old-growth forest (where they breed in hollows in large trees) with a dense understorey, often near permanent streams.  Such habitats are often dominated by Mountain Grey Gum, Mountain Ash, Manna Gum or Narrow-leafed Peppermint.  They occasionally also occur in rainforest in gullies surrounded by sclerophyll forest or woodland.  Powerful Owls also occur in adjacent open dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands, such as those dominated by box–ironbark eucalypts, Candlebark, Messmate or riparian River Red Gums; they sometimes also occur in open casuarina and cypress-pine forests.

The main food source for these owl species is hollow-dependant mammals (e.g. greater gliders, sugar gliders). Natural processes that create tree hollows typically take hundreds of years to form.

Human disturbed forests, through logging/burning/fragmentation/euphemistic ‘clearing’, destroy these vital yet rare hollow-bearing trees, and this considerably disadvantages owls.

DISTRIBUTION

• Endemic (found nowhere else on the planet, except for…) to eastern and south-eastern mainland Australia, mainly on the seaward side of the Great Divide.

.

CONSERVATION STATUS

• Vulnerable in Queensland
• Vulnerable in New South Wales
• Vulnerable in Victoria
• Endangered in South Australia

.

SURVIVAL THREATS

• Powerful Owls are adversely affected by the clearfelling of forests and the consequent conversion of those forests into open landscapes.   [Deforestation]

.

When in flight, the silhouette of the Powerful Owl is distinctive, combining long, broad, rounded and deeply fingered wings with a large, sturdy body and a longish tail, gently rounded at the tip when spread.  The flight is rather slow, with deep laboured wing-beats interspersed with glides.

.

.

References and Further Reading:

.

.

– end of article –

Lake Wollumboola,

.

Where is NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell’s environment minister when you need her?

.

Where is NSW Minister for Environment (etc.) Robyn Parker when it comes to a land use development threat to coastal breeding grounds of migratory birds and to a nominated Ramsar Wetland?

Lake Wollumboola is a natural shallow, saline, coastal lagoon, located on the NSW south coast lies north juxtaposed to Jervis Bay and forms an integral part of the Jervis Bay National Park.  Lake Wollumboola is listed as a wetland of national importance, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage is investigating its nomination as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

Lake Wollumboola supports abundant growth of sea grass and algae, and is currently home to several thousand black swans and grey and chestnut teals and ten threatened species of Australian fauna.  International migratory birds depend upon Lake Wollumboola during seasonal migration including the Caspian Tern and Little Tern.

Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) with its distinctive black crest

.

NSW Minister for Environment etc Robyn Parker may have come to politics with the credo of  ‘keeping it real’, but what environmental conservation credibility does Robyn Parker have?   Many conservations are trying to keep Lake Wollumboola real and indeed free from a new golf course development threat on its northern shores.

Parker’s claim to fame is in teaching, community services, child care, childhood education, early intervention, and health issues such as drug rehabilitation and education. But sorry Adrian Piccoli MP got the Ministry for Education.  So why did O’Farrell gift her with the important and controversial ‘Environment’ portfolio?  No-one else put their hand up?  What personal interest does Robyn Parker have in Environmental Conservation?  NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker has probably never heard of Lake Wollumboola. Has she?

.

.

.

20th Century Golf Course Development Threat to Lake Wollumboola

.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald 20110827, defenders of Wollumboola are worried about a proposal for an 18-hole golf course on the lake’s north-western shore lodged with Shoalhaven City Council by the developer Allen, Price and Associates on behalf of the landowner, Warren Halloran.   Halloran is bleating the standard ‘jobs, jobs, jobs‘ and ‘good for tourism‘ justifications for his planned development.  But seriously it is just about profiting from exploitative development of natural land without a care to the ecological impact.  The development concept is backward 20th Century, who the hell plays golf in the 21st Century?  Golf clubs are in crisis around the nation trying to find new members.  Their existing membership base of baby boomers are dying of old age!

A development application for the course lodged with the council on June 30 has attracted more than 60 submissions, nearly three-quarters opposed.  Review of the proposal by local Shoalhaven Council is likely taking place behind closed doors as a ‘Confidential Business Paper‘ ~ which translates into ‘democracy exempt‘.

.

Council Decision on RAMSAR Wetlands?

.

The president of the Lake Wollumboola Protection Association, Frances Bray, said one of the biggest dangers from a golf course would be increased runoff of organic material and fertilisers.

It is feared that algal blooms could choke the lake, killing the fish, crustaceans and seagrass that can attract up to 20,000 birds during drought.

”It’s just the most beautiful serene place and to think that that could be degraded for a golf course is an absolute tragedy,” Ms Bray said.

A water management plan submitted with the development application proposed the construction of wetlands to treat stormwater runoff from the site, but the plan acknowledged that not all of the fairway areas would be covered.

The Greens councillor Amanda Findley, said the proposal was a last-minute attempt to develop land set down to become conservation land under proposed new land zoning.

But the proposed golf course has garnered some support from nearby Culburra Beach for employment opportunities and increased tourism.

The council will hold a public meeting on Monday.’

.

Jervis Bay Heathland near Lake Wollumboola

.

.

Lake Wollumboola?

.
The Shoalhaven landscape is home to some of the outstanding natural features of the South Coast of NSW. The landscape contains wetlands of national importance, significant habitat for international migratory species, and is a habitat stronghold for the threatened Green and Golden Bell Frog.

The scenic beauty of the lower Shoalhaven and the lifestyle of coastal and estuary villages attract large numbers of visitors to the area. Important Aboriginal places around the estuary, coastal floodplain and headlands reflect a cultural attachment to the estuary’s natural resources extending over thousands of years.  The Shoalhaven region includes a number of sensitive natural assets. The Shoalhaven River and estuary system, Jervis Bay, Coomondary Swamp and Lake Wollumboola and a number of other coastal lakes and estuaries all represent sensitive natural environments.

.

Lake Wollumboola

Lake Wollumboola and is a coastal estuarine lake within the Shoalhaven region situated south of Culburra Beach, between the Shoalhaven River and Jervis Bay and the Beecroft Peninsula. The Lake, sand bar and south west part of the catchment are included in the Jervis Bay National Park.  It has an area catchment of 35 km2, and a waterway area of  6.2 km2.  Lake Wollumboola is situated between Culburra Beach (north) and Currarong Road (south) at the northern end of the Beecroft Peninsula. Coonemia Creek flows into Lake Wollumboola.  This estuary falls in the area covered by Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.

The lake does not possess an inlet channel – after periods of sufficient rainfall, the lake breaches directly across Warrain Beach to form the entrance.

Lake Wollumboola is recognised for its conservation attributes, and in 2002 was included in the Jervis Bay National Park. The Lake is frequented by thousands of native black swans, ducks, herons and waders, especially as a wetland refuge in times of drought.  Large numbers of migratory birds visit the lake including over twenty species protected by international treaties.

‘Protected (endangered) species such as the Little Tern and Green and Golden Bell frog breed on the foreshores of the lake.’

.

Lake Wollumboola possesses over a square kilometre of seagrass meadows, which provide vital habitat and food sources for the many migratory bird species that seasonally visit the lake.  The endangered species Wilsonia rotundifolia is also present.

The woodlands, white sands and translucent waters of Jervis Bay are reminiscent of an early, pristine environment. This park has many facets – woodland and heath, wetland and lake, seagrass beds, bays and beaches. Together they create a place that is especially beautiful.  The unique Lake Wollumboola is an integral part of the park with the lake, its foreshores, associated wetlands, creeks and springs interlocking to produce twelve rich waterbird habitats in a relatively small area.

Aboriginal heritage goes back many thousands of years here and local Aboriginal people continue to maintain strong links with places special to them.

Shoalhaven City Council formed the Lake Wollumboola Estuary Management Task Force to prepare the Lake Wollumboola Estuary Management Plan.

With gazetting of the lake as part of the Jervis Bay National Park the Lake Wollumboola Reference Group was established by Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) to oversee preparation of the Lake Wollumboola component of the Jervis Bay National Park Plan of Management.. The NSW Government is preparing a Sustainability Assessment for Lake Wollumboola, as recommended by the Healthy Rivers Commission Inquiry into Coastal Lakes.

But high human population growth rates in the Shoalhaven places considerable pressure on these natural resources, highlighting the need for appropriate management and investment.

.

Wetlands Under Threat

.

‘Wetlands are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world.

In the past, many wetlands were drained or filled in to create farmland or urban areas. In NSW, regional wetland losses range from 40% to 80% since European settlement. Although no longer openly destroyed, wetlands are currently affected by alteration of natural flow patterns caused either by droughts or by water extraction and regulation of rivers by building dams and weirs. Urban development, land clearing, grazing and use of pesticides can also impact adversely on water quality and the natural water cycles of wetlands.

Another threat to wetlands, and other ecosystems, is climate change. In inland NSW, climate change is expected to modify rainfall, evaporation and flooding patterns, increase droughts and bushfires, change the temperature of water bodies and, along the coast, cause sea levels to rise. This threat will cause the coastline to retreat and saltwater to flood freshwater lakes and lagoons.’

.

NSW Department of Natural Resources, ^http://test.dnr.nsw.gov.au/estuaries/inventory/wollumboola.shtml

Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, ^http://www.southern.cma.nsw.gov.au/our_catchment-shoalhaven.php

NSW Government Land and Property Information , Atlas of NSW – Wetlands, ^http://www.atlas.nsw.gov.au/public/nsw/home/topic/article/wetlands.html]

.

.

‘International recognition due to Lake Wollumboola on World Wetlands Day’

.

.

The state’s peak environment group has called for the protection of Lake Wollumboola near Culburra Beach on the eve of World Wetlands Day on Saturday 2nd February.

“The Nature Conservation Council calls on the NSW Government to celebrate the unique beauty of Lake Wollumboola this World Wetlands Day and protect it under a Ramsar listing,” Cate Faehrmann, executive director of the Nature Conservation Council said today.

“Lake Wollumboola more than meets the criteria to be protected by an international Ramsar listing.

“Lake Wollumboola is a fragile and unique place that provides a safe haven for many endangered plants and animals like the Little Tern and the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

“Of the nine possible criteria for being protected under the international Ramsar listing, Lake Wollumboola meets five.  Only one of these conditions needs to be met to make the area eligible for protection.

“A Ramsar listing for the lake would allow low impact recreational activities to continue, and encourage international nature and Aboriginal cultural heritage tourism and environmental education activities.

“Lake Wollumboola is one of the largest shallow saltwater lake in New South Wales. It often provides a home for thousands of iconic water birds and waders like Swans, Chestnut Teal and Bar tailed Godwits.

“The lake supports at least 43 species of migratory birds large populations of local species, with bird populations estimated at over 20,000,” Ms Faehrmann said.

.

.

During 2001/2 Researchers have been studying the complex processes of Lake Wollumboola, including the presence of Hydrogen Sulfide in the sediments and water column, and the age and rate of deposition of the sediments.

Shoalhaven City Council through its Lake Wollumboola Estuary Management Task Force developed a Community Education strategy for Culburra Beach. This focuses primarily on the Hydrogen Sulfide issue. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is likely to proceed with this program.

.

.

.

‘Lake Wollumboola gazetted as part of the Jervis Bay National Park’

On 11th December (1997), the Attorney General and Minister for the Environment, Mr. Bob Debus announced his decision to gazette the bed of Lake Wollumboola, the sand bar and surrounding crown land as part of the Jervis Bay National Park. Mr. Debus said the lake is one of the most significant water habitats in the State. “in recent years we have been fortunate to witness an extraordinary natural phenomena on Lake Wollumboola when 20,000 waterbirds at a time gather to feed on the lake’s rich food source.”.

Little Tern chicks at Lake Wollumboola, 2008

.

.

.

‘The saviours of Lake Wollumboola’

.

In 2008, local conservationists, Frances Bray and Keith Campbell, were celebrated as winners of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award.

‘For more than seven years Frances and Keith, together with many dedicated people in the Lake Wollumboola Support Group, tirelessly fought against a huge subdivision of some 3000 houses that would have unquestionably damaged the unique ecology of the lake and its surrounding forest.

Lake Wollumboola is one of the New South Wales coastline’s last remaining, virtually pristine, coastal lakes that intermittently open and close to the sea. It lies at Culburra Beach between the mouth of the Shoalhaven River and Jervis Bay. The lake is on the Register of the National Estate, is a wetland of key significance and a habitat for resident and migratory birds of international importance. Several threatened species have been identified within the area, including the green and gold bell frog which is seasonally abundant in the grassy edges of the lake.

For most of the past century the land around the lake was within the paper subdivision plans of the only major developer of the Shoalhaven, Realty Realizations. In the early 1990s the company finally achieved a rezoning of the land by the Shoalhaven City Council and the government of the day. The subdivision carried with it the threat of serious pollution from urban run-off, loss of forested habitat and increased recreational pressures, including demands to prevent the lake’s natural cycle of periodic draining.’

.

In for the long haul

‘Although the politics and regional power dynamics were against them and government departments were equivocating, Frances Bray and Keith Campbell refused to consider the battle lost. Together with the Lake Wollumboola Support Group, they mobilised all the effort needed to begin the task. Their dogged campaign finally achieved a decision in 1995 by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to remove from the council its ability to approve the subdivision. Then, in 1996, a Commission of Inquiry into the subdivision was appointed.

At this point Frances and Keith enlisted some voluntary legal back-up and achieved a historic grant of legal aid for the inquiry from the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission. Though small, this grant helped obtain high calibre water, fauna, vegetation and social impact reports from acknowledged experts to give independent substance to their case. This also contributed to a reversal by National Parks and Wildlife Service on the first day of the inquiry of its previous decision that a Faunal Impact Statement was not necessary. Gradually over the extended four years of the inquiry the support of the principal regulatory agencies gathered force.

All of this, however, was achieved against strident support for the development at the local level. Local media targeted Frances, Keith and their colleagues with all the familiar distressing and defamatory charges that make this sort of campaign emotionally exhausting for those in the front line. These attacks continued over the duration of the inquiry and, with the enormous demands of preparing submissions of a high quality and responding to the voluminous information advanced by the developer, lesser campaigners would have been knocked out of the race. Yet they completed an outstanding and detailed submission, now held by the Environmental Defenders Office (NSW) as the leading precedent for pro-environment representation.’

.

Inspiration for us all

‘The tireless and exhausting efforts by these two remarkable campaigners and their colleagues was rewarded when on 5 April 2000 the Commission of Inquiry ruled for the environment and against the development, adopting nearly all of Frances and Keith’s submissions.

Then on Friday 2 June, just a few days before ACF announced its award, Deputy Premier and Planning Minister, Dr Andrew Refshauge, announced the government’s decision to refuse the proposed residential subdivision within the catchment of the lake.

The ACF Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award presents a fitting opportunity for a more public recognition of these brave and passionate people who were not prepared to stand and watch the loss of a place of such enormous value. They are fitting winners of the environment movement’s highest accolade.’

.

‘Turning Point for Lake Wollumboola’

.

This has been an extraordinary year for coastal protection generally, and for Lake Wollumboola in particular. The Premier, the Hon Bob Carr, outlined new policy directions. The NSW Government announced in April that the catchments of five South Coast lakes would be protected as national parks. It then requested the Healthy Rivers Commission to conduct an inquiry into the protection and management of coastal lakes. The Coastal Lakes Inquiry issues paper brought further good news, with its proposals for Lake Wollumboola and eight other South Coast lakes to be protected as reserves and considered for World Heritage listing.

Then on 2nd June the Deputy Premier and Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Dr Andrew Refshauge, announced his decision to refuse the Long Bow Point subdivision application, at Culburra Beach near Nowra on the South Coast. The proposal involved development of 837 housing lots, stage 1 of a 3,000 lot development, mainly in the catchment of Lake Wollumboola (see also June NPJ). He said,

“The evidence is overwhelming – our primary concern must be the long-term protection of the Lake.”

Members of the Lake Wollumboola Support Group are overjoyed by the Minister’s adoption of our case. The group has been campaigning, since 1993, to stop the development because of its likely destructive impacts on the unique ecology of this most fragile of coastal lakes and its catchment.

Our group was formed in response to Shoalhaven City Council seeking comment at the commencement of the Estuary Management Study for Lake Wollumboola. Soon after, we learned of plans by Realty Realisations, a landowner and developer, for a massive development primarily in the catchment of the lake. We decided to work to protect the lake, and to inform the Culburra Beach community on related issues.

.

A unique ecology

Lake Wollumboola is located just north of Jervis Bay. Maps and records from 1805, when the first Europeans came to the area, confirm that Lake Wollumboola was much the same then as it is today and that the area provided a rich environment for Aboriginal people. The Jerringa people maintain today their traditional cultural ties with Lake Wollumboola and the Beecroft Peninsula.

Lake Wollumboola is an intermittently closing and opening lake. It is particularly vulnerable to urban pollution and disturbance because it is shallow, above mean sea level and is infrequently open to the sea, causing high nutrient levels to build up in the sediments. Additional pollution is likely to maintain permanently eutrophic conditions, with algal blooms, death of seagrass and ultimately decline of the lake’s extraordinarily rich ecology.
Inter-glacial wave-cut reefs and rock platforms form much of the lake bed. The lake’s catchment is coastal bushland, wetland and heath of significant biodiversity, with at least 300 species each of flora and fauna at Long Bow Point, and at least 33 threatened species in the immediate catchment. Green and golden bell frogs are reasonably abundant around its shore, as well as the extremely rare wetland plant Wilsonia rotundifolia.

The lake is listed on the Register of the National Estate, in the Directory of Wetlands of national significance, and meets the criteria for listing under the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international significance for water birds.

Lake Wollumboola is recognised and protected under migratory bird agreements with China and Japan as internationally significant habitat. At least 43 species of migratory birds, including little terns, have been identified, as well as large populations of local species such as black swan, teal and royal spoonbill. In the summer of 1999 a spectacular bird event occurred, with populations in excess of 20,000 and high bird populations are continuing.

.

Long-standing conflict

Conflict between protection of the natural environment of the Jervis Bay region and inappropriate development is long-standing. Since the early 1900s, Realty Realisations (the principal landowner in the region) has floated various plans to develop paper subdivisions in environmentally sensitive areas. There is equally a long history of efforts to protect this unique area. Myles Dunphy in the 1940s and NPA in 1974 put forward proposals to Government to protect the lake and the Beecroft Peninsula to its south.

The NPA case for national park status, as quoted by Alan Catford in the National Parks Journal, August 1974, says, “The club-shaped Beecroft Peninsula, which backs Point Perpendicular, the northern part of Jervis Bay, combined with the magnificent lagoon of Lake Wollumboola and the connecting lowland, is an ideal national park. Variety is surely its keynote.”

Realty Realisations and Shoalhaven City Council had other ideas. In 1992 the north-west area of the catchment was rezoned to residential as the Culburra Urban Expansion Area, by agreement between Realty Realisations, the Council and the NSW Government.

In 1995, Shoalhaven City Council was poised to approve the Long Bow Point Subdivision application, despite our protests and the reservations of several government agencies. Following the election of the Labor Government, the then Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Craig Knowles, in August 1995 called in the Long Bow Point subdivision and subsequently agreed to establish a Commission of Inquiry (COI).

In October 1996, Commissioner Carleton convened the first session of the Long Bow Point Subdivision COI. The Lake Wollumboola Support Group, the Culburra Beach Progress Association and, finally, the government agencies, opposed the subdivision. The NPWS reversed its previous position and advised that a Fauna Impact Statement (FIS) would be required. At the resumption of the Inquiry in November 1996, the Commissioner adjourned it indefinitely at the request of the developer, to allow for completion of a FIS.

The following three years of waiting were very stressful. In March 1998 we suffered a major setback with the release of the NPWS’ Assessment of the Natural Heritage Values of the Culburra Urban Expansion Area and Environs. While this report recommended consideration of national park or marine park status for Lake Wollumboola and recognised the high conservation values of much of the proposed development site, it recommended to the Minister for the Environment that the Government not purchase Long Bow Point. The Minister, Pam Allen, accepted this recommendation, to our great disappointment. Nevertheless, the Government purchased a large area of land between Jervis Bay and the southern shore of the lake, which is now part of Jervis Bay NP.

In November 1999, the COI reconvened, with the final hearing in January this year. In April, the COI report was released, recommending refusal of the subdivision because of its likely impact on Lake Wollumboola and its catchment. On 2 June, Dr Refshauge announced his decision to refuse the subdivision and to establish a review of planning controls and environmental management for the catchment.

.

Techniques for success

The success of our part in this landmark decision was due to several factors.

We studied and recorded the behaviour of Lake Wollumboola, analysed and interpreted research and expert advice. With the assistance of a Legal Aid Commission grant, we obtained advice from a highly professional group of experts who supported us in our submissions and presentations. Their original data and research covered water quality; evaluation of water-pollution control measures; ecology of the lake and its catchment, particularly its extraordinary birdlife; environmental law; and social and economic impacts of the proposed development.

We also worked closely with environment groups who gave us expert and strategic support, in particular Total Environment Centre, NPA, Nature Conservation Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and our local coalition of environment and community groups, the Jervis Bay Regional Alliance.

On World Environment Day, a few days after Minister Refshauge’s announcement, ACF recognised our efforts by awarding Frances Bray and Keith Campbell the Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award. This prestigious award focuses national attention on the lake and will assist us greatly in our ongoing campaign: to have Lake Wollumboola and its catchment protected from urban development for all time.

We are delighted also that the Lake Wollumboola Support Group has received local recognition. Narelle Wright, Frances Bray and Keith Campbell were honoured with Shoalhaven Healthy Cities awards, for their efforts to protect the lake.

Whilst the refusal of the Long Bow Point subdivision provides breathing space, the future of protection of Lake Wollumboola is not yet guaranteed. We hope this year represents the turning point, with the Healthy Rivers Commission Coastal Lakes Inquiry issues paper adding further weight to the Lake Wollumboola cause.

We hope other local environment groups will take heart from our success so far and join us in supporting these significant proposals.

.

References

1. 1. The Hon Bob Carr. Speech to the Brisbane Institute, A Matter of National Importance – Protection of the Australian Coastline. April 2000
   2. Healthy Rivers Commission. Independent Inquiry into Coastal Lakes – Issues Paper. October 2000
   3. Ministerial media release, 2 June 2000
      

Lake Wollumboola – nominated RAMSAR wetland

.

.

History of Estuary and Catchment Use and Abuse

.

.

‘Critical to human health and the biological health of coastal waterways are factors influencing the discharge of waters, sediments, nutrients and pathogens into rivers and estuaries.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, land clearance, soil erosion and urbanisation (including canal estates) have all contributed to the cumulative degradation of rivers, estuaries and coastal lakes.

Symptoms of the degradation are many including:

1. Siltation of channels, which in some cases like on the Hunter has resulted in downstream displacement of shipping ports, and in the burial of estuarine sea grasses;
2. Increased levels of nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, which are key elements for plankton and plant growth and trigger algal blooms when they reach excessive levels; and
3. The presence of pathogens which may be digested by humans causing death and ill-health following consumption of seafood, or ingested while swimming.

.

Quite clearly urbanisation and deforestation has had some effect along the east coast.

The saga of Wallis Lake since the oyster contamination event of 1997 is there to remind us of the sensitivities of waters to pollutants. These sensitivities are not just biophysical and economic, but also lead to complex judicial proceedings on responsibilities under the common law concept of ‘duty of care’ as determined in the Wallis Lake case by the High Court.
We know that increasing nutrient loads or even the sediment loads from catchments into estuarine and lake systems may not trigger much change as these systems have considerable resilience to varying biophysical conditions. However, the fear is always that a lake/lagoon or estuary backwater will go beyond the ‘critical load point’. Turbidity and phytoplankton will then dominate.

It was such a concern that encouraged the then Planning Minister for NSW, Andrew Refshauge, in 2001, to stop a 2000-lot subdivision at Lake Wollumboola on the NSW south coast. This was at a location which years before had been zoned for such intensive urban use.’

..

‘Lake Wollumboola- Listing as a Ramsar site’

Black Swans and Teal (left) on Lake Wollumboola

© Photo by Frances Bray

(click photo to enlarge, then click to enlarge again! ~ you’re being looked at.)

.

‘Shoalhaven Council is it so narrow minded that it will not support taking a step forward in listing a lovely wetland in the RAMSAR register? seems so.

Department of Environment and Heritage have approached Council to advise that they wish to begin the process of talking to the community about listing this special little lake as a significant wetland- local campaigner Frances Bray sent the following letter to Council to try and influence tonights decision making.

Thanks Frances for allowing me to share this and your great photo of the swans and teals.’

~ Amanda Findley.

————————–

‘To General Manager and Shoalhaven City Councillors,

Please circulate this message to all Councillors,

I understand that at your meeting on Tuesday next, that you will consider a recommendation to oppose the listing of Lake Wollumboola as a Wetland of International importance under the Ramsar Convention.

Today I have been on a bird counting walk at Lake Wollumboola with ornithologist, Ms Joy Pegler. The Lake is an astonishing site, with Joy counting 1100 Black Swan, 957 Grey Teal and 536 Chestnut Teal, as well as 9 other species.

Here is a photo of some of the birds which are easily viewed from the north shore. Do come and enjoy this wonderful experience.

I urge you to think carefully about the benefits of Ramsar listing. Increased monitoring and research into this unique Lake would benefit its management, whilst maintaining current recreational activities. There would be significant benefits for the Aboriginal community from employment in management and Cultural tourism opportunities if community members choose to support Ramsar listing. The local and wider Shoalhaven community would benefit too from carefully promoted and managed national as well as international tourism.

The Lake Wollumboola Protection Association Inc as well as many Culburra Beach residents and ratepayers strongly support Ramsar listing, knowing the special qualities of the Lake especially for birds and understanding that Lake Wollumboola meets the relevant Ramsar criteria.

We understand that the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage is in the process of consulting the Aboriginal community regarding its views and we respect the need for that consultation to continue before the Office proceeds with consultation with the wider community.

Please do not jeopardise the planned consultations and the opportunities represented by Ramsar listing.’

.

Little Terns

.

.

Footnote

.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

.

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, called the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.    The Ramsar Convention is the only global environmental treaty that deals with a particular ecosystem. The treaty was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and the Convention’s member countries cover all geographic regions of the planet.

The Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty whose mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. As of October 2010, 160 nations have joined the Convention as Contracting Parties, and more than 1900 wetlands around the world, covering over 186 million hectares, have been designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.’

The Ramsar Mission

‘The Convention’s mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”.
The Convention uses a broad definition of the types of wetlands covered in its mission, including lakes and rivers, swamps and marshes, wet grasslands and peatlands, oases, estuaries, deltas and tidal flats, near-shore marine areas, mangroves and coral reefs, and human-made sites such as fish ponds, rice paddies, reservoirs, and salt pans.’

.

What are wetlands?

.

‘As defined by the Convention, wetlands include a wide variety of habitats such as marshes, peatlands, floodplains, rivers and lakes, and coastal areas such as saltmarshes, mangroves, and seagrass beds, but also coral reefs and other marine areas no deeper than six metres at low tide, as well as human-made wetlands such as waste-water treatment ponds and reservoirs.’

The Wise Use Concept

.
‘At the centre of the Ramsar philosophy is the “wise use” concept. The wise use of wetlands is defined as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”. “Wise use” therefore has at its heart the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, for the benefit of humankind*.’

.

.

*Editor:  “for the benefit of humankind‘?     Why so anthropocentric?   It is not as if humankind has not benefited itself since it could at the expense of other species.

A more appropriate ending phrase would be:… “out of respect for the ecological rights of wetland-dependent species and ecological communities for survival, health and natural life processes, undisturbed”.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

– end of article –

.

Out of Victorian colonial exploits of the 19th Century, elephant tusks could be found butchered and refined into expensive goods, notably billiard balls, piano keys, Scottish bagpipes, garment buttons, letter openers and for many ornamental items otherwise considered mere ‘trinkets’.

After the elephant tusk (‘ivory’) trade had decimated the African Elephant population from 1.3 million to 625,000, finally in 1989 the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) imposed a ban on this international elephant tusk (ivory) trade.
Ten years on, Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, lifted the ban along with Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa and legalised the sale of elephant tusks from elephants they claimed (a) had died naturally or (b) been shot because they were violently aggressive or for ‘problem-animal’ control. In 1999, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) authorized an auction of 50 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) from these four countries to the value of USD$5 million. Notably, the demand for elephant has been driven outside the African continent, in this episode mainly by Japan.

One could find a comparable solution for controlling Robert Mugabe…

Tool of the Willing

.

In 2008, China was also given permission to become a licensed buyer of elephant tusks (ivory) and this followed 108 tons of elephant tusks (ivory) being auctioned from these same four African countries, representing the death of over 10,000 African elephants.

.

“The growing demand for elephant tusks (ivory) has increased black market prices from $200 per kilo to $850 per kilo in the past four years thus creating a big financial incentive for poachers. Michael Wamithi, program director for International Fund for Animal Welfare’s global elephants program, and former director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, declared: “An estimated 20,000 elephants are slaughtered annually for the trade in their tusks. Many African elephant range states clearly do not have the capacity or resources to combat these massive attacks on their countries’ wildlife heritage and the burgeoning markets in China are only fuelling these attacks.”

.

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), which exposes environmental crimes, said CITES had ignored appeals from other African nations not to increase pressures on their elephant populations which were already struggling with wars, instability, droughts and poverty. EIA chairman Allan Thornton said:

“Responsibility for the poaching of 20,000 elephants in Africa each year will now lie with those who supported China obtaining legal ivory trade even though they continue to be the world’s biggest destination for poached ivory.”

This elephant tusk (ivory) carving (photo) is a gift from China presented to the United Nations in 1974.

.

.

Chinese, Japanese and Thais still Elephant Poaching in Africa

.

China and Japan bought 108 tonnes of ivory in another “one-off” sale in November 2008 from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. At the time the idea was that these legal ivory sales may depress the price, thereby removing poaching pressure, an idea supported by both Traffic and WWF.

China’s increased involvement in infrastructure projects in Africa and the purchase of natural resources has alarmed many conservationists who fear the extraction of wildlife body parts is increasing. Since China was given “approved buyer” status by CITES, the smuggling of ivory seems to have increased alarmingly. Although, WWF and Traffic who supported the China sale, describe the increase in illegal ivory trade a possible “coincidence” others are less cautious. Chinese nationals working in Africa have been caught smuggling ivory in many African countries, with at least ten arrested at Kenyan airports in 2009. In many African countries domestic markets have grown, providing easy access to ivory, although the Asian ivory syndicates are most destructive buying and shipping tonnes at a time.

Contrary to the advice of CITES that prices may be depressed, and those that supported the sale of stockpiles in 2008, the price of ivory in China has greatly increased. Some believe this may be due to deliberate price fixing by those who bought the stockpile, echoing the warnings from the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society on price-fixing after sales to Japan in 1997, and monopoly given to traders who bought stockpiles from Burundi and Singapore in the 1980s.  It may also be due to the exploding number of Chinese able to purchase luxury goods.

Despite arguments prevailing on the ivory trade for the last thirty years through CITES, there is one fact that virtually all informed parties now agree upon: poaching of African elephants is now seriously on the increase.’

.

.

‘Shopping habits of China’s ‘suddenly wealthy’

[Source:  by Rose Gamble, freelance journalist, FT.com, 20090821, ^http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9271a266-8d21-11de-a540-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1WPkaKde6, accessed 20110829]

.

Ivory:

‘For more than 7,000 years, Chinese artisans have been crafting elephant ivory. Favoured by the Imperial household as far back as the Qing dynasty (1680), ivory has an illustrious reputation and an association with the wealthy and elite. But in 1989, the trading of ivory was banned worldwide through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), after more than half of Africa’s 1.3 million elephants were poached in a single decade. And yet, with a carving trade established in antiquity and a burgeoning middle class who, for the first time, can afford to buy ivory, China remains its biggest importer.

As Asian elephant herds dwindle, African elephants have become the only source of ivory.

In late 2008, Cites authorities allowed China to bid with Japan for tusks from official stockpiles – consisting of ivory collected from elephants that had died a natural death – in four southern African countries. In an open declaration of a continuing demand, 12 Chinese traders bought 62 tonnes at an average price of $144 per kilo. Since this legal purchase, more than 11 tonnes of illegal African ivory have been impounded en route to China.

Elephant poaching largely takes place in central Africa, where poverty and political instability are rife. Chronic unemployment, the availability of firearms and corruption all facilitate the illegal ivory trade. These regions are also home to unregulated domestic ivory markets, where carved items are bought and sold. According to ivory expert Esmond Martin, the majority of buyers are Chinese. In a scramble for Africa’s minerals and resources, the continent has seen a recent influx of Chinese workers – a presence that is visibly reflected in the illegal retailing of ivory. On a recent trip to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Martin recorded 1,433 items of ivory openly displayed in the city’s main streets and central market. Among these were 149 pairs of freshly carved ivory chopsticks, selling for $16 each – in sharp contrast to a Chinese retail price of $139 – and signature stamps and jewellery. All of these items were small enough to potentially smuggle through customs.

Martin had previously estimated that 4,900 to 12,000 elephants from central Africa were killed each year to supply tusks to the craftsmen of Africa, China and Thailand.

Conservationists are deeply concerned. According to Barbara Maas, CEO of Care for the Wild International: “With the number of Chinese nationals resident in Africa rising, and poaching on the increase, the frontline between supply and demand for ivory is now perilously close, with a disastrous outcome for elephants.”

.

..

‘Campaigners’ fear for elephants, and their own credibility’

.

‘Nobody can deny that China’s black market was rampant until recently. In a report to the UN leaked by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a campaigning group, this month, Chinese officials admitted that between 1991 and 2002 they had lost sight of 121 tonnes of ivory, the equivalent of the tusks from 11,000 elephants.

Is China observing the CITES rules now? A brief visit to China in 2007 by inspectors from the CITES secretariat suggested that things had improved: they said that ivory was becoming harder to find, though they came across a shop in the city of Xi’an with ivory carvings of dubious provenance. A bigger investigation was carried out by TRAFFIC, an independent British-based group that monitors wildlife trade. After studying 10,000 shops between 2006 and 2008, it reported a progressive decline in the availability of illegal ivory. This had coincided with greater police vigilance.

The idea that China is cleaning up its act got another boost in March, when over 750kg (1,650lb) of raw ivory was seized in Guangxi Province. As CITES notes, the penalties for illegal trading include life imprisonment and death. But the EIA, which uses undercover methods to probe the trade, says things are not as good as they seem; in 2007 its researchers found a roomful of illegal ivory, including an uncut tusk, for sale in the city of Dalian. Last month they made a small find in Gansu province.

A more interesting question is how the legal sales now in prospect will affect the black market. A fresh supply of legal ivory may depress the price, and reduce the incentive to poach. TRAFFIC notes that after a legal auction in 1999, the price fell; this led to a decline in poaching over five years. For doctrinaire types, who oppose all trade in ivory, the forthcoming sale is not just a challenge to endangered animals; it could be a threat to the credibility of their best-loved arguments.’

.

.

‘Data shows illegal ivory trade on rise’

.

‘The illicit trade in ivory, which has been increasing in volume since 2004, moved sharply upward in 2009, according to the latest analysis of seizure data in the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS).

ETIS, one of the two monitoring systems for elephants under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) but managed by TRAFFIC, holds the world’s largest collection of elephant product seizure records.

The analysis, undertaken in advance of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP15) to CITES, was based upon 14,364 elephant product seizure records from 85 countries or territories since 1989, nearly 2,000 more records than the previous analysis, in 2007.

The remarkable surge in 2009 reflects a series of large-scale ivory seizure events that suggest increased involvement of organized crime syndicates in the trade, connecting African source countries with Asian end-use markets. The ETIS data indicate that such syndicates have become stronger and more active over the last decade.

There continues to be a highly significant correlation between large-scale domestic ivory markets in Asia and Africa and poor law enforcement, suggesting that illicit ivory trade flows typically follow a path to destinations where law enforcement is weak and markets function with little regulatory impediment.

Indeed, the rise in illicit trade in ivory indicates that implementation of a CITES “action plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory,” the Convention’s principal vehicle for closing such unregulated and illicit domestic markets in Africa and Asia, has failed to drive any significant change over the last five years.

The ETIS analysis identifies Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Thailand as the three countries most heavily implicated in the global illicit ivory trade. Illegal trade involving each of these nations has been repeatedly singled out for priority attention since the first assessment in 2002, but they continue to feature as critical hotspots in the trade as sources, entrêpots and consumers of ivory.

Another nine countries and territories—Cameroon, Gabon and Mozambique in Africa and Hong Kong SAR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam in Asia—were also identified as important nodes in the illicit ivory trade.

China, which along with Japan was an approved destination of the legal, CITES-sanctioned one-off ivory sale in 2008, faces a persistent illegal trade challenge from Chinese nationals now based in Africa. Ongoing evidence highlights widespread involvement of overseas Chinese in the illicit procurement of ivory, a problem that needs to be addressed through an aggressive outreach and awareness initiative directed at Chinese communities living abroad.

The results are less clear-cut concerning the impacts of the CITES approved one-off ivory sales in 1999 and 2008.

Following the first such sale, in June 1999, there was a progressive decline in the illicit trade in ivory for five years, with no evidence to suggest that the sale had resulted in an increase in the illicit ivory trade globally.

After the second CITES-approved ivory sale, in late 2008, the results are unclear as to whether it has stimulated increase demand or whether it has simply coincided with an increase in supply that was already underway over the last four years. The collection of more data over an extended time period will throw further light on this vital issue.’

.

The full ETIS report can be downloaded from the CITES website as document at ^http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15-44-01A.pdf

[Read More]

.

.

‘China Fuels East African Elephant Poaching’

.

China’s influence in East Africa is fueling an upsurge in elephant poaching, gunrunning, and corruption according to a report on U.K. television Friday.  A Channel 4 reporter spoke to people in villages and cities, wildlife managers, rangers, government officials, and illegal ivory sellers in Kenya and Tanzania—all of whom said China is the main buyer of banned ivory.

Filmed secretly, sellers told the journalist from Unreported World that during a presidential visit from Chinese Communist Party leader Hu Jintao in 2009, two hundred kilos of ivory was bought by Chinese diplomats and taken out of Tanzania.
The sellers did not say if Hu knew of the trade, but did say that a prominent diplomat from the Chinese Embassy frequently bought large amounts of ivory from them.
Kooky Gorman owns a wildlife park in Kenya. Accompanied by armed rangers, she took the reporter to many spots in her park, where elephant carcasses rotted, their heads split open to make it easy to saw the tusks off.
Many hides showed multiple bullet holes. The lead ranger said the killers had used AK47 automatic weapons to spray herds. The shootings were indiscriminate, killing young and old.

Gorman said the weapons were bought from neighboring Somalia where the civil war has continued since 1991.
The intensity of the poaching has been increasing for the past two years. In 2007 six elephants were poached from her park. In 2008, twenty-eight were poached. Fifty-seven were poached in 2009.

She says there is a threat of elephant extinction.

The Kenya Wildlife Service has strong rooms full of tusks and carved ivory taken during raids and confiscated at Nairobi airport. It has about 65 tons to 70 tons estimated at $10 million.
The U.N. recently rejected Zambia and Tanzania’s request to hold a one-off sale for their ivory stockpile, valued of approximately $15 million.

Since trade in ivory was stopped in 1989, some countries have been allowed to do a small amount of business in ivory if they have good conservation measures. Zambia and Tanzania are currently prohibited from any trade in ivory. The International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) annual meeting in Doha disregarded arguments that the sale could help police wildlife parks and stop the burden of protecting the horde of ivory.

Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania has 40,000 elephants.

On the TV program, a police informant who lived nearby in a village known for its illegal ivory deals said armed groups of 30 often came from Dara Salam in Senegal to take back ivory in 440-to-660-pound batches. (An average tusk weighs about 4.4 pounds.)

The informant, whose face was not shown for fear of reprisals, had had his house burned down recently.

Another man, who did not want to be identified as he had received death threats, was a safari operator who brings tourists to the Selous Reserve. “I think the wildlife department knows exactly what’s going on here,” he said. “There are some members of the games department who are poaching to supplement their pay and feed their families.”

He said he thinks movers are coming from China and the Far East to take bones and that they are in collusion with local authorities.

He said they could not get through the 15 to 20 policed roadblocks without help from “some very well-placed people.”

One illegal dealer said he had friends in airport security. “It’s no problem with money,” he told the reporter. “If you have money, it’s easy.”

There is a small industry carving the poached ivory for the East Asian trade. “Many people from China come and buy,” he said. There is a market for trinkets, seals, and chopsticks.

Chinese regime officials told Unreported World that they are against the illegal ivory trade and that Chinese diplomats did not illegally purchase or export ivory by misusing diplomatic immunity in 2009.

Most villagers have stood by while violence around the poaching continues. They felt threatened and were unable to prevent the elephant deaths. Now, many see tourism as the main way they can earn a living, so they are protecting the animals and habitat as much as they can.’

.

.

‘Ivory Stockpile Sale Rejected by U.N.’

.

Custom officers display a total of 2.8 tons of ivory on March 1, 2007, a record amount seized in Japan, a top black market destination for elephant tusks.

‘Zambia and Tanzania’s request to hold a one-off sale for their ivory stockpile, valued of approximately $15 million, were rejected during the U.N.’s Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) annual meeting in Doha. The increase of poaching and illegal ivory sales in both countries in 2009 were the main reasons for the rejection.

Since the ivory trade was banned in 1989, there has been an exemption that allows countries that have proven effective in conservation measures to have a small amount of regulated trade in ivory. Currently, Zambia and Tanzania are forbidden to sell ivory.

“It’s crucial that central and western African nations suppress the brazen poaching, mainly fueled by organized crime and illegal ivory markets openly operating within their borders before any further ivory sales take place,” said Sybille Klenzendorf, managing director of Species Conservation at WWF-U.S. in a press release.

According to a report from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), which keeps track of ivory seizures, there exists a direct relationship between an increase in poaching and poor law enforcement. In the past two years, the number of elephants that were killed as a result of poaching has quadrupled.

Opponents of the ban say that Tanzania ought be allowed to dispose of their ivory stockpile as to avoid spending large sums of money on security and storage.

During the meeting, in which 175 countries participated, some animals were added to the list of protected species. The rise of e-commerce is now believed to be one of the latest and biggest threats to wildlife, as global Internet access has made it increasingly easy to buy and sell illegal wildlife products with little control.

“The transactions kind of come and go and take place before anybody really even knows it, leaving it to the post office to be enforcing this global regime of trade regulation,” Paul Todd, a campaign manager for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (FAW) was reported as saying by ABC news in Australia.

Back in 2005, a FAW investigation reported that in one week alone, over 9,000 live animals or products in five categories of animals were for sale on English-language Web sites, chat rooms and the popular auction site eBay. Some of the live animals found included a gorilla in London, and a Siberian tiger in the U.S. Body parts and products were also commonly found with ivory being common.’

.

 An African Elephant herd

(click photo to enlarge)

 Elephants are very intelligent, lifelong loyal and have immense family bonds.

A female elephant listens and watches the photographer intently, with her young close to her side.

An elephant mother will protect her calf to her death.

.

.

.

‘Macdonald’s game council thrill killer‘

.

.

.

‘The cruelty and corruption of the elephant hunt’

.

Letters to the Editor

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

– end of article –

The magnificent tiger in the wild, where it belongs,

.

“I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man”

.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.”

~Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948)

By this measure, Indonesian society’s prescription and tolerance of Dhabiha throat slitting slaughter in its abattoirs reflects a society that is barbaric, immoral, uncivilized and backward.

.

.

Then we have the backward cultural practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM):

.

‘Diplomat exposed Chinese tiger farm horrors’

Chinese tormenting a Xiongsen Tiger

.

Tiger Parts used by in barbaric chinese superstition  (TCM)

.

.

Xiongsen Bear and Tiger Mountain Village

.

”The commercial nature of the farm was troubling. The large number of endangered tigers and bears present with no current plans to reintroduce them into the wild raises concern regarding the motivation of such a farm.”

.

.

A threatened and persecuted species by backward human cultures,

.

Gong Xi Fa Cai

.

2010 was the Chinese Zodiac Year of the Tiger

.

.

Footnote

Rare photo of a Caspian Tiger

.

Caspian Tigers now are extinct.  They only exist in illustration.

.

.

– end of article –

The following article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net 20090416 under the title: ‘ACT Environment Commissioner unqualified to condemn kangaroos’:

.

One day kangaroos grazing on Australian grasslands (long deforested by colonists)…

Next day, thanks to the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment….

ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, is the Australia Capital Territory’s inaugural full-time Commissioner in the role, yet what relevant environmental qualifications and experience does the incumbent have, or indeed lack, to be officially condemning another local indigenous population of Australia’s iconic marsupials, our kangaroos, to slaughter for pet food?

The Environment Commissioner’s own website lists her formal qualifications in the areas of:

• Environmental Planning
• Environmental Design
• Environmental Science

.

All these ‘environmentally’ friendly prefixes sound impressive, until one realises that each of these areas of academic study are not fauna focused, but indeed are all about human-centric utilisation of the natural environment for the benefit of humans. That is, these qualifications are all about maximising the convenience of the environment for humans. A wolf in charge of the kangaroos?  It’s just like forestry pretending to care about forests.

Such qualifications offer no insight into the survival and habitat needs of Australian wildlife. “According to ACT’s inaugural Environment Commissioner, kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site. Where’s the bloody independent zoological evidence, who would attest to this view under the test of peer scrutiny?

Now if our roo-shooting redneck commissioner had a more relevant Bachelor of Science in Zoology from say the University of Melbourne, she may be of a contrary mindset and less aligned to human planning needs and monetary gains; instead more empathetic to ecological needs of native fauna. The introductory paragraph for the University of Melbourne’s Honours degree in Zoology instills the following focus:
.

“How animals live and why they live that way are questions addressed by zoologists. Most of the Australian fauna are poorly understood or not even formally named, yet informed management and resource use of Australia’s flora, fauna and habitats depend upon zoological knowledge. We need to catalogue what species exist and how they survive in their natural environments. This requires knowledge of their physiology, breeding and reproductive systems, ecology, evolution and behaviour.”
[SOURCE: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/areas/SZOOL.html]

Maxine Cooper, where are your qualifications in Zoology, in Conservation and in Australian wildlife to entitle you to officially condemn thousands of Australia’s iconic kangaroos to slaughter for cat and dog food?

Can you guarantee the Australian public that none of these kangaroos is to be minced for cat and dog food?

The standard setting for the job prerequisites for the ACT’s Environment Commissioner are woeful and clearly not in the best interests of the target subject – our natural wildlife. What were they thinking by employing a planner in environmental management?

.

.

.

Editor’s comment:

.

The stated role of the OCSE is to:

.

• ‘Investigate complaints about the management of the environment by the Territory or a Territory authority’
• ‘Conducts investigations as directed by the Minister’
• ‘Initiates investigations into actions of an agency where those actions would have a substantial impact on the environment of the ACT’
• ‘Produces state of the environment reports for the ACT and the 17 councils in the Australian Capital Region’
• ‘Makes recommendations for consideration by government and includes in our annual report the outcomes of those recommendations’
• ‘Resolves issues through mediation and conflict resolution’
• ‘Undertakes an advocacy and awareness role on sustainability and environmental issues.’

.

[Source: OCSE website, ^http://www.envcomm.act.gov.au/our_office]

.

So it basically seems to be an ACT Government environmental watchdog agency.  Why?

The ACT covers only 2400 square kilometres and has under 400,000 people.  It already has an Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate [Read More], which lumps disparate functions under one watered down super-ministry including environment, water, climate change, planning (including development assessment, leasing, construction, land use and utilities regulation, surveying and land information), the Government architect, heritage, transport planning and nature conservation.

So is OCSE the watchdog for one overburdened super-ministry?  It is bureacracy gone mad.  Since Canberra is the seat of the federal government and ACT is so small, why not just have the Federal Government look after ACT conservation matters and be cost effective with taxpapers’ money?

.

It is gross deceptive greenwash when the Australian Capital Territory government merges all its conservation responsibility into one super agency, The Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, (OCSE), then heads it up with a town planner [Read More], then tries to claims that it has custodial responsibility for environment and conservation on behalf of the people of the ACT.  It is wholly consistent with government’s misuse and abuse of the word ‘sustainability‘ ~ to mean any action that sustains the government’s conveniences and political ends, such as land use development of grasslands for industry.  The Office is simply a development planning arm of the ACT Government and many Canberra-based property developers are very happy with the arrangement thank you very much.

But it is the biased leading the inept when one reads a report, ‘Report of the Grassland Forum‘ dated 20 May 2010 on the website of this Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment.

The report considers the future potential of the 10,000 hectares of native grassland just outside Canberra.

This report was not compiled not internally (probably because the OCSE employs not competent environmental scientists to do so), but believe it or not by a property development consulting firm ‘Beaconhill Consulting‘. ‘Beaconhill Consulting’s recent work is listed on its website as:

• Strategic performance review of a major multi-program investment portfolio valued at several hundred million dollars
• Due diligence examination of a multi-million dollar import business investment  – supply chain and market analyses, review of product efficacy and policy framework
• Strategic Business Development for an emerging export business – Board level reforms and strategies, business plan development, commercialisation strategy, marketing plans, industry development application, governance arrangements and commercial partner negotiations
• Business Development, government submissions, marketing plans, and client tenders.

.

The ‘Report of the Grassland Forum’ “found that the Eastern Grey Kangaroos are the dominant herbivore in natural grasslands..and that their overgrazing has lead to erosion and loss of plant species“.

It is not surprising that the Maxine Coopper’s office has approved many hundreds of these native kangaroos have been conveniently slaughtered for pet food.  Some nutter has even contrived a myth that these grazing native kangaroos are threatening the survival of a rare native Earless Dragon in the area.  Kangaroos threatening native animals!  That’ a cracker!  The fact that thousands of hectares of these grasslands are planned for bulldozing to make way for industrial and residential development may not threatend the Earless Dragon is not mentioned in the report.

It is laughable to read terms such as ‘diversity‘ and ‘ecology‘ used in the report in the context of industrial development.

The study focused upon Canberra restricted supply and diversity of industrial land. It is considered that Eastern Broadacre will play a critical role in meeting Canberra’s industrial needs in the long term. The study found that possible uses include:

• Freight/ transport and logistics
• Industrial and associated office
• Warehousing/ storage
• Education and training facilities
• Tourism/ recreational uses

‘Belinda explained that the sustainability corridors may have broader considerations, and ACTPLA is keen to explore light industry ecology.’

.

So this is where the tax revenue of the people of Australia’s Capital Territory around Canberra is being spent.  How much did this report cost?  How much did the OCSE logo above cost – took a lot of imagination that one!

Senseless slaughter of Victoria’s Old Growth..another Brumby legacy for Victoria

29 April, 2009:

The result of senseless logging at iconic Bungewarr Creek, far East Gippsland. Loggers have desperately chainsawed magnificent stands of ancient Australian Eucalypts along Bungewarr Creek in East Gippsland as the woodchips, allowing our natural heritage to be sold out to the Japanese for a despicable $2.50 per tonne!

“Two protesters are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”.. “this platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”

First blockaded in 1994, Old Growth at Bungewarr Creek has been targeted by loggers ever since. Premier John Brumby simply cannot be trusted with Victoria’s natural heritage.

.

.

Subsequent Comments:

.

‘Sell the loggers not the logs’

Maybe these stooges for big companies would get more money selling the loggers?

Sheila Newman, population sociologist

.

.

‘Rampant materialism and environmental destruction!’

About 90% of what comes out of our old-growth forests ends up as woodchips to make paper, the majority of which is sent overseas. The “management plan” for Tasmania’s Upper Florentine Valley means a growing logging industry for wood chips, with a current price a mere $2.50 per tonne!

Despite the area being surrounded by mountains of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, the Colonial ignorance of slash and conquer the bush has changed little since the last Tasmanian Tiger was captured there in the 1933.

All this so-called “sustainable forest management” is just thinly disguised eco-destruction by Tasmania’s logging industry.

We are bombarded with ecologically “friendly”, “sustainable” and “green” language, but the euphemisms are totally contrary to everything they claim!

We are encouraged to avoid plastic bags, turn off power when it is not needed, use energy-friendly light bulbs, save water, use public transport, but the benefits of these actions belie the fact that our governments continue to support the large polluters and industries that are adding to climate change and conservation threats!

Our leaders must be held accountable the rampant materialism and environmental destruction that our nation is succumbing to.

.

.

‘Logging contracter attacks Bungewarr protesters’

i have lost several thousand dollars in income due to the pathetic protests the greens have undertaken over the last 2 weeks in the bungewarr area. If you have a problem take it up with the state government directly or the vic forests office. No one will ever take you seriously while you are illegally chained to a machine or strung up a tree stopping the people who are there to make money to feed our familys. Do you honestly think the state government gives a shit while you are taking this sort of illegal action? The only people losing out are the loggers by taking away a slab of our income, the easily led pawns the greens send in to the protests that come out feeling like heroes but now have a criminal record for life. Also not to mention the tens of thousands of tax payer dollars that get spent on the police rescue squad coming from melbourne just to release the protesters and also the local police time wasted. Start using your brains and be a little more democratic and also start telling people the truth about our logging practices instead of just the lies you make up to sway the public to your way of thinking. Old growth forest dosn’t absorb carbon dioxide like you say so if you want to get technical we can say that we are helping climate change by replacing it with smaller re growth that with filter the atmosphere a lot more efficiently. This is a saw log driven industry, the pulp that goes for wood chips is what is left over from the tree after the saw log has been taken. Stop the lies and the pathetic protests because no one listens when you go about it in this way. Your protests are just an excuse for camping up the bush smoking dope, dancing around a fire by night, then during the day trying to fighting for a cause that not that many of them really know that much about.

.

.

‘State Government does not listen to decent protests!’

Extreme protests are because our State Government is only interested in money and the votes of businesses, and jobs for forest workers. Extreme protests gets the public and the media’s attention. The income of loggers is a minor and short-term affair. These old-growth forests and trees have been here since Columbus discovered America, or before! They have TIME and GREATNESS on their side, and these stalwarts stand as sentinels against the wreckage that humans in power want to inflict on them, for a paltry $2.50 per tonne! They store massive amounts of carbon, and chopping them down is environmental vandalism. Get a job, Jim Barton! Nobody accepts the green-washing bulls**t our State government comes out with! They are all lies.

.

.

‘VicForests no different to Indonesian Timber Mafia’

Illegal logging involves “wood harvesting, processing and trade that do not conform to law. Illegalities occur right through the chain from source to consumer, the harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including corrupt means to gain access to forests, extraction without permission or from a protected area, cutting of protected species or extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegalities may also occur during transport, including illegal processing and export as well as mis-declaration to customs, before the timber enters the legal market.”

Other examples of illegal logging are:

* Under-reporting harvest volumes and tax payable
* Ignoring selective cutting guidelines
* Harvesting outside concession boundaries
* Falsifying log transport documents
* Accepting falsified log transport documents

Timber can also be considered illegal if the plantations are not properly managed.

This includes:

* Clear-cutting natural forest, then failing to replant
* Not planting at rates required to maintain long-term production
* Replanting with low-quality species
* Replanting at low density.”

SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2002/timber_mafia/resources/resources_illegal_logging.htm

So perhaps Jim Barton can explain the forest impact difference between VicForests endorsed slaughter of Australia’s heritage old-growth at Bungywarr Creek and at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland and what the Indonesia’s Timber Mafia are doing?

.

.

‘More Lies’

Righto jose and tigerquoll lets get a few things straight. first and foremost, i have a job. i am a logger currently logging the bungewarr creek area incase you didn’t read my first piece properly. Secondly, tigerquolls new name is now guinea pig because thats what he looked and sounded like when he was running back for cover into the bush at last weeks tax payer funded protest when we wanted to talk to him. It is bullshit for you dole bludgers to say that loggers incomes are not an important issue when it comes to this arguement. That’s rich considering most of the protestors don’t have jobs and live off the money i pay in tax every week, therefor you are living off the tax money earned through logging old growth forests and that alone increases your carbon foot print when you trace it back! Like it or not the logging practices we undertake are as much as you may dislike the idea, legal. You may need a little thing the police call evidence if you want to go throwing unproven and rediculous claims at us. You can check every single log docket, boundary marker and all other relevant paperwork if you like. All you will find is a legal harvesting procedure that has complied with the legal requirements and documentation that vic forests and our state government has specified, planned and employed us under and therefor endorsed. You can throw your big words, lies and acusations around all you like but at the end of the day no laws are being broken apart from the ones you break by trespassing into a public safety area and holting work for a few hours. like i have said everyone is entitled to an opinion, maybe you need to voice yours through the proper authorities. Maybe then people will listen because illegal action will never conquer legal works. By the way, old growth trees have been proven not to produce oxygen after a certain age and also stop absorbing carbon dioxide. look it up. We do not falsify log dockets as that is what we are payed by. We do not underreport the amount of timber harvested for tax reasons as we are liable to penalties from vic forests if we do not cut the contracted volume of wood. We do not harvest outside boundaries as that can lead to penalties that in tern end up costing us money. Vic forests and the dse burn the finnished coupes to stimulate seed germination and growth (replanting). Areas are regenerated at rates to ensure that the area is sufficient for the next round of log harvesting. Finally, the correct species are replanted at the correct density to ensure the bush grows back to meet harvesting, legal and environmental standards. And to your final question guinea pig, our logging practices are not illegal due to the fact that the people in our crew comply with australias rules and regulations on the correct procedures for timber harvesting. Indonesias logging is illegal due to the fact that they enter an area to take timber without the correct permits and by buying the governments silence through kick backs from the profits of these illegal activities. Logging old growth is only illegal in your minds because you let emotion and centiment cloud your already hazey vision and it is a last desperate stab to try and lock more bush into national park. I Hope your all warm in your wooden houses tonight, on your cleared land to make way for that house and in your wooden bed and i hope that soft toilet paper that came from those trees dosn’t scratch your ass when this reply gives you all the shits!

.

.

‘Logging subsidised by tax-payer’

You would have to be blind not to see that your line of work is unsustainable. That means that it costs more than it produces financially (the community subsidises logging). Do us all a favour and get a real job, or go on the dole and stop costing us all more than money.

.

.

‘Proud logger with job recycles but is realistic’

Thats the best you can come up with? Show me facts and figures on much it subsidises actual harvesting procedures.

Now if it is so unsustainable why are we logging areas that have been logged 2, 3 and up to 4 times over the last 100 years. Going on the dole would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it gutless anonymous? That is why all you loser protestors are putting your hands out every week. If you really care about the environment get out there and start working towards reducing wild dog numbers, helping to erradicate feral cats and why don’t you do something about the introduced vines that are strangling the native forests to death. The vines are spread through water ways that usually start their journey from up in the national parks that you lot won’t let anyone into to even maintain.

If you new anything about what you are talking about you would see this every time you are heading up the combienbar road dodging stubbies on your way to another pointless protest at bungywarr. But it is just easier to throw empty accusations once again without concrete evidence at the people who actually work for a living to feed their families instead of relying on someone else to feed them. I would like to say however, thank you to the person/s running this web site who have let me have a say on this subject. The greens have a terrible history of twisting what actually happens into a tangled web of what they think the public should hear, even as made up as a lot of it is. A healthy discussion is good for both sides, but eventually you will see the the country cannot survive on beautiful views, love and goodwill. unfortunately money makes the world go round and it is far to late to change that. Even climate change is a money making lie.

The earth has been changing temperature for millions of years and unfortunately buying a hybrid car and some solar panels is not going to make a lick of difference. To those who doubt my thoughts, show us all some hard evidence over the last million years of the temperature difference to now. As much as you may hate the idea the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. Why i seem to recall a history lesson at school that showed tasmania, the mainland and indonesia was all one continent. With rising sea levels we now have more continents than we did millions of years ago and the sea will continue to rise no matter what we do. It is clearly a scare tactic to sway voters and the general public.

I am not a complete monster i still recycle and don’t litter but we have to be realistic.

.

.

‘National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)’

NAFI (or perhaps ‘Not Another Freakin Import’ provides a chainsaw scream for Australia’s scarce and depleting forests. Japanese woodchippers rape Aussie forests only to import A4 paper back to us at a profit. Aren’t we NAFI suckers?

NAFI is committed to ensuring clear fell logging and woodchipping of old growth has strong representation in political and public engagement to ensure this desperate slaughtering is supported in order to achieve the best possible outcome for NAFI and short contract loggers with no future prospects.

Australia’s forest industries, made up of remnant old growth habitat, plantations and any outlying unoccupied timber houses on the edge of towns, offer significant benefits for NAFI and no-neck loggers with no future prospects. By the year 2020 forest industries are projected to contribute:

* 16,000 short term forestry contracts and base pay with no security, no annual leave and no sick leave
* 81 million tonnes of Australian native forests sold out to Mitsui (the Japanese)
* $19 billion of Australia’s native farm sold out to the Japanese woodchippers – who have the hide profit from selling back to Australia white shiny A4 photocopy paper.

And so how is the multinational raper of Gippsland forests, Japanese Sumitomo Mitsui fairing these days? Well as at 10th April 2009, Sumitomo Mitsui reported its largest loss in six years and has desperately proposed to raise 800 billion yen in public offering.

Gippsland loggers have become losers in every sense. Contract logging to feed Jap woodchippers may pay the rent for a few months, but forget supporting a family or paying a mortgage! How many forestry workers called into the CES since the start of 2009?

.

.

‘Logging is not sustainable’

Yes, you have a job! The point is , it is a dead-end type of job if you must continually destroy the habitat and ecosystems that support life. Most of our ancient forests end up at woodchips, for $2.50 per tonne! Nobody here is “putting their hands out”, but the logging industry should not be immune from retrenchment like other industries. You are right about other issues, about rubbish, feral animals and weeds. Retrenched loggers should be part of a new industry of “green” jobs of managing our native forests. There is so much good that could be done, as you have mentioned! While writing this, kangaroos are being massacred in Canberra as being “environmental threats”, but the real threats are humans, and the greed for profits! I think you have a conflict of interests with your source of income. The Government must take most of the blame for bending to these industries to get the rural votes. Our government cannot and will not address climate change because it is contrary to the growth mentality they are addicted to. Our materialistic greed is escalating, I believe, because our leaders know that our planet as such does not have another millenium left!

.

.

‘Earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control’

Yes, Jim Barton, the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. There are things we can’t control, but there are also things we can! The massive plundering of our planet to accummulate riches and exports for continual growth is something we can control, if we get rid of self-interests and greed. Gaia will continue, the rock that rotates around the Sun, but it may not take kindly to the human “virus” it is infected with! Stephen Hawkings said humans were a bit of biological “scum” on a medium sized planet. We should not take our only home for granted! We do not have another to exploit! Our ecology is finite and so is Earth.

.

.

‘Twisting numbers into lies’

$2.50 a ton is not quite the truth. $2.50 a ton is what a machine operator is paid. You keep saying that wood chips are sold for $2.50 a ton, so show me a genuine document that states the chips are going for that price. $2.50 is a tonnage rate for being loaded onto the truck so technically they can’t be sent for that price. So if they are fallen for $3.50 a ton, snigged for $2.00 a ton and loaded for $2.00 ton, then the mills would have gone broke years ago wouldn’t they? Then you have the transport costs i believe that this is proof enough that you are scaring people again with more unproven lies. Yeh they are being loaded onto the truck for that price but no way sold for it.

.

.

‘Chainsaw operator should get a proper job that creates wealth’

I reckon that gutless whinging chainsaw operator or truck driver or whatever he is should stop taking subsidies and handouts from the government (Vicforests – never made a profit – any real company and you would have been out of a job years ago), get an education and get a proper job. Or at least stand up for something he believes. Other than the front bar of the pub.

.

.

‘These old trees do not have a monetary value!’

These trees are up to 600 years old. Their value is ecological and intrinsic. No value in $$ can justify their destruction. Income and jobs are temporal and temporary. We don’t chop up our houses when we need firewood. Destroying these heritage level trees, and protection from climate change, cannot be justified for whatever value! They are PRICELESS so disputing over dollars is irrelevant.

.

– end of article –

Who does one believe?…

.

.

.

Tuesday 23-Aug-2011:

‘Paper manufacturer loses green credentials’

.
The Wilderness Society says Australian Paper cannot meet environmental standards.  The manufacturer of Reflex paper has lost part of its international environmental certification, after withdrawing from an audit of its wood supplies.

The Forest Stewardship Council was auditing Australian Paper, to check that the wood used to make Reflex paper is not sourced from high conservation value forests.

Luke Chamberlain from the Wilderness Society says the company withdrew from the process, because it cannot meet environmental standards.

“The makers of Reflex paper get their wood from the Victorian State Government native forest logging arm VicForests,” he said.

“VicForests log in endangered species habitat. They log old growth forests in East Gippsland and the central highlands”

Australian Paper says its products are not sourced from high conservations value forests threatened by logging.

Shaun Scallan from Australian Paper says they withdrew because the audit process changed while it was underway.

“We pulled out because of a change in the definition of part of the standard late in the piece, which did not allow us enough time to then satisfy that changed definition,” he said.

.

.

Meanwhile the same Shaun Scallan of Australian Paper just the day prior on Monday 22 August 2011 posts his media release:

.

‘Australian Paper retains FSC Chain of Custody Certification’…?

by Shaun Scallan, Australian Paper, 20110822, ^http://australianpaper.com.au/media/2478/AP%20FSC%20audit%20release%20FINAL%20Aug%2022_2011.pdf, accessed 20110825

.

‘Australian Paper has successfully retained Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody certification (FSC-C002059) in its latest audit.  Auditor Rainforest Alliance confirmed that under the certification Australian Paper may continue to produce FSC-certified product based on sourcing of material from FSC-certified operations and recycled content, as allowed under the FSC rules for Mixed and Recycled product.

.

“We are pleased to have retained our FSC Chain of Custody certification,” Australian Paper CEO Mr Jim Henneberry said.
“Australian Paper has held Chain of Custody certification since 2006. However, we have decided to remove the Controlled Wood component from our certification at this time as there has been uncertainty around the interpretation of key elements of the standards.”

.

“Advice received by Rainforest Alliance from FSC International around the interpretation of the Standard was received after the physical audit had been completed. This left insufficient time for us to address and so we elected to withdraw Controlled Wood from our certification.” Mr Henneberry said.

.

Australian Paper remains committed to ensuring that fibre supplies come from internationally recognised, third party certified sources and also regards the Australian Forestry Standard and PEFC as benchmark certifications under this policy. The majority of wood supplied to Australian Paper is certified to the Australian Forestry Standard.

.

“We are also continuing to consult with a wide range of stakeholders as part of our Future Fibre Strategy review,” Mr Henneberry said.
“It is vital that we achieve the best balance between the environment, the health of regional communities and our ongoing competitiveness. We look forward to sharing outcomes from this review in due course.”

.

.

Meanwhile, we have the boss of Nippon Paper (the Japanese company that owns the misnomer ‘Australian Paper’) declaring Nippon Paper is going gang-busters to become a top global pulp and paper company…(at any cost?)

‘Since I was appointed president of Nippon Paper Group, Inc. in 2008, I have been pursuing “growth-oriented management.” This means exploring every possibility with a consistently positive stance, actively seizing opportunities, achieving the growth needed to become one of the top pulp and paper companies worldwide, as set out in the Group Vision 2015, and developing corporate value that meets the expectations of all stakeholders.’ ~ President of Nippon Paper Group, Yoshio Haga. [Source: ^http://www.np-g.com/e/about/president.html]

.

.

Meanwhile, the stated Charter of Nippon Paper Group includes:

.

‘6. Active involvement with environmental issues assures that…’

.

1. ‘We shall promote afforestation projects, to create and make effective use of sustainable forest resources.’
2. ‘We shall promote energy conservation, the use of wastepaper and other measures to effectively use resources that are limited in quantity.’
3. ‘We shall manage and reduce all types of discharge and waste generated in the course of corporate activities.’
4. ‘We shall research and develop manufacturing technologies, and products and services that are in harmony with the environment.’

.

[Source: ^http://www.np-g.com/e/about/charter.html#shead2]

Editor:  It is suspicious when a Japanese company is more than content to log and irrevocably destroy another country’s old growth forests, while Japan’s own old growth forests around Mt Fuji remain sacrosanct.

‘In spite of the abundant natural resources, logging is not commonly practiced in the forests of Japan. Japan Forests are venerated and protected since they provide essential soil cover and help in water conservation. All Species are encouraged to grow in the Forests in Japan , from the broad-leaved deciduous to the evergreen coniferous types. There are also many forests which grow near volcanic areas, destroyed and then rejuvenated every time an eruption occurs. The Aokigahara Forest at the base of Mount Fuji is one such forest. Locals as well as tourist camp, trek and hike through these dense forests of Japan to explore their unusual natural beauty.

‘Some Japan Forests are designated as Sacred Forests . These forests generally contain an ancient religious Shrine, usually worshiping the Shinto religion and are protected from trespassing and destruction. These forest shrines are still venerated as national treasures.

.

Some of the sacred forests in Japan are-

• The Forest of the Yahiko Jinja has many trees like the Cedar, Cypress and Oaks. The Shrine has a sacred Chinquapin tree as well.
• The Forest of Atsuta Jinja is an important Shinto Shrine, housing one the three important Shinto relics – the holy sword of Kusanagi-no-tsurugi. The forest has evergreens like the Japanese Camellia Sakaki, camphor trees, Ilex and Japanese Honeysuckle.
• The Forest of Kashima Jingu has over 800 species of trees like varieties of Cedar, Fir and Oak. The Kashima Jingu is an important shrine of the Kanto Area. The forest has been designated as a Wildlife Protection area for the rare birds in the region.
• The Forest of Shimogamo Jinja covers over 495 hectares and has many different species of deciduous trees like the Zelkova, the Elm and the Hackberry. The Shrine itself has 53 buildings which have been designated as National Heritage Architecture.
• The Forest of the Kirishima Jingu covers and area of 887 hectares. Located near the Mount Kirishima Volcano, the forest has been destroyed and then recovered for over 60 times.
• The Forest of the Kasuga Taisha is home to the beautiful podocarpus Nagi. The forest also contains many species of evergreens and shrubs. Trees like the Kasuga, the Andromeda and the Ichii also grow there. People from all over Japan visit the venerated shrine in the quarterly pilgrimages.‘

[Source:  ^http://www.mapsofworld.com/japan/japan-tourism/forests-in-japan.html]

Japan’s sacred Aokigahara Forest

.

Ethics question for Yoshio Haga (President of Nippon Paper Group):

What moral right do the Japanese have to consider their own native old growth Aokigahara Forest more sacred than Australia’s sacred native old growth forests such as those across East Gippland?

Stump of Brown Mountain’s sacred 600 year old Mountain Ash old growth tree.

.

.

‘VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest

– habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.’

.

.

.

‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests – The precautionary principle in action’

The lead-up to the litigation

The legislative regime

Responsibilities for timber harvesting and forestry management

Legal challenge

EEG’s standing

• EEG uses the coupes to a greater degree than the general public (for example, the group has a “Valley of the Giants Old Growth Forests Walk” through the affected coupes);
• EEG’s predecessor was involved in the consultative process for the formulation of the applicable forest management plan; and
• the government has previously recognised EEG’s status as a body representing this sector of the public interest.’

.

The precautionary principle     [Ed: once again]

.

• a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage; and
• scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.

Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate … [The] degree of precaution appropriate will depend on the combined effect of the seriousness of the threat and the degree of uncertainty.

• whether the threat was able to be addressed by adaptive management measures (in this case the requirement for surveys and management zone reviews); and
• whether the measure alleged to be required (here the permanent injunction against logging the coupes) was proportionate to the threat in issue.

VicForests is specifically required to apply it [the precautionary principle] having regard to the results of monitoring and research as they come to light during operations. … The requirements of the precautionary principle fall to be considered in the light of the whole of the evidence bearing on these matters as it now is and not as it was at the time VicForests completed planning.

Outcome

• creating or amending special management zones, special protection zones and retained habitat areas to protect the Long-footed Potoroo, Greater Gliders and Yellow-bellied Gliders (as relevant);
• undertaking further surveys for the Giant Burrowing Frog, Large Brown Tree Frog and Spotted-tailed Quoll; and
• completing a current review of the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl Management Areas,

Significance of the decision

• The precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.
• Parties having an obligation to apply the precautionary principle cannot demonstrate compliance with the principle solely through departmental approval of their actions or relevant approvals under the regulatory regime; the precautionary principle is an active obligation that applies throughout operations, requiring parties to respond to new information as it arises.
• The precautionary principle applies throughout all stages of operation, not just the strategic planning (or approvals) stage.

• The precautionary principle is embedded in many other statutory regimes in Victoria and around Australia, apart from the Victorian legislative regime for forestry and the protection of endangered species.  The decision has implications for any statutory regime in which the principle is enshrined.
• Although VicForest is a state-owned enterprise operating within a highly regulated environment, there is scope for the decision to be applied to other types of entities operating within industries where the precautionary principle is relevant.

Action points

• to implement the precautionary principle as per the principles laid down in Telstra, parties need to ask:
  • is there a real threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment?
  • if yes, is it attended by a lack of full scientific certainty (in the sense of material uncertainty)?
  • if yes, is the threat non-existent or negligible?
  • if no, is the threat able to be addressed by adaptive management and is the measure alleged to be required proportionate to the threat in issue?
• the principle must be applied at both the strategic decision making stage of a project, and throughout the operational stage; and
• it may not be sufficient to simply obtain and comply with project approvals – parties need to proactively respond to new information as it arises throughout the operational stage.’

.

..

.

Further Reading:

.

[1] >Vicforests’ Ecological Genocide

.

[2] ‘Nippon buys Maryvale mill‘, by Ian McIlwraith, The Age newspaper, 20090217, ^http://www.theage.com.au/business/nippon-buys-maryvale-mill-20090216-89bu.html, accessed 20110826]

.

‘Paperlinx will take a $600 million hit on its half year results and the future of its Tasmanian operations is under review after last night unveiling the partial sale of its Australian papermaking business.

Japan’s Nippon Paper Group will buy most of Australian Paper, which includes the Maryvale pulp mill in Gippsland, for more than $700 million, including taking on attached debt and a three-year profit share agreement.

Money from the sale, expected to be completed in June, will go to reducing PaperlinX’s debt burden to about $340 million…’

[Editor:  So Paperlinx was in debt to the Australian Tax Office by over a billion dollars?  How can Australia’s pulp industry be profitable then?]

.

[3] Australian Paper Watch website  (providing information about the logging of Victoria’s forests to make paper products such as Reflex by Nippon Paper and their ‘subsidiary’ Australian Paper), ^http://www.australianpaper.forests.org.au/

.

[4] Nippon Paper’s Maryvale Mill Upgrade, ^http://www.reflex.com.au/2008-Maryvale-Mill-Upgrade/

‘Australian Paper has a long history in the La Trobe Valley in Gippsland, Victoria, dating back to 1937 when established. Today, the Mill is Australia’s largest integrated pulp and paper operation.  In response to global paper trends and changing consumer expectations for our products, Australian Paper (Nippon Paper subsidiary) embarked on a major upgrade of the Maryvale Pulp Mill in 2006 which was completed in December 2008. With an investment of $350 million, the upgrade significantly expanded the Mill’s production of bleached pulp capacity and delivered a range of safety, health and environmental benefits.’

.

[5] ‘Loggers, activists clash over forest‘,  by Adam Morton, The Age newspaper, 20110817,  August 17, 2011, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/loggers-activists-clash-over-forest-20110816-1iwew.html
.

‘Conservationists have held up timber workers in a fiercely contested area of native forest on Melbourne’s fringe for nearly a month, chaining themselves to bulldozers and climbing trees scheduled for logging.
The protest, which has led to at least 10 arrests, is expected to reach a climax today as activists and local residents march into the logging coupe outside Toolangi in Victoria’s central highlands.

Protest organisers claim they have evidence the coupe is home to the endangered Leadbeaters Possum, which scientists say is under threat after Black Saturday bushfires wiped out up to half its habitat.  But the Department of Sustainability and Environment says there has been no sign of live possums. Department spokeswoman Kim Payne said one tree in the coupe had hollows that showed evidence of possum use.  That tree would be left standing, but the coupe did not meet the legal criteria of prime possum habitat and could otherwise be logged.

Sarah Rees, director of Healesville-based group My Environment, said it was cruel to think a possum could be protected by retaining a single tree while taking away the forest around it.  She said logging was hurting central highlands communities.

.
”Tourism based on the state forest is far more important to the local economy than forestry and the two cannot co-exist,” she said.

The conflict over the Toolangi State Forest was the focus of a public meeting in the area late last week when logging opponents verbally clashed with forestry workers, who accused the activists of restraint of trade. One contractor said he had lost about $80,000 due to the protests.

David Walsh, spokesman for state commercial timber agency VicForests, said the Toolangi protests had cost forest workers significant time.  Only about a quarter of the 19-hectare coupe had been harvested. He said gates raised to ensure public safety had been damaged. ”VicForests believes these are legal harvesting operations which comply with the detailed legislative framework governing native timber harvesting in Victoria,” he said.‘

.

Editor:  The legal doctrine of ‘restraint of trade’ sought to be applied in the commercial exploitation and destruction of old growth forests, is an invalid excuse.  It is a contemptible euphemism for a ‘right to rape’ old growth ecology that is being contrived by commercial lawyers profiting from the exploiters ~ a case of the morally bankrupt collaborating with the damned.

[6]   Ethical Paper website,  ^http://www.ethicalpaper.com.au/

.

[7] My Environment website, ^http://www.myenvironment.net.au/

.

– end of article –