Archive for the ‘Threats from Deforestation’ Category

Pilliga Forests under ongoing attack

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Pilliga Forest

The early morning sun illuminates fresh forest grasses

beneath a stand of young native White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla), Feb 2010

^http://huntervalleyjournal.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html

.

The Pilliga Forests

‘The Pilliga‘, also traditionally known as ‘The Pilliga Scrub‘ is a vast western woodland – the largest continuous remnant of semi-arid woodland in temperate New South Wales, Australia. The Pilliga comprises the largest remaining area of native forest west of the Great Dividing Range, covering about 500,000 hectares between the Namoi River in the North and Warrumbungle Ranges in the South. The Pilliga is part of the Brigalow Belt South bioregion. Australian land mass is divided into 85 bioregions. Each bioregion is a large geographically distinct area of similar climate, geology, landform, vegetation and animal communities. [Read More]

The Pilliga is characterised by native white cypress and iron bark forests, broom bush plains, vivid spring flowers and abundant fauna. The forest contains at least 300 native animal species, with at least 22 endangered animal species including such favorites as the Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Squirrel Glider, Koala, Pilliga Mouse (Pseudomys pilligaensis) and Rufous Bettong, and at least 900 plant species including species now widely grown in cultivation as well as many threatened plant species. The forest spans about 3,000 square kilometres of land. Some towns that surround the forest include Narrabri, Pilliga, Gwabegar, Baradine, Coonabarabran, Boggabri and Baan Baa. Some areas of the forest, particularly in the Western Pilliga, are completely dominated by “cypress pine” (Callitris spp.), however there are a vast number of distinct plant communities in the forest, some of which do not include Callitris pine. Another dominant sub-canopy genus are the Casuarinas, while Eucalypts dominate the canopy throughout the forest. Much of the area is State Forest under the management of the New South Wales Government, which effectively means that it is unprotected.

The name ‘Pilliga’ (or ‘Billarga‘) is an Aboriginal word meaning swamp oak (Casuarina trees). The name was borrowed back in the mid 1800’s as the name of one of the original grazing runs, near where the town of Pilliga now stands. [This theory is contracted by Les Murray in his Forward in Eric Rolls‘ seminal 1981 book ‘A Million Wild Acres‘, who accounts at page iv…”the Pilliga (from Kamilaroi peelaka, a spearhead”).

The geology of the area is dominated by the Pilliga Sandstone, a coarse red/yellow Jurassic sandstone containing about 75% quartz, 15% plagioclase and 10% iron oxide,[2] although local variations in soil type do occur. Sandstone outcrops with basalt-capped ridges are common in the south, while the Pilliga outwash areas to the north and west are dominated by alluvial sediment from the sandy, flooding creeks.

Nuable Creek in flood, Pilliga 2004

Source: David Brodrick, 2004, ^http://www.narrabriweather.net/events/10Dec2004.html

.

There is a vast network of roads throughout the scrub, many of which are former forestry roads. The forest once supported a large forestry industry in the surrounding towns (harvesting mostly cypress pine and ironbarks) however this has been greatly scaled back since 2005 when much of the forest was set aside for environmental conservation by the NSW government.

[Sources: ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilliga_forest, ^http://narrabri.net/Document1.aspx?id=1872]

According to the Narrabri Shire Visitor Information Centre, the Pilliga Forest… ‘is one of the largest native cypress forests in Australia and hosts an abundance of wildlife including koalas, kangaroos, possums, echidnas, goannas, emus and its very own species of mouse, the Pilliga Mouse. The area is renowned for its glorious wildflowers which can be found in the Forest year round, with particularly impressive displays in Spring. The Baradine Community has developed three wildflower routes through the Forest. The “Wildflowers of Baradine and the Pilliga’.

[Source: ^http://www.visitnarrabri.cfm.predelegation.com/index.cfm?page_id=1051&page_name=Wildflowers%20in%20the%20Pilliga]

.

‘The Pilliga’..after rain

‘Prolific rain on the northwest plains of New South Wales

quickly results in a swelling of rivers and creeks,

followed by a profusion of growth and renewal.

.
Many centimetres of very welcome rain covered the black soil grazing pastures and agricultural properties

surrounding the village of Baradine over the first weekend of February, 2010.

We were there to witness this amazing natural event.
Sheets of water rapidly cover the vast plains,

draining into gullies and creeks, and filling rivers.

Many outlying unsealed roads become impassable,

and the town is temporarily isolated.

But life goes on with relative normality,

albeit with joyous appreciation of the blessings the downpour will bring.’

[Source: HunterValleyJournal, http://huntervalleyjournal.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html, Feb. 2010,]

.

Where is ‘The Pilliga’?

Location of ‘The Pilliga’ as shown by the distribution map of the native Pilliga Mouse

Australian Department of Environment et al.

[Source: ^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=99#recovery_plan_loop]

.

The Pilliga Forests

lie between the towns of Coonabrabran in the south and Narrabri in the north

situated in north western New South Wales in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion.

[Source: ^http://maps.bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=56925&cmd=sp]

.

The Pilliga’s history of colonial exploitation

‘Following many thousands of years of Aboriginal occupation, European settlers started arriving around the early 1830’s. These settlers established grazing runs throughout the forests, which then comprised a few well-scattered large trees over a grassy understorey. Aboriginal burning and grazing by Kangaroo Rats had kept the forest floor clear of regeneration until that time.

The introduction of cattle and sheep resulted in significant ecological changes. The soils deteriorated and the mix (and grazing quality) of the native grasses changed. The Kangaroo rats were displaced. The 1970’s and 1880’s produced a prolonged drought that saw most of the grazing runs abandoned. Then, during the late 1880’s and early 1890’s, there was a succession of good seasons and, in the absence of grazing pressure and regular burning; massive regeneration of native cypress and eucalyptus took place across much of the Pilliga.

The spread of rabbits to the area in the early 1900’s prevented any further regeneration events in the Pilliga until the introduction of myxomatosis in the 1950’s. With the demise of the Rabbit, a new pulse of young cypress and eucalypt seedlings was able to get up and away.

The cypress regeneration from the late 1800’s forms the basis of the timber industry operating from the Pilliga today. The 1950’s and subsequent growth is being managed to provide a sustainable supply of timber to industry for generations to come. In 1999, there were over 150 jobs dependant on the timber resources of the Pilliga and the industry provides the backbone of many small communities on the fringe of the Pilliga.

Wooleybah Sawmill, Pillaga

(NSW Heritage Office)

.

Between the 1920’s and mid 1990’s, over 5 million railway sleepers were cut from ironbark grown in the Pilliga.

Ironbark is still used to produce fence posts and drops for electric fencing systems, where the non-conductivity of its heartwood provides a unique advantage.’ [Source: ^http://narrabri.net/Document1.aspx?id=1872]

The Pilliga is susceptible to bushfire – by lighting, arsonists and incompetence.

[Source: clubr8255’s photostream, http://www.flickr.com/photos/32053650@N03/with/3038473001/

.

The endemic ‘Pilliga Mouse’

‘Endemic‘ means found naturally nowhere else on the planet.

The Pilliga Mouse (Pseudomys pilligaensis ) is a small native murid rodent found in the Pilliga Forests ecosystem. It is listed as Vulnerable in Australia and is endemic to the Pilliga Forests of New South Wales.

The Pilliga Mouse is very sparsely distributed and appears to prefer moist gullies, areas dominated by extensive coverage of low grasses and sedges, broombush and areas containing an understorey of kurricabah (Acacia burrowii) with a bloodwood (Corymbia trachyphloia) overstorey. It is nocturnal and appears to live in burrows.

Its main threats are from logging operations that destroy the understorey particularly broombush, inappropriate fire regimes (broadscale and frequent bushfire management), predation by ferals (foxes, cats and wild pigs/boars)
.
[Source: ^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=99]

.

The Pilliga… now threatened by Mining

‘Eastern Star Gas coal seam expansion in Pilliga under federal investigation’

(Article on ABC Rural, 20110721, ^http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201107/s3274633.htm]

The Federal Government is investigating whether Eastern Star Gas is in breach of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conseration Act at its coal seam gas project in NSW’s Pilliga forest.

The project is expected to result in the first large-scale coal seam gas operation in NSW. The Pilliga forest is the largest remaining temperate woodland in eastern Australia.

Chief Executive Officer of the National Conservation Council, Pepe Clark is calling on Santos, which owns Eastern Star Gas, to either desist or defer work until they have Federal approval.

A Silhouette of Pillage

Eastern Star Gas’s coal seam gas development in the Pilliga State Forest,

which is having a profound effect on the Bohema creek water quality and flow which flows into the Murray River

© The Wilderness Society, Photo by Dean Sewell, May 2011

.

‘Pilliga coal seam gas developments breach Federal environmental law: report’

(Article by Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 20110719, ^http://www.nccnsw.org.au/media/pilliga-coal-seam-gas-developments-breach-federal-environmental-law-report)

‘Eastern Star Gas has conducted coal seam gas exploration and production activities in the Pilliga forest without seeking federal assessment on matters of national environmental significance, according to a report by the Northern Inland Council for the Environment, The Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

The report, Under the Radar, was released today following the recent purchase of Eastern Star Gas by one of Australia’s largest domestic gas producers, Santos.

“Eastern Star Gas has undertaken extensive coal seam gas exploration and production without seeking federal approval. This is likely to have damaged the habitat of iconic threatened species such as the Pilliga Mouse and the Regent Honeyeater,” said Warrick Jordan, Campaign Manager at the Wilderness Society Newcastle.

“Santos is taking on the most environmentally destructive and contentious gas project in NSW. As the new owner, Santos should look carefully at the damaging impacts of this proposal and immediately desist or refer all existing operations in the Pilliga for proper assessment.

“We are asking Tony Burke to immediately ‘call-in’ all existing Eastern Star Gas operations in the Pilliga under federal environment laws. Eastern Star should not be able to get away with destroying our natural heritage,” he said.

$What the frac$

The Under the Radar report found coal seam gas operations in the Pilliga have cleared more than 150ha and fragmented 1,700ha of bushland, drilled 92 coal seam gas wells, constructed 56.6km of pipelines, and operated 35 production wells without seeking approval under the Federal EPBC Act. These activities have occurred in habitat for federally-listed threatened species, such as the South-Eastern Long-eared Bat.

“Under Commonwealth legislation, any potential impacts on nationally-threatened species must be referred to the Environment Department for approval. Eastern Star Gas has been flying under the radar to avoid this process in the Pilliga,” said Pepe Clarke, CEO of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

“Eastern Star has recently applied for Commonwealth approval for a large new coal seam gas field in the same area of the Pilliga as existing operations. If these future operations trigger federal environment laws, then so do the existing operations and Santos should immediately cease those operations and be refer them to the Federal Government”,” he said.

“The question remains, will Santos continue Eastern Star’s reckless attempts to turn the iconic Pilliga Forest into an industrial coal seam gas field? If Santos can’t be trusted to abide by environmental laws now, they cannot be trusted to manage the environmental impacts of NSW’ biggest coal seam gas development,” said Carmel Flint, of the Northern Inland Council for the Environment.

Under the Radar report summary

The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) makes it illegal to undertake an activity that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on matters of national environment significance. These prohibitions are set down in Part 3 of the EPBC Act 1999, in s18 and s20 respectively.

There are at least 24 matters of national environmental significance, as defined by the EPBC Act, which occur within the Pilliga Forest section of the Eastern Star Gas Petroleum Exploration Licence 238 and Petroleum Assessment Lease 2. These include known, likely, and potential habitat for 15 nationally threatened species (4 endangered, 11 vulnerable), and known or potential habitat for 9 migratory birds listed under international conventions.

Environment groups have conducted a detailed assessment of the likely impacts of current coal seam gas activities in the Pilliga Forest on matters of national environmental significance, by applying the Guidelines for Significant Impact set down by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). These are the same guidelines that should have been applied by Eastern Star Gas to assess the impacts of the activities.

The following coal seam gas activities have been undertaken in PEL 238 and PAL2:

1. The drilling and on-going management of more than 92 coal seam gas bores and coreholes

2. The conduct of 482km of seismic surveys

3. The construction and management of 56.6km of gas and water gathering pipelines

4. The development and management of five production fields, encompassing 35 production bores

5. The construction and management of a gas-fired power station at Wilga Park, including an upgrade of the station from 10MW to 40MW

6. The construction and operation of 1 reverse osmosis unit

7. The construction and management of 13 major water treatment dams/impoundments and numerous drill ponds

8. The discharge of treated produced water into the Bohena Ck, part of the Murray-Darling Basin.

9. The bull-dozing of numerous roads and tracks to facilitate the construction and operation of works listed above.

None of these activities, nor the whole action combined, has ever been referred to the Federal Government for consideration of the likely impacts on federally-listed species under the EPBC Act 1999. There is no Federal approval in place for the action.

The environmental impacts of these activities include: direct destruction of at least 150ha of native vegetation that is habitat for federally-listed species; heavy fragmentation of an area of 1,700 ha of native vegetation leading to the spread of invasive species; creation of artificial watering points at more than 13 different locations representing a risk to wildlife; introducing numerous sources of pollution through the use of chemicals and the handling and disposal of produced water; direct alteration of the ecology of a creek system for up to 22km; increased fire ignition sources and introduction of a flammable gas into an already fire prone environment; an overall disturbance footprint across 44,700ha of bushland.

Applying the Guidelines for Significant Impact, the report concludes that the impacts on federally-listed species are likely to be significant because of the intensity at which they have occurred, as well as:

The extraordinary national and international conservation significance of the environment in which it is occurring;
The sensitivity of the ecosystem given the scale of extinctions that have already occurred in the mammal fauna and the scale of decline now evident in the bird fauna;
The substantial geographic area affected;
The high cumulative impact in the context of other threats (other mining and gas developments, background clearing rates, climate change, invasive species, logging, and high intensity and frequent fires);
The low level of confidence with which the impacts are understood; and
the context in which it occurs of a heavily cleared and highly fragmented landscape with very low levels of reservation.
The measures put in place by Eastern Star Gas to avoid or mitigate impacts are inadequate to prevent such impacts, and their effectiveness is uncertain and not scientifically established.

..

.

‘Farmers see threat in $900m Santos buyout’

(Article by Ben Cubby and Brian Robins, in Sydney Morning Herald, 20110719, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/farmers-see-threat-in-900m-santos-buyout-20110718-1hlq7.html)

‘A GAS exploration company chaired by the former deputy prime minister John Anderson will be bought out for $900 million, in a move expected to pave the way for the first large-scale coal seam gas drilling operation in NSW.

The resources giant Santos will buy Mr Anderson’s Eastern Star Gas, which has plans to drill more than 500 gas wells in the Pilliga scrub, near Narrabri, the largest surviving remnant of temperate woodland in eastern Australia.

The plan has already sparked fierce resistance from some farmers, who have said they will lock their gates rather than allow drilling rigs on their grazing land. Many are concerned that the controversial fracking technique, which can lead to groundwater contamination, will be used.

Santos said it recognised the objections people had to coal seam gas drilling, and would campaign to win public support.

”We are confident these issues can be addressed,” said the chief executive, David Knox. ”We’re going to set the right pace and bring [the community] along, as we prove things up … We recognise the criticality of working with local communities.”

Last month Santos launched a television advertising campaign, saying that coal seam gas was ”a fuel for the future” and that the company had previously forged good relationships with rural land-holders.

Mr Knox said the federal government’s introduction of a carbon price would increase demand for gas instead of coal, which generally had higher greenhouse gas emissions.

The acquisition will make Santos the state’s biggest holder of coal seam gasfields.

Opponents say the construction of hundreds of wells, and a network of roads linking them, would industrialise the landscape. ”What’s being allowed here is an uncontrolled experiment on the Australian environment,” said Drew Hutton, a campaigner with the anti-coal seam gas group Lock the Gate Alliance.

Initial surveys prepared for Eastern Star indicate the area is home to many threatened animal and plant species, including the Pilliga mouse, black-striped wallaby, glossy black cockatoo, painted honeyeater and barking owl.

From the beginning of June the Moree Plains Shire Council has placed a 60-day moratorium on seismic surveys, drilling or exploration for coal seam gas, to allow the council and community time to study the implications of proposals.

A report produced by the Wilderness Society said the project was of national significance and should be independently assessed by the federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke.

“The Pilliga project, if it proceeds, will have a devastating impact on the environment,” said a Wilderness Society campaigner, Warrick Jordan.

”It will clear 2410 hectares of valuable bushland across the eastern Pilliga, including in a state conservation area, pose risks to the Great Artesian Basin, produce massive amounts of saline water, and the associated pipelines and wells will impact surrounding agricultural areas.”

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW also said that work already done on the site meant it should be referred to the federal government.

Tony Pickard, a farmer whose land falls within the proposed gas well area, said the first he had heard of the proposal was on a government website that showed dots on his land representing gas wells. Mr Pickard has vowed not to allow drilling on his land.

A NSW Greens MP, Jeremy Buckingham, is travelling through the state speaking to people who oppose coal seam gas extraction.

”To have an energy giant like Santos move in and take over means that the project is much more likely to go ahead,” Mr Buckingham said.

Santos footprints in The Pilliga

.

‘Under the Radar – new report lifts the lid on Eastern Star Gas operations’

– Article by The Wilderness Society, [Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/coal-seam-gas/under-the-radar-new-report-lifts-the-lid-on-eastern-star-gas-operations] .

‘Eastern Star Gas has been trashing parts of the Pilliga since 2004, avoiding environmental laws in the process. A new report by the Wilderness Society, the Northern Inland Council for the Environment, and the Nature Conservation Council has exposed this scandal.

The Pilliga Forest is home to a host of threatened species, including the Pilliga Mouse and the Regent Honeyeater. Many of these species are listed under the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

When a company wants to develop a project on a site with nationally listed threatened species, they are required by law to refer the project to the federal environment department.

Eastern Star Gas has been exploring for and producing coal seam gas in the Pilliga Forest since 2004. This has resulted, amongst other actions, in the clearing of 150 hectares of forest, fragmentation of a further 1700 hectares, and the dumping of waste water into creeks.

The ‘Under the Radar‘ (1.35MB – pdf) report concludes that Eastern Star Gas has impacted threatened species habitat, and should have sought federal environmental assessment for its operations. All current and proposed activities should be suspended, and assessed by the Commonwealth Environment Department.

Eastern Star Gas, after ignoring environmental legislation, now wants to build the biggest coal seam gas project in NSW in the Pilliga. They promote this destructive project as environmentally friendly and well managed.

Eastern Star has been exposed as a company that will get away with what it can if it thinks no-one is looking.

Well, now we are watching, and we’ll be ensuring, with your help, that the unique Pilliga Forest won’t become an industrial wasteland.’

.

‘A national treasure or an industrial wasteland?’

– Article by Carmel Flint in the Colong Bulletin, No. 241, July 2011, pp.1-2, reproduced with premission of The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Inc.

Coal seam gas has recently emerged as a massive threat to the future of the Pilliga Forest, in north-west NSW. The Pilliga is located between Narrabri and Coonabarabran, and covers an extraordinary 500,000 hectares of intact and contiguous bushland.

The Bibblewindi water pollution ponds are one of ten constructed during the Pilliga ‘exploration’ phase.

So far there are 1,100 well heads planned for gas extraction just in the eastern quarter of the Pilliga alone.

Photo: T Pickard

One tends to run out of superlatives very quickly when it comes to the conservation significance of the Pilliga.

It is the largest temperate woodland left in eastern Australia and the southern recharge area for the Great Artesian Basin. It’s surface waters flow into the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is the single most important biodiversity refuge area remaining in the NSW Wheat-Sheep Belt.

The Pilliga is home to more than 25 threatened or migratory species that are listed under federal laws and at least 48 threatened species under NSW law. It includes the only known population of the endemic Pilliga Mouse, the largest Koala population in western NSW and the only known Black-striped Wallaby population in western NSW. It represents the national stronghold for populations of the Barking Owl and the Southeastern Long-eared Bat within eastern Australia.

It is an internationally recognised Important Bird Area, with particular significance for the Painted Honeyeater and Diamond Firetail. It is also recognised as an important part of the East Australian Bird Migration System, and is located in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion which is one of only 15 biodiversity hotspots recognised by the Federal Government across the nation. It is mostly public land, either State Forest, State Conservation Area or National Park, and it has recognised wilderness values.
Coal seam gas companies have been conducting exploration in the Pilliga for about 10 years now, and they have already done considerable damage. Under the guise of exploration, they have to date drilled 92 coal seam gas wells, constructed 46.2km of pipelines, conducted 394.2km of seismic surveys, constructed 1 gas compression station and 1 reverse osmosis unit, developed five pilot production fields encompassing 35 boreholes, produced and delivered gas to a local power station, constructed
10 major water treatment dams/impoundments, discharged produced water into a local creek system and bulldozed numerous roads and tracks. This, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. In April this year Eastern Star Gas applied to the Federal Government for
an environmental approval to move to full production in the Pilliga Forest.

They want to put in 1,100 wellheads and 1,000km of pipelines across the eastern section of the Pilliga, clearing at least 2,410 hectares and fragmenting 85,000 hectares.

Associated with this proposal are two pipelines – one to a proposed gas-fired power station at Wellington and another to a proposed new LNG export facility at Newcastle. By incorporating the first ever major LNG export facility, this Pilliga proposal will effectively open up the whole state to a massive expansion in coal seam gas. And, if that is not enough, it is very clear that this is only the beginning of the project. Having reviewed the data on coal seam gas potential across the companies full exploration licence (PEL238) we estimate that they will ultimately drill 7,100 boreholes, develop 7,000km of pipeline and clear more than 8,000 hectares of land across the Pilliga Forest and farmlands to the north.
Coal seam gas will destroy, fragment and degrade the integrity of this natural treasure. It will transform a thriving, living ecosystem into a heavy industrial zone with massive impacts on fauna and flora. It will dramatically increase fire risk and forever
change the nature of this wildflower wonderland.

If you don’t accept such an appalling transformation, then please act now to do something about it.
Email carmelflint@tpg.com.au to get involved and keep updated on what you can do.

.

[2] The Permaculture Research Institute of Australia, ‘Save Pilliga – NSW’s Largest Temperate Woodland’,

^http://permaculture.org.au/2011/05/25/save-pilliga-nsws-largest-temperate-woodland/

‘Save Pilliga – NSW’s Largest Temperate Woodland’

— by Cate Faehrmann May 25, 2011

Introduction

Eastern Star Gas has applied for approval under both state and federal regulations to develop a massive coal seam gas field of around 550 gas wells in the State Forests of The Pilliga. Commonly known as the ‘Pilliga Scrub’, this unique woodland is near Narrabri in northern NSW. The gas project is set to clear over 2,400 hectares of native vegetation and will forever change the landscape of the Pilliga.

The Pilliga Scrub is a highly significant area in terms of the state’s biodiversity. It is known to be the largest continuous remnant of semi-arid woodland in temperate New South Wales and contains many threatened animal and plant species such as the Pilliga Mouse, Black-striped Wallaby and South-eastern Long-eared Bat.

Email the Minister now and ask him to protect the Pilliga Scrub from coal seam gas.

Black-striped Wallaby, a mostly nocturnal animal under threat from land clearing, and now, coal seam gas.

The gas field and the related infrastructure proposals (including two major regional pipelines) have been determined to be ‘controlled actions’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This means they will require the approval of Minister Tony Burke and the Federal Department of Environment. There is also a proposal from Eastern Star Gas being referred for a LNG export processing facility at Kooragang Island at Newcastle.

At the NSW Government level, the projects are being assessed by the Department of Planning under Part3A. The Director General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the environmental assessments were issued in December 2010, but this was not made public until after the recent state election. You can view them here.

This is the biggest coal seam gas field ever proposed in NSW and the first ever LNG export facility in the state. However, it looks to be just the beginning. Eastern Star Gas, headed by former Nationals Leader and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, has not revealed their full plans for the area. Coal seams extend underneath almost the entire Pilliga Scrub, and this initial proposal covers 85,000ha of a 500,000ha vegetation remnant. Extrapolating these figures, 550 wells now could mean as many as 3,000 wells in the future. You can read more about the EPBC referrals for the Narrabri Gas Field here at the Federal Environment Department’s website.

The four project components

Development of a major coal seam gas field in the Pilliga Scrub
A pipeline from Narrabri to Wellington (via Coolah)
A pipeline from Coolah to Newcastle
An LNG export facility at Kooragang Island at Newcastle

Existing activities

Eastern Star Gas Limited (ESG) is the operator of the Narrabri CSG Joint Venture (NJV). Some 35% of the CSG interest in PEL 238 is strata titled to Santos. The Chairman of ESG is John Anderson, former National Party politician. The Narrabri Coal Seam Gas Project is being developed by the NJV.
ESG developed the Wilga Park Power Station in 2004, and supplied it with gas from the Coonarah Gas Field on private land to the north of the Pilliga.
In 2006, a number of closely spaced well production pilots were developed in the Bohena and Bibblewindi fields in the Pilliga Scrub. In 2008, approval was granted for a gas pipeline from the pilot wells in the Pilliga to the Wilga Park Power Station and the expansion of the power station. The expected supply of gas from the Coonarah Gas fields did not eventuate, and the station has been utilising production gas from the pilot wells. The NJV currently has an MOU with ERM Power for the provision of gas to a new gas fired power station at Wellington over a 20 year period commencing in 2013.

Gas field development

The proposed gas field development area covers approximately 85,000 ha and includes Pilliga East State Forest, Bibblewindi State Forest, Jacks Creek State Forest, and Pilliga East State Conservation Area, plus some small areas of Crown Land and private land. The project aims to produce, process, compress and transport CSG from within Petroleum Exploration Licence 238, Petroleum Production Lease 3 and Petroleum Assessment Lease 2.

The project proposal includes the following:

550 production well sets, initially, on a 500m spacing
1,000 km of gas and water gathering systems (ie pipelines)
access tracks (through the Pilliga Forests)
a co-located gas processing and compression plant
a centralised water management facility
Ancillary infrastructure such as offices and workshops.

Impacts

The gas production will clear at least 2,410 hectares of native vegetation!

The area that is being targeted includes:

A rich variety of heritage sites, including a rock shelter, burials, a grinding groove, scarred trees, open sites, stone artefact scatters and isolated finds.
An Internationally recognised Important Bird Area.
Known or likely habitat for 25 nationally listed threatened species and five nationally listed Endangered Ecological Communities.
Known or likely habitat for 48 state-listed threatened species and five state-listed Endangered Ecological Communities including:
Pilliga Mouse – known only from the Pilliga Scrub, this nationally vulnerable species has a total distribution of only 100,000 hectares. It will be severely impacted by the direct habitat loss, increased predation, and fragmentation leading to impacts on dispersal.
Black-striped Wallaby – endangered in NSW, the northern Pilliga is the only known location of this species in western NSW. Requiring dense vegetation, it is extremely vulnerable to clearing, fragmentation and increased predation.
Malleefowl – considered endangered in NSW and nationally vulnerable, has been recorded previously in eastern Pilliga. It is highly vulnerable to increased predation and fire.
South-eastern Long-eared Bat – the Pilliga Scrub is recognised as the likely national stronghold for this vulnerable species (NSW and Federal). It prefers large, intact stands of native vegetation, and is at risk of fragmentation, loss of hollow trees, and uncovered saline ponds. Numerous other threatened bat species face similar risks from the proposal.
Glossy Black Cockatoo – a very significant western population of the Glossy Black Cockatoo occurs in the Pilliga Scrub.
Squirrel Glider, Koala and Eastern Pygmy Possum – which are all likely to be severely impacted by the direct habitat loss, fragmentation (and particularly its impacts on mobility and dispersal), and increased predation.
Grey-crowned Babbler, Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin, Speckled Warbler – and numerous other declining woodland birds for which the Pilliga represents a major refuge area. Those species are all threatened by increased fragmentation and predation.
This area of the Pilliga Scrub is prone to severe, high intensity fires that burn very quickly through vast areas. The proposal to have a massive compressor facility located in the Pilliga, and 550 well production sets, represents a very serious fire risk and has the potential to render a regular Pilliga hot burn to a catastrophic level.

Water resources

The Eastern Star Gas proposal suggests that it intends to use lateral drilling rather than hydraulic fracturing (fracking), but it does not explicitly prohibit or rule it out. There is inadequate assessment of the impacts on groundwater and aquifers, including the Great Artesian Basin. The proposal is extremely vague as to what it plans to do with the water that is produced as a by-product of the extraction process. Currently it states that it will use “a combination of storage and evaporation with tertiary treatment and discharge (environmental flows) for co-produced water management”. Produced water contains a range of naturally occurring substances that are likely to be harmful to the environment and human health. It is highly saline, and can also contain toxic drilling and fracturing chemicals. Eastern Star Gas commits to the development of a Water Management Strategy, but in the absence of such a strategy it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on biodiversity or the environment of produced water.

Take action to save the Pilliga Scrub

The Pilliga campaign will no doubt be the next big fight to protect biodiversity in NSW. The coal seam gas industry is expanding rapidly, and governments are largely taking the advice of industry on the environmental impacts.

As a first step, please send a message to the Federal Environment Minister requesting he reject the project under the EPBC Act. You can write your own personal email by contacting him here. Or simply fill out the form here to send him a generic message.

As the Greens environment spokesperson, together with my colleague Jeremy Buckingham as the Greens mining spokesperson, we’ll be building a campaign to save the Pilliga from coal seam gas and to protect its unique biodiversity. Check back here soon for more information on how you can help save the Pilliga Scrub.

.

[3] Pilliga Nature Reserve

^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkHome.aspx?id=N0464

.

[4] GreenLeft, ‘Pilliga Forest new CSG battlefront‘

^http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47934

‘Pilliga forest new CSG battlefront’

By Kate Ausburn, 20110618

.

The Pilliga State Forest in northern NSW will be turned into a gas field if the government approves Eastern Star Gas‘s (ESG) mining proposal for the region. The proposal set out by ESG seeks to develop the Pilliga into the state’s largest coal seam gas (CSG) project.

The development would include the drilling of more than 1000 gas wells and the clearing of vast stretches of native bushland to make way for gas pipelines and other associated infrastructure, such as a water treatment facility and access roads. ESG is already carrying out smaller scale gas development in the Pilliga, as the operator of the Narrabri CSG Joint Venture.

In 2006, ESG developed coal seam gas production pilot wells in the Pilliga. A gas pipeline was also approved and built to carry gas from these wells to the Wilga Park Power Station, which was built by ESG in 2004.
As well as the wells now used to produce gas, some capped, unused gas wells remain behind barbed wire fences in cleared areas of the Pilliga. At least one expansive pond holding wastewater produced by coal seam gas extraction sits amassing algae on its surface.
ESG’s plans for large-scale expansion of coal seam gas operations in the Pilliga have been criticised by environmental groups and landowners from the region.

The Greens NSW environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann explained the scale of ESG’s proposal: “The proposed gas field development area covers approximately 85,000 hectares and includes Pilliga East State Forest, Bibblewindi State Forest, Jacks Creek State Forest, and Pilliga East State Conservation Area, plus some small areas of Crown Land and private land.”

Despite the NSW government’s recent introduction of “transitional agreements” to regulate the expanding coal seam gas industry, ESG’s Managing Director David Casey is hopeful about the future of his company’s proposal for the Pilliga.

In a May 25 Open Briefing document, Casey said ESG continues to “monitor opportunities and development pathways with a view to ensuring early commercialisation of the project for the benefit of shareholders …

“Currently, our best estimate is that Federal and NSW regulatory approvals will be in place … in early 2012.”

However, The Wilderness Society’s Warrick Jordan said on June 16 that “given the scale of the project and current uncertainty over NSW mining and planning policy” ESG’s timeline would be difficult to fulfil.

“Estimates of state and federal approval being in place in six months appear wildly optimistic,” he said.

“The assessment requires full community consultation and proper consideration of environmental impacts on 85,000 hectares of forest, 1600 km of pipeline, a RAMSAR wetland, the marine environment, and the Great Artesian Basin.”

Local community and environmental groups came together on June 9 to tour the Pilliga and discuss campaigning strategy to minimise risks associated with coal seam gas and safeguard the environmental integrity of the region.

The coalition of groups will combine their efforts to campaign against expansion of coal seam gas mining in the Pilliga.

The Wilderness Society said on June 16:

“The project area in the Pilliga is a recharge area for the Great Artesian Basin and includes habitat for threatened species, endangered ecological communities, and an area protected under legislation for its natural values.”

.

Links to articles on the dangers of Fracking Coal Seam Gas:

.

[5] ^http://www.thegreenpages.com.au/news/fracking-coal-seam-gas-may-poison-organic-farms/

[6] ^http://ntn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NTN-CSG-Report-July-2011.pdf

[7] ^http://www.envirowiki.info/Coal_seam_gas

[8] ^http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/energy-smart/origin-stops-coal-seam-gas-drilling-after-chemicals-found-in-water-20101020-16ud7.html

[9] ^http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/fracking-threatens-wa-water-resources/story-e6frg19l-1226010221897

[10] ^http://lockthegate.org.au/csg-facts/csg-factsheet.cfm

[11] ^http://dea.org.au/news/article/fracking_for_coal_gas_is_a_health_hazard

[12] ^http://theconversation.edu.au/coal-seam-gas-could-be-a-fracking-disaster-for-our-health-1493

.

Community Solidarity:

The Coal Seam Gas industry is selfishly exploiting Australian resources for corporate profit, much of which is channelled to foreign owners and investors offshore. In the process, coal seam gas exploration, drilling, fracking and the carcinogenic B-TEX chemicals used are destroying Australia’s natural environment and arable land – bulldozing habitat and spewing salt above ground, while below ground chemically poisoning Australia’s Great Artesian Basin and ground water. The industry is one of extreme discretionary greed and arrogance, perpetuating local environmental rape, pillage and plunder.

If you think your area is the only one concerned about coal seem gas , think again.

The following communities around Australia are being exploited by coal seam gas corporations:

Camden, NSW
Helensburgh and the Illawarra, NSW
Pilliga, NSW
Liverpool Plains, NSW
Wellington, NSW
Gunnedah Basin, NSW
Gloucester, NSW
Broke, NSW
Wollombi, NSW
Northern Rivers, NSW
Cooper Plains, SA,
Otways, Vic
Tara, Qld
Cecil Plains, Qld
Darling Downs, Qld

Follow similar community campaigns at the following links:

[1] ^http://www.gabpg.org.au/downs-farmers-challenge-csg-water-claims

[2] ^http://stop-csg-illawarra.org/

[3] ^http://www.keerronggassquad.org/

[4] ^http://www.stopcoalseamgas.com/

[5] ^http://www.kateausburn.com/2011/07/05/first-for-nsw-protest-stops-coal-seam-gas-rig/

[6] ^http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/tara-residents-blockade-queensland-gas-company-to-stop-seismic-testing/story-e6freoof-1225903149452

[7] ^http://lockthegate.org.au/tara/

[8] ^http://huntervalleyprotectionalliance.com/

[9] ^http://macarthur-chronicle-camden.whereilive.com.au/news/story/insert-web-head-here-62/

[10] ^http://www.zimbio.com/Australia/articles/P4B7C9pLq7Y/STOP+GLOUCESTER+Coal+Seam+Gas+Mining+near

(The above websites were accessed 20110809)

-end of article –

Tags: A Million Wild Acres, a silhouette of pillage, AGL, Apex Energy NL, B-TEX, Bringalow Belt South, Eastern Star Gas, former deputy prime minister John Anderson, fracking coal seam gas, Origin Energy, Pilliga Coal Seam Gas, Pilliga Forests, Pilliga Mouse, Pilliga yowie, Queensland Gas Company, Santos, the Pilliga, what the frack
Posted in Mice (native) and Antechinus, Pilliga (AU), Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Colonising Species, Threats from Deforestation, Threats from Mining | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

‘World Forestry Day’ = World Logging Day

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

The following article was initially posted Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net 20090422, and subsequently updated.

Logging a road through old-growth rainforest

Atherton Tablelands, Far North Queensland

[Source http://foekuranda.org/]

‘World Forestry Day’ on 21st March is a greenwash promotion by the logging industry. It has the same meaning as the oxymoronic ‘eco-logging‘ (see above photograph).

[‘Eco=logging‘ means that we do leave some trees, sometimes. Some dodgy entrepreneur in South America has tried to register the name ‘ecologging’ as a trademark [^Read More] ]

The concept sounds noble enough on the Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) site:

“World Forestry Day has been celebrated around the world for 30 years to remind communities of the importance of forests and the many benefits which we gain from them. The concept of having a World Forestry Day originated at the 23rd General Assembly of the European Confederation of Agriculture in 1971.”

But hang on a second!

…a “Confederation of Agriculture” …this suggests a different set of values than anecological respect for native forests; somewhat more to do with agriculture (aka ‘logging‘). But I let the Victorian Government’s Dept of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) site continue:

“Forests provide many valuable things for the whole community. These include fresh water from forested catchments, a safe home for our flora and fauna, timber for our homes, furniture and paper, beautiful scenery and rugged environments for those who enjoy the outdoors, pollen and nectar for honey production, and archaeological and historical sites.”

“Today, Victoria has an area of approximately 22.7 million hectares. About 40% is public land, meaning that it is owned by the State and managed by the government. There are about 4.8 million hectares of publicly owned native forest which is divided into the following categories: National parks and reserves – 1.7 million hectares, State forest – 3.1 million hectares.”

“Less than one third of Victoria’s state forests are available for timber harvesting and these forests produce more than two million cubic metres of wood products which return about $50 million in revenue to the State.”

Ah Ha! So it’s all about revenue FROM our native forests, not a about being FOR our native forests! That phrase ‘timber harvesting‘ conveys such wholesome overtones of good honest pastoral labour, except it’s bloody logging forests! The term has been borrowed by poachers slaughtering kangaroos who euphemistically label the wildlife crime as ‘kangaroo harvesting‘.

So why not just rename this green-washing ‘World Forestry Day‘ what it really is: a celebration of logging – and rename it ‘World Logging Day‘?

DSE on its site suggests:

‘What can I do on World Forestry Day?” ..well children (the propaganda targets school children):

“Celebrate World Forestry Day by visiting your local forests and learning more about the many contributions they make to our well-being. For further information and ideas, see our Forest Education Information.” This link then takes the children directly to the ‘For Schools;’ section of its website which sends a key mesage [sic] to students that ‘forests have many different uses and values.” A second link takes children direct to the hardcore logging site of the Department of Primary Industries”.

[SOURCE: ^http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfor.nsf/childdocs/-8E773CD126CA22704A256AA40000EDEE-034EBCC6B1670D984A256AA40011A9F8?open]

Proud logger

Forests should be celebrated in their natural state, not by their exploitative revenue potential. Pity that we are now celebrating these in islands and outside the mainstream media. The contrasting ‘Earth Hour’ hype of late seems so token, yet attracts such mainstream publicity and has even Peter Garrett as its cheerleader! But beyond people thinking about turning off lights, Earth Hour pales in addressing irreversible planet damage compared with any day that recognizes the value of global forests.

Recognising natural undisturbed forests and the ‘green carbon’ benefits they contribute to a healthy global future is more important than token politics. As advocated by Professor Brendan Mackey in an article in EEG’s The Potoroo Review (current Spring/Summer 2008-09 edition, p9), “estimates that around 9.3 billion tones of carbon can be stored in the 14.5 million hectares of eucalypt forest in southeast Australia IF THEY ARE LEFT UNDISTURBED.”

While one supports the celebration of native forests in their natural place, the drawback of World Forestry Day is that the forestry industry has corrupted the word ‘forestry’ into a vernacular meaning of ‘exploitation value’.

.

World Forest Day – online propaganda during 2010

In 2010, if one searched ‘World Forestry Day’ online, one got the following suspicious results:

Google Search #1: Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (aka Victorian Government)…say no more

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfor.nsf/childdocs/-8E773CD126CA227 04A256AA40000EDE E-034EBCC6B1670D 984A256AA40011A9 F8?open

Search Result in 2011:

Google Search #2: NSW Department of Primary Industries | Forests (a chainsaw endorsed site)

http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/publication/forest_facts/celebrating_ trees_forests/default.asp

Search Result in 2011:

.

Google Search #3: Global Education, but linked to ‘DSE’ after scrolling down the page

http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/publication/forest_facts/celebrating_ trees_forests/default.asp4: Better Health Victoria

(another Victorian Government website)

Search Result in 2011:

Google Search #4: Better Health (Victorian Government again)

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcevent.nsf/pages/DF43C04B6CC6D19E CA257250007C8F46 ?opendocument

Search Result in 2011:

So when searching ‘World Forestry Day‘ online, clearly Australian state governments’ greenwashing has set up prime presence.

[Editor: The above government links have disappeared consistent with government short-termism].

.

NAFI Propaganda

Equally the National Association of Forestry Industries (NAFI) ^http://www.nafi.com.au offered a propaganda page on World Forest Day during 2011.

NAFI’s logo

.

NAFI boasts that it is..

‘the peak forest industry body in Australia representing a wide variety of companies involved in forest management, wood processing, commercial tree plantation growing, timber sales and distribution, carbon offset growers, forestry harvesters, haulage contractors, and engineered wood products manufacturers. NAFI also represents the interests of forestry research bodies, timber community groups and state forest industry bodies.’

Not surprisingly NAFI is located within a ten minute drive of Parliament House Canberra, with a politician never out of earshot.

NAFI’s VISION THING

‘The vision of NAFI is for an ecologicaly [sic] sustainable Australian society based, in part, on a dynamic, internationally competitive forest industry.’

Clearly drafted by an expensive consultant, it is utopian in its desire for harmonious co-existence between making a buck from logging forests, and conserving the ecological values of those same forests. In other words having one’s cake and eating it too. Pity they couldn’t spell ‘ecologically’.

Yet, conspicuously, ‘ecologically sustainable’ is missing in NAFI’s Objectives.

NAFI’s OBJECTIVES

Improve the commercial results and investment attractiveness of the forest industries through favourable government policy decision and actions (i.e. make money from logging).
Create a preferred position for the Australian forest industries in the rapidly changing international framework of treaties, codes of practice, standards, conventions and legislation. (i.e. influence law making so that more money can be made from logging).
Achieve widespread community recognition of the social, environmental and economic benefits of forest industries. (i.e. drive a propaganda strategy to win hearts and minds that logging is good).
Support and promote innovation, research and development. (i.e. pay universities to write reports to show that logging is good).
Improve market opportunities and competitive advantage in order to increase demand for forest products and achieve consumer satisfaction (i.e. market logging).
Achieve maximum utilisation of Australian resources within a framework of an open and competitive market. (i.e. be efficient by logging all the forest and invite others to join in).
Service members needs and maximise industry ownership and involvement in the Association. (i.e. lobby loggers interests for more forests to log and build numbers to maximise political influence)

Without compromise, the above objectives convey a single minded focus on commercial logging of forests.

.

NAFI’s BIGGER LOGGER LOBBY GROUPING: ‘AFPA’

Consistent with the NAFI objectives (not the VISION), in April 2011 the Australian Forest Products Association (AFPA) was formed through the merger of the Australian Plantations Products and Paper Industry Council (A3P) and the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI). Nothing uncertain about the motives of this organisation. Anyone who profits from logging is represented by AFPA – ‘tree plantation growers, harvest and haulage contractors, sawmillers, forest product exporters, and pulp and paper processors’. The new website is ^http://www.ausfpa.com.au/site/

Not surprisingly, AFPA is strategically located in NAFI’s offices, just a ten minute drive from Parliament House, Canberra, with ready access to the hearts and minds of Australia’s federal politicians.

A few weeks prior on 21 March 2011, a gala dinner was staged between the loggers and the politicians up the road at Parliament House, Canberra to (believe it or not) celebrate the United Nations’ Declaration of 2011 as the ‘International Year of Forests’. The logger body’s response to 2011 being the ‘International Year of Forests’ has been to unite loggers into a single united mighty lobbying force for logging – the AFPA.

“A single voice, a single association, is a clearer and more concise way to present the forest products industry to governments, the media and the people of Australia in a united fashion.”

– Linda Sewell, transitional Chairperson of AFPA and A3P Chairperson, after announcing the creation of AFPA in Canberra on 21 March 2011.

No surprise who is on the Transitional Board of AFPA – loggers and logging product merchants one and all:

Ms Linda Sewell, HVP Plantations (Transitional Chairperson)
Mr Bryan Tisher, Boral Timbers (Transitional Treasurer)
Mr Greg McCormack, Midway Ptd Ltd
Dr Hans Drielsma, Forestry Tasmania
Mr Ian Telfer, WA Plantation Resources (WAPRES)
Mr Jim Snelson, Carter Holt Harvey (CHH)
Mr John McNamara, Hyne & Son
Dr Jon Ryder, Australian Paper
Mr Terry Edwards, Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT)
Mr Vince Erasmus, Elders Forestry

A more apt logo for the Logging Industry

The motives for World Forestry Day are nothing but blatant pro-logging propaganda.

Stihl Chainsawing Old-Growth

…’are you looking for the best chainsaw for cutting trees?’ ~ quote from Stihl’s website.

The term ‘Existence value’ deserves to be further explored and promulgated, so we can develop a greater non-utilitarian value of our natural and now rare forests. Our precious forest exists for their own sake, the forest ecosystems they support and of which we have so little comprehension of their global existence value and scarcity.

– end of article –

Tags: AFPA, Australian Forest Products Association, DSE, eco-logging, forestry, General Assembly of the European Confederation of Agriculture, greenwashing, logging industry, NAFI, National Association of Forestry Industries, Stihl, stihl chainsawing old-growth, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, World Forestry Day, world logging day
Posted in Threats from Deforestation, Threats from Greenwashing, Threats from Road Making | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

A ‘certified sustainable’ Tasmanian future

Friday, July 29th, 2011

Trucks Logging Tasmania

[Source: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/the-triabunna-experiment]

‘A peace deal between Tasmania’s forestry industry and environmental lobby has been secured by a $274 million government package, raising hopes the long-running conflict is near an end.

‘The deal hammered out at the weekend by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings, has the full backing of industry but was criticised by green groups.
The deal ensures existing major logging contracts can be met from forests outside the protected areas but halves the key sawlog quota. The package confirms the reservation of 430,000 hectares of native forest around the state, including the Tarkine rainforests of the island’s north-west and ‘a sprinkling of mountainous coastal forests around the east coast’.

‘With the lion’s share of funds to come from the Commonwealth, the package’s big-ticket items are $85 million to workers and contractors who lose their jobs in industry restructuring, $120 million in extra regional development money for Tasmania and $43 million to implement the changes.

‘The strategically important Triabunna woodchip mill, bought by wealthy environmentalists Jan Cameron and Graeme Wood last week, is to keep operating. But its chips will need Forest Stewardship Council certification, meaning an end for the mass woodchipping of old growth that so divided Tasmania.

‘But one of the chief negotiators, Phill Pullinger of Environment Tasmania, said critical points still lay ahead in translating the weekend’s federal-state heads of agreement into a fully operational process.

‘The federal Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the agreement was a ”Labor-Labor-loggers‘‘ outcome.

”The popular expectation that a 610,000 hectare system of wild forest national parks would be established, as the loggers were bailed out of their failing industry, has been dashed.”

[Source: ‘$274m buys hope that bitter logging dispute is at an end‘, by Andrew Darby, The Age newspaper, Hobart, 20110725]

A Forestry Tasmania Footprint

‘There has always been good reason to preserve Tasmania’s native old-growth forests. But two years ago the bitter, protracted conflict between loggers and conservationists took a decisive turn.

‘Scientists at the Australian National University revealed that the moist, cool forests of south-eastern Australia are the most carbon-dense environments in the natural world. They store on average more than twice the carbon per hectare than moist, tropical rainforests, which are a more familiar focus of global environmental concerns. Then in May this year, Australia’s new Climate Commission identified the preservation of these forests as critical in limiting Australia’s emissions “while the slower process of transforming energy and transport systems unfolds“.

‘Likewise, the commission estimated billions of tonnes of carbon could be sequestered from the atmosphere if logged areas were reafforested. Add to that the novel intervention of two entrepreneurs who recently paid $10 million for a Gunns sawmill – just so they could close it down – and it seems the three-decade-old impasse over Tasmania’s native forests has finally been broken.

‘This weekend’s $274 million federal government package, which puts 430,000 hectares of native forests off-limits to loggers, is a historic first step. True, the deal between environmentalists and the timber industry is a compromise and not everyone is happy. But the agreement does recognise two crucial claims: the urgent need to protect native forests from further commercial encroachment and the legitimate demand for compensation from communities that have long lived from logging. Tasmania’s small regional economy is vulnerable, which is partly why logging, and the jobs it supports, have long been such a divisive issue. Equally, the dispute has been deadlocked for want of an alternative vision.

‘Globally, forest clearing is responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. With a carbon tax coming in Australia and numerous carbon trading schemes already operating around the world, such extraordinary carbon sinks as Tasmania’s old-growth forests now have an economic value, not just an ecological one.

‘At the same time, the competitiveness of Tasmania’s woodchip industry has been declining because of the high Australian dollar and low-cost plantations elsewhere. Tasmania’s green credentials have been compromised by images of protesters chained to trunks and of magnificent, ancient trees being felled to satisfy the world’s appetite for woodchips, pulp and disposable chopsticks.

‘Australia’s smallest state should now be able to position itself favourably for the low-carbon economy of the future. That does not rule out supplying high-quality, high-value timber sourced from “certified sustainable” plantations to an environmentally discerning local and global market.’

[Source: ‘Old-growth valued at last‘, Sydney Morning Herald, Editorial, 20110725, p.10]

.

Editor’s comment:

Government bail out of a 19th Century exploitative industry with taxpayer millions is expedient short term politics ~ throwing other people’s money at the problem. The Labor Gillard Government has just pitched a $274 million bail out package to Forestry Tasmania and its dependents, but as usual the devil is in the detail. That funding is stretched over ten years and is split between the Federal and Tasmanian governments. It seems only $85 million is being made available from Gillard’s bail out in the current year. Her press release (copy below) is unclear on this. Moreover, while $85 million is welcome to Tasmanians, at the same time as Premier Lara Giddings announced recently, Tasmania has been denied a total of around $1.5 billion in expected GST revenue and State taxes from the Federal Government. Tasmanian revenues are being controlled by Canberra. Canberra is treating Tasmania as a welfare state, and a welfare state is what Tasmania is becoming.

Twenty-first Century leadership for Tasmania requires triple-bottom line innovative problem solving, listening to all the people of Tasmania.

It is incumbent on Tasmanians themselves to strategise a long term competitive and independent vision for Tasmania’s economy and society that respects Tasmania’s natural values. Twenty-first Century political leadership would see the national government encourage this, facilitate a transition process (and not deny GST funding) to trust and enable the island elected Tasmanian Government itself to implement the transition strategies as it sees fit. The transition process demands a quantum investment in vocational education of Tasmanians. So where is that strategy?

The crux of Tasmania’s triple bottom line problem in all this is that ‘Tasmania’s small regional economy is vulnerable!’

Overhaul and nurture Tasmania’s regional employment to ‘certified sustainability’, since only then may Tasmania’s regional social and ecological systemic problems be resolved with broad community support.

In the editor’s view, Tasmania has sufficient natural resources, clean-green industries and innovative entrepreneurs to give New Zealand and its ‘pure’ brand image a run for its money. Tasmania’s natural and human capital just need to be tapped, nurtured and professionally marketed…globally.

The following extracts provide some background reading in this issue. Readers can make up their own minds.

.

Background Reading:

What is the Tasmanian Government’s strategy?

Start with the lead agency, termed the ‘Tasmanian Planning Commission’

Well it seems its strategy is mainly about urban development. “The current main strategic national priorities are:

Capital city strategic planning
Development assessment reform
Housing affordability
Climate change (however that is dealt with)
Retail competition.”

What the hell is the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s terms of reference, or is there some other entity delegated to consider Tasmania’s ‘whole of island’ planning?

READ MORE: ^http://www.planning.tas.gov.au/the_planning_system/national_planning

.

…meanwhile…’Prime Minister’s press release on the future of ‘Tasmanian Forestry’, 20110724

‘Australian and Tasmanian Governments support the future of Tasmanian forestry‘, Sunday 20110724, jointly by the Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania

[Source: ^http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/australian-and-tasmanian-governments-support-future-tasmanian-forestry]

‘Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings today announced an historic agreement on the future of forestry in Tasmania. In the face of changing market conditions, both in Australia and around the world, it has become clear that the pressure on the Tasmanian forestry industry in its current form is not sustainable. Today’s agreement will secure jobs, ensure a sustainable forestry industry, and achieve iconic environmental outcomes by protecting High Conservation Value forests and remaining old growth forests for future generations.The Heads of Agreement, backed by up to $276 million, will also support workers and their families affected by industry restructure.

Under the Heads of Agreement:

The Australian and Tasmanian Governments will provide up to $85 million in immediate assistance for workers and contractors who are losing their jobs and livelihoods as a result of industry restructure. This will include employee assistance, retraining and relocation support and assistance for voluntary permanent exits from native forest operations for haulage and harvest contractors (what to?);
Facilitate sustainable opportunities for the Tasmanian forestry sector with the Tasmanian Government guaranteeing at least 155,000 cubic metres per year in wood supply, 12,500 cubic metres per year of speciality timbers, subject to verification and 265,000 cubic metres of billets, with existing wood supply contracts to be honoured and the Australian Government to fund a voluntary exit mechanism to enable further native wood supply capacity to be retired and reserve areas increased when suitable plantation wood supply is available;
The Tasmanian Government will reserve and protect 430,000 hectares of native forest from within the 572,000 hectares nominated through the Statement of Principles process, and place the full 572,000 in informal reserve subject to an independent verification process of conservation values and compatibility with yearly guaranteed wood supply, led by Professor Jonathan West. The findings will determine the area of High Conservation Value forest to be reserved, with $7 million a year for their ongoing management to be provided by the Australian Government following incorporation into formal reserves;
$120 million in Australian Government investment over 15 years, including $20 million in 2011-12, to develop and diversify the Tasmanian economy to drive new job opportunities for Tasmanian families, including through job-creating projects (such as?) in communities affected by forestry restructure. A new ministerial advisory council to be chaired by Mr Bill Kelty AC will drive new regional development opportunities and a new place-based investment Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two governments; and
The Australian Government will provide $43 million to implement the Heads of Agreement including funding for a range of activities such as working with communities through the transition and provide voluntary compensable exits to sawmillers wishing to exit the native forestry industry.

The Heads of Agreement is consistent with the Statement of Principles agreement between environment non-government organisations, the Tasmanian forestry industry and the CFMEU, which was presented by independent facilitator Mr Bill Kelty last month.
It means the forestry industry can continue on a sustainable footing, and guarantees ongoing supply for existing businesses that are critical to supporting jobs and regional communities in Tasmania.The Australian and Tasmanian Governments thank the signatories to the Statement of Principles and Mr Kelty for their commitment and hard work. The Statement of Principles process and the Heads of Agreement reached today creates an opportunity to move forward after decades of conflict and build a stronger future for Tasmania.Governments recognise the significant challenges faced by the industry in the face of global economic and market conditions as well as the historic opportunity provided by forestry and environmental parties coming together to agree on a framework for delivering a sustainable future for the forest industry and the environment. We also recognise that these challenges, as well as the decision by Gunns Limited to exit from native forestry, will have significant impacts on workers, communities and the Tasmanian economy.The Governments clearly expect that following today’s historic agreement environment and industry stakeholders will end the long-running conflict over native forestry. The Governments also expect that the Tasmanian Parliament will pass the required legislation by 30 June 2012. The Australian and Tasmanian governments will work together to identify and support regional economic development through a partnership to create investment and jobs opportunities, particularly for regional communities..
The Australian and Tasmanian Governments will also work together to examine and identify potential opportunities from increased reserves from the Commonwealth Biodiversity Fund. In October last year, the Tasmanian forestry industry and several environmental non-government organisations reached a Statement of Principles for protecting native forests and developing a sustainable timber industry in Tasmania. The Australian and Tasmanian Governments appointed Mr Bill Kelty as an independent facilitator to facilitate talks on the Statement of Principles agreed to between environment non-government organisations, the CFMEU and the forestry industry in Tasmania.’

.

…meanwhile…’Independent Strategic Review of Forestry Must Examine Auditor-General’s Report’

by Kim Booth MP, Greens Member for BassKim Booth MP, Greens Forestry spokesperson, Wednesday, 20110706

[Source: ^http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2011/07/independent-strategic-review-of-forestry-tasmania-must-examine-auditor-general%E2%80%99s-report-and-no-further-public-bail-out-without-parliaments-approval/]

‘The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Minister for Forests to ensure that the current independent Strategic Review into Forestry Tasmania includes the Auditor-General’s Special Report 100, Financial and economic performance of Forestry Tasmania, saying that the Report makes it clear that Forestry Tasmania is a failed business and in urgent need of restructure..

Greens Forestry spokesperson, Kim Booth MP, also called for a commitment that no further public monies will be used to bail out Forestry Tasmania from any financial difficulties without such a funding injection first coming before the Parliament.

“I have long been on the record warning the Minister that Forestry Tasmania is a rogue agency that has been unable to return a sustainable commercial rate of return for the Tasmanian public, and is in fact a drain upon the public purse,” Mr Booth said.

“As Shareholder Minister, it is incumbent on him to take responsibility for the fact that the Auditor General formed the view that whilst the ‘expectation of Forestry, and the environment in which it operates, changed fundamentally’ over the last 15 years, the ‘business and funding model did not keep pace with these changes.”

“This Report by the Auditor-General is relevant to the independent Strategic Review of Forestry Tasmania, and the Greens believe it must be formally submitted for the Review’s consideration.”

“With Forestry Tasmania crying poor and the suggestion that more public money might be required to pay their employees superannuation how will the Minister reassure Tasmanians that he will take a more active role in ensuring hard-earned public money is not thrown into the bottomless pit that is Forestry Tasmania?”

“Any further injection of public funds, to bail out this underperforming GBE, should not occur without first seeking Parliament’s approval of any conditions set upon which public money is provided,” Mr Booth said.’

.

…meanwhile…’What the community thinks of the forest peace talks’

Media release by Forestry Tasmania, 20110724.
[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news-room/media-releases/what-the-community-thinks-of-the-forest-peace-talks].‘Forestry Tasmania has this morning released a new opinion poll to provide negotiators with an insight into what the community expects out of the forest peace talks.Managing Director Bob Gordon said the survey conducted by respected pollster EMRS for Forestry Tasmania was to his knowledge the only attempt by any of the parties to gain a credible gauge on the community’s expectations and its results therefore could be useful as the Federal and State governments edge closer to a final agreement.

“Finding a durable long lasting agreement that embraced the community’s wishes was always going to be a challenge, and that is reflected in the survey results. The survey found the community wants to strike a balance between environmental outcomes and jobs. When asked to nominate important outcomes, nearly two thirds mentioned protecting old growth forests while 60 per cent nominated jobs. It also found the community overwhelmingly believed that any additional reserves should be determined by rigorous scientific analysis, while less than one in five people thought the State should simply agree to the request by environmentalists to lock up (read ‘save’) 572,000 hectares. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that any agreement must include independent verification of the so called high conservation value forests, if it’s to win community acceptance.”

Mr Gordon said governments also had a communications challenge ahead. “More than half of respondents did not believe they had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the peace talks.”

The EMRS survey of 600 people in late June was part of an ongoing series of tracking surveys that FT has commissioned since August 2008. Mr Gordon said he was delighted that Forestry Tasmania’s reputation had remained strong during a period of considerable turmoil.

“FT’s rating as a good corporate citizen had slipped slightly, but 56 percent had a positive perception of FT compared to 28 per cent with a negative view. “This particular survey indicates there has been a significant shift in community expectations since the previous survey 12 months ago. The community is becoming more concerned about employment and the economy. For example, the percentage of those wanting FT to focus on creating jobs was now at its highest level since March 2009. On the other hand, the percentage of those wanting carbon to be the highest priority had dropped from 30 per cent two years ago to just 13 per cent now.”

.

…meanwhile…’Tasmania – $111 million better off with Forestry Tasmania’

Media Release by Forestry Tasmania, 20110722
[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news-room/media-releases/tasmania-111-million-better-off-with-forestry-tasmania]

‘Forestry Tasmania has launched a new television advertising campaign highlighting the contribution made by the timber industry to rural Tasmania.The new commercial was shot in Geeveston featuring local workers earlier this week and goes to air for the first time tonight. Forestry Tasmania’s Managing Director Bob Gordon said the commercial draws heavily on the recently released Auditor General’s report into FT’s financial and economic performance, which found Tasmania was $111 million a year better off with Forestry Tasmania operating.

“This report debunks the myth peddled by anti forestry activists that FT and the native forest industry is heavily subsidised and Tasmania would be better off without it. “The fact is the future of many rural and regional communities would be at risk if there was a sudden halt to native forestry. Forestry is the life blood of many, many country towns in Tasmania, and already many are suffering as a result of the forestry downturn.”

Mr Gordon said the $111 million referred to by the Auditor General was conservative.

“Last year, the final value of products produced from state forest timber was $563m – and that’s in a year where forestry was dealing with its worst downturn in memory. That $563m supported in the vicinity of 3,000 full time direct jobs. There are many more workers that indirectly depend on the income from forestry – in retail, hospitality, transport and service sectors. “It’s important to remember that the $111m is just FT’s contribution, it doesn’t include the contribution of the local sawmiller, the local contractor, veneer mills and furniture makers that rely on the wood products harvested from State forests. The full value of the timber industry is around $1.4billion.”

Mr Gordon said FT had committed $14,000 in airtime for the new commercial.

“I’m not going to apologise for spending that money on keeping the community informed and our brand healthy. Too many people depend on FT maintaining a good, strong reputation for us to become squeamish about spending dollars on advertising.”

FT will soon release the results of its latest EMRS poll, measuring corporate brand. The results show FT remains one of the most respected brands in Tasmania, remaining ahead of eight other key businesses and GBE’s.

“Community support for the work we do is still very strong, but this poll is significant because jobs are emerging as the number one issue. People still want a balance between development and the environment, but they think the balance has tipped too far in favour of green ideology, and not enough emphasis is being placed on jobs, particularly in rural and regional communities.”

.

…meanwhile…’Step forward for Tasmania’s forests’

Media release by The Wilderness Society (Tasmania), 20110725

[Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/tasmania/step-forward-for-tasmanias-forests]

After a campaign lasting more than three decades, the end is now closer than ever in the battle to protect Tasmania’s unique native forests.

With the Prime Minister and Premier Giddings finally coming to the negotiation table, the full implementation of last year’s forest agreement is now in sight. Back in May this year, we suspended our involvement in the Tasmanian forest talks. This was due to inaction by both the Federal and Tasmanian Governments in implementing the forest agreement that was signed by environment groups and the timber industry in October 2010. Now the two governments have finally shown the leadership we have been calling for and the implementation of the historic agreement can now begin.

“This is an important day in the history of the 30-year battle to save Tasmania’s magnificent forests,” said Wilderness Society Tasmania Campaign Manager Vica Bayley.

While the full Statement of Principles has not yet been implemented, this is a major step forward. The next steps in the process will be crucial to bringing a lasting peace in the forests.

Sunday’s signing of the Heads of Agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian Governments maps out a process to immediately protect 430,000 hectares of high-conservation value native forests, with a further 142,000 hectares set aside from logging and awaiting protection subject to verification processes.

The agreement also includes $128 million to assist logging companies and contractors to exit the industry. We will continue to work with other environment groups, unions, the timber industry and both governments to ensure all 572,000 hectares of high-conservation value native forests are protected within world heritage areas and national parks.

The proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill is not part of this latest announcement and the Wilderness Society remains opposed to its construction.

.

…meanwhile… back to the subject of Strategies for Tasmania…this is what Tasmania’s leader is focusing on:

‘Ministerial Statement: Tasmanian State Services Structural Reforms and Productivity Strategies’
by Lara Giddings Labor Premier of Tasmania

[Source: ^http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/hot_topics/ministerial_statement_-_tasmanian_state_service_structural_reforms_and_productivity_strategies, no date]

Introduction

“Mr Speaker, on the 10th of February I released the Mid-Year Financial Report.

The Report detailed the significant financial challenge we face in framing this year’s State Budget. Since then, we have heard in the Federal Budget that Tasmania will lose a further $343 million in GST receipts. That means we have now lost a total of around $1.5 billion in expected GST revenue and State taxes from the Forward Estimates.

Mr Speaker, we are faced with some difficult decisions to ensure we do not go back to the bad old days of the 1990s, when we had spiralling debt, and when we saw funds that should have been spent on services instead being used to pay the interest on that debt. I am determined not to allow the State Budget to slide back into that situation. How we will achieve that will be in next month’s Budget.

But today I want to announce some of the approaches the Government will be taking to help us to return the State’s finances to a sustainable footing while improving the productivity of the public service

In releasing the Mid Year Financial Report, I said the Government would implement a Public Sector Productivity Strategy, with the aim of achieving savings of around $200 million per annum by 2014 15.

Today I will give more detail about some of the ways we will achieve that. Our first priority has been to look at reducing expenses that do not impact on employment, such as phones, cars, travel and the like, but of course those things alone will not be enough to reach our savings target.

In simple terms, the measures I will announce fall into two broad categories. The first set is about making our public service more productive and more efficient The second set is about reducing the cost of our public sector. Both are critical if we are to restore the State Budget to a sustainable footing. The Government’s response to our Budget challenge is not about slashing costs just for the sake of it.

It is about returning the Budget to surplus so we can continue to invest in jobs and services that will ensure Tasmania remains a great place to live. It is about making the right decisions today so we can have a better future.

Mr Speaker, I am aware of the anxiety created in the public service by the Government’s need to find savings.

I know there are many hard working and dedicated public servants who are worried about how these changes might affect them. It is unfortunate that this period of uncertainty has been unavoidable as we work through the issues around the Budget. It is also disappointing that some have chosen to fill the vacuum while we were formulating our response with fear campaigns and misinformation.

In the meantime I have been discussing our approach with key stakeholders, unions, heads of agencies and my Labor and Green colleagues. I hope to be able to allay some of the concerns that have arisen by making it clearer how we will go about making those changes.

That is one reason that I have brought this announcement forward to today rather than leaving it to Budget day next month: so that people will know more about what is happening – and what is not – sooner rather than later.

I value the contribution of our public servants, and indeed strong public services are at the very core of Labor values such as equity, fairness and helping those most in need.

Mr Speaker, I will first outline to the House some of the measures we will be taking to achieve the productivity changes I spoke about – how we will go about achieving greater flexibility and efficiency.

This approach is about making the state service more contemporary, less bureaucratic and more accountable, with a more agile and productive workforce to meet future needs of the Tasmanian community.

Once I have done that I will outline the processes we will follow to reduce our costs. I will not be outlining the exact savings we will be making – that is an issue for next month’s budget.

But I will talk about the process we will follow to ensure employees are treated as fairly, flexibly, compassionately and openly as possible if their positions are identified as no longer being required. The reality is that employee salaries and associated costs make up over 50% of operational expenditure, and in some Agencies this percentage is as high as 70%. Savings in recurrent expenditure of the magnitude that we require can only be achieved through prioritising programs and achieving savings in Agency employment costs.

I have said repeatedly since I released the Mid Year Financial Report that redundancies, and particularly involuntary redundancies, would be a last resort. The measures I announce today are consistent with that approach and will maximise the opportunity for those affected to find new jobs with minimal disruption to their lives.

But where redundancies are required these reforms will ensure affected staff are treated fairly through a clearly understood process. Two of these measures will require legislative change but in large part they are entirely consistent with existing powers and processes

Although they will not be part of the Budget legislation, I will be asking members to agree to the necessary amendments to the Tasmanian State Service Act during the Budget session.

Independent State Service Review

Mr Speaker, one of the key steps we will take to address the productivity of our public sector relates to the longer term governance arrangements that should apply to State Service employment.

The State Service Act 2000 underpins all employment in the State Service and establishes governance, employment and structural arrangements for the Tasmanian State Service.

It is time to review these arrangements to guarantee the State Service remains able to meet the challenges of the future.

There are concerns about some aspects of the current arrangements including:

The clarity of lines of authority
Support for contemporary workforce management, which allows for flexibility to respond to service delivery, program or policy changes; and
The number of jurisdictions involved in appeals and reviews (e.g. State Service Commissioner, Tasmanian Industrial Commission, Integrity Commission, Anti-Discrimination Commission).

Mr Speaker, these are concerns that have been raised with me in my discussions with unions, agencies and other key stakeholders and I believe we must address them if we are to make our public sector the best it can be.So today I announce that the Government will commission, through our usual procurement processes, an independent review to examine:

Employer role responsibilities
The State Service Commissioner role and responsibilities
Head of Agency roles and responsibilities
Tasmanian Industrial Relations Commission roles
Appropriate grounds of appeal and the correct jurisdiction to determine appeals.

This review will involve consultation and discussion with all stakeholders, including staff, unions and other relevant bodies. In addition the reviewer will be asked to provide recommendations and propose a way forward which may involve amendments to the State Service and Industrial Relations Acts.

State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011

Mr Speaker, improving productivity is essential if we are to maintain a high level of service in the key front line areas – like health, emergency management and education – on which we all depend.Following consultation with agencies and key unions, the Government has determined that performance management, including dealing with underperformance, is a critical component of a Tasmanian State Service “reform agenda” to improve the efficiency and productivity of our public sector.It was also accepted that an authority is required within the legislation to enable us to assist those employees who are struggling or unable to perform the tasks required of them. Most of us want to know if we are not performing to the expectations of our employer, and we need to be given the feedback and the opportunity to improve.It is the Government’s duty as a responsible employer to work with staff to ensure they can perform to the best of their ability, which is good for their morale and career prospects, and obviously a boost for productivity and the quality of service we provide to the public.

We have a responsibility to strengthen our performance management processes, including better training for managers, and indeed that is an issue that unions have raised with me as a way of ensuring staff are given the feedback they need and deserve.

In response, I will be introducing the State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011 to amend the State Service Act 2000 to enable more active management of both performance and underperformance of state service employees.

The amendments will also provide a proper authority for the termination of those employees who after support is given are still unable to perform their duties effectively. It is important that this legislation be introduced at this time to distinguish between this and processes involving surplus employees.

These changes are not a ‘backdoor’ way of sacking people to reduce costs. They are about ensuring our public sector is working efficiently and effectively and providing taxpayers with value for their money. But if at the end of the day some individuals cannot meet those expectations we need a fair and open process to work through.

The provisions of the amendment will ensure that agencies adhere to “due process” (natural justice) in cases involving termination and provide authority to the Minister administering the State Service Act to ultimately, after due process, terminate employment of under-performing employees.

Workforce Renewal Incentive Program

Mr Speaker, I have already announced the implementation of a Workforce Renewal Incentive Program.

This program provides an incentive (of up to $20,000) to allow staff to separate from the State Service in certain circumstances, and gives us the opportunity to gain new skills and capabilities in the workforce.

The Program will allow Agencies to renew their workforce and maintain a balanced workforce profile to meet their priority objectives.

The Workforce Renewal Incentive Program is about ensuring the State Service has the right skills profile to meet the challenges of 2011-12 and beyond.

This approach has already been successfully implemented in the Education Department, allowing us to help renew the teaching profession and provide more opportunities for graduates.

Vacancy management

Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to the reforms that relate to reducing the cost of our public service.

These changes go to the processes we will follow in seeking to reduce our costs, and how we will attempt to minimise the disruption to the affected individuals in the process.

It is clear that we will not be able to maintain public service employee numbers at the current levels – it’s just not sustainable. Recognising this situation, the Government will put in place a range of measures designed to support Agencies in managing reductions in employee numbers.

As I have consistently said, redundancies will be the last resort. And if we do have to offer redundancies, they will be targeted and limited to positions that are no longer required. We will not be offering mass redundancies because they are too costly and they are not strategic.

Invariably when you open redundancies to anyone who wants to go you lose skills and experience that you did not want to lose. So, if we identify that a position is no longer required the first step we will take will be to see if the person in that position can be redeployed to a vacancy within their own agency.

Each agency has already implemented internal vacancy management measures. These will ensure that each position that becomes vacant will be fully reviewed before any recruitment process is started to determine:

• If it is essential for the position to be filled;
• If the classification level of the position is appropriate; and
• If there are any surplus employees within the agency able to fill the position.

Internal agency vacancy management also encompasses other strategies such as:

• the timing of filling the vacancy;
• the ability of the position to be filled on part-time or job-sharing basis;
• natural attrition following normal separation (abolition of funded vacancies);
• restructuring within Agencies where programs or services are to be discontinued;
• reviewing the need for specific fixed term employment;
• reassignment of duties to existing employees (within the Agency);
• increased approval of leave without pay applications;
• increased approval of secondments to organisations outside the State Service (where available);
• increased use of flexible working arrangements, such as part time employment; and/ or
• workforce re-profiling and utilisation of the Workforce Renewal Incentive Program that I mentioned earlier.

Inter-agency vacancies

Mr Speaker, if a member of staff who is surplus to requirements cannot be redeployed within their own agency the next step will be to see if their skills can be used in another agency.

I will be issuing a Ministerial Direction that details procedures to manage inter-agency vacancies. The Direction will ensure that there is a whole of government approach to matching surplus employees with vacancies that exist across all agencies.

It is essential that there is a consistent and coordinated approach to these strategies and the Public Sector Management Office (PSMO), within the Department of Premier and Cabinet is to be the single contact point for matching surplus employees and vacancies.

Where a Head of Agency is unable to identify suitable vacancies within the agency, he or she may recommend to the independent State Service Commissioner, who will oversee the process, that an employee be made available for redeployment in accordance with section 47 of the State Service Act 2000.

In the case of a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer, the Secretary of DPAC is advised.

Employees and officers accepted as surplus may be considered on a suitability basis for transfer to vacant state service positions in other agencies. Assessments of suitability will be undertaken by assessment panels established by agencies for that purpose. The purpose of a suitability assessment is to determine whether the referred employee/officer can satisfactorily carry out the duties either immediately or within a reasonable time given appropriate training and experience.

External placement of surplus employees

Mr Speaker, the next step if staff who are no longer required cannot be redeployed within government will be to see if we can assist them to find work externally.

The Public Sector Management Office will explore career or specific job opportunities external to the Tasmanian State Service for surplus employees and officers, including permanent and fixed term placements. The terms and conditions of any external placement will be negotiated with the relevant parties in accordance with Section 46 of the State Service Act.

PSMO will also establish a schedule of preferred providers that may be available to assist surplus employees. These will include, but not be limited to:

• Career Planning;
• Outplacement;
• Job search;
• Counselling (Employee Assistance Program);
• Financial management;
• Superannuation; and
• Taxation

Agencies may refer surplus employees at any time to the above support services and will, in consultation with their employees, decide the appropriate provider, type and level of advice to assist the employee.

Targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements

Mr Speaker, the Government is currently reviewing its targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements, and I would hope that these, combined with our vacancy control and redeployment measures, will help to minimise the need for any involuntary redundancies.

As I have already said, the emphasis of these arrangements will be on specific targeted redundancies within identified programs, rather than a general offer of voluntary redundancies across a range of program areas, as has been the previous approach.

This will better align our voluntary redundancy arrangements with the structural reform and productivity strategies required to meet our Budget task.

The renewed arrangements will also be designed to:

• place greater onus on Heads of Agency to consider and exhaust other options before offering voluntary redundancies;
• ensure greater emphasis on justifying the cost/benefit of voluntary redundancies before offers are made;
• improve flexibility by incentivising redundancies where other alternatives have been exhausted and early voluntary separation is both desirable and cost effective; and
• minimise the need for involuntary separations.

Changes to Section 47

Mr Speaker, currently the Tasmanian State Service Act provides for a twelve month redeployment period for employees declared as surplus under Section 47.

After much discussion within Government and Cabinet this period was considered to be too long. The Government did consider moving to a three month period but it was agreed that this was too short to allow all options for employees to be redeployed to be explored.

As a result, the Government intends to introduce an amendment to section 47 of the State Service Act which will limit the maximum redeployment period to six-months.

Some other jurisdictions do not specify any redeployment period for surplus employees, though they do require genuine attempts to be made to redeploy surplus employees before termination occurs.

Industrial precedent and decisions in Industrial Tribunals require that an employer demonstrate that redeployment attempts have not been successful, or are not available.

A six-month period is reasonable for inter-agency and alternative strategies to be properly explored. In some cases, particularly for an employee with highly-specialised skills and employment needs, the likelihood or otherwise of redeployment would be established well within this timeframe.

A six-month period appropriately balances redeployment requirements and the costs of continued employment. A longer period of uncertainty also has a negative impact on the employee and the workforce generally.

Involuntary redundancies

Mr Speaker, once all of the options I have detailed have been exhausted the very last step we may be forced to take is involuntary redundancies.

I can inform the House that the Government will not be seeking to amend Section 44 of the State Service Act to allow for involuntary termination on economic and operational grounds.

I recognise that some stakeholders were concerned that we might have chosen this path because they feared it could lead to widespread and abrupt redundancies without the type of redeployment options and voluntary processes I have spoken about today. This was an issue of particular concern to unions and my Labor and Greens colleagues.

Instead, if required we would seek to achieve the savings required through the existing provisions of Section 47 of the current State Service Act, which was introduced in 2000 by the Bacon Labor Government.

Section 47 provides for termination after it is has been declared that suitable redeployment has not been available through the various processes I have detailed. Previously, it has been unclear under Section 47 whether an involuntary redundancy package should be made available after this declaration is made.

To ensure there is no longer any doubt, the Government has agreed that, should this stage be reached, after the opportunity has been given to take a voluntary redundancy or pursue redeployment options over six-months, the affected employee will be entitled to a redundancy package.

This package should reflect a balanced and reasonable approach based on the need for “fair” treatment of our employees while recognising the financial benefit that accrues through having had a guaranteed six month paid redeployment period.

The package will contain a minimum payment consistent with the Targeted Voluntary Redundancy Arrangements. The package will also contain a ‘years of service’ payment.

The difference between the package for a ‘voluntary offer and acceptance’ and an involuntary redundancy will need to take into account the benefits that accrue to an employee who remains on redeployment for the full 26-weeks.

We will finalise the details of the involuntary redundancy entitlements following further discussion and consultation with the Unions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the current fiscal situation means the Government is no longer able to meet its budget targets, and we risk moving into an unsustainable position if action is not taken.

Improving the efficiency and productivity of the state service, and reducing our costs, are key strategies we will be implementing in the coming months. But this is also about strengthening our public sector so it can better perform its key role – providing services to the Tasmanian community.

It is important to remember that the majority of employees will not be affected by decisions that identify programs that are no longer required. But I am very conscious that the changes we need to make should be done fairly and openly so we can minimise concerns among staff and the impact on the affected individuals.

That is why I have detailed today the measures we will be implementing and the processes we will be following, and I will ensure that all of our public servants are made aware of what we will be doing.

And I hope that by releasing more details about the direction we will be taking we can allay some of the concerns and fears that have arisen in recent weeks, and we will continue to work with staff and unions as we work through this process.

I believe these changes will lead to a more productive and efficient public service. They will reduce the Government’s costs at a time of financial pressure, and they will do so in a way that gives affected staff the best chance of finding alternative employment. And for employees who find themselves in areas where the positions they occupy are no longer required, it is critical that the alternatives available to them should be fair and clear.

I believe the range of measures I have announced today will help us to achieve all of these goals as we negotiate the difficult times ahead.”

.

– end of article –

Tags: certified sustainable, Environment Tasmania, forest peace talks, Forest Stewardship Council certification, Forestry Tasmania, Gunns, Julia Gillard, Lara Giddings, logging trucks, old growth, Phill Pullinger, sawlog quota, Strategies for Tasmania, Tasmania welfare state, Tasmania's old-growth forests, Tasmanian logging, Tasmanian Planning Commission, The Wilderness Society, Triabunna, wildtasmania.org, Woodchipping Tasmania
Posted in Tasmania (AU), Threats from Deforestation, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

U.N. Principles on Forest Conservation

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

The following article was initially posted 20090414 by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net:.

The UN position in 1992 on conserving native forests of the world:

‘At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) the forest issue was among the most controversial, polarizing developing and developed countries.

In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, intense negotiations among governments at UNCED resulted in the Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests, also known as the “Forest Principles”, as well as Chapter 11 of Agenda 21: Combating Deforestation.”

.

..

1992 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED]

(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)

Extract from ‘Annex III’:

[NON-LEGALLY BINDING AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBAL CONSENSUS ON THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL TYPES OF FORESTS]

PREAMBLE

(a) The subject of forests is related to the entire range of environmental and development issues and opportunities, including the right to socio-economic development on a sustainable basis.

(b) The guiding objective of these principles is to contribute to the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests and to provide or their multiple and complementary functions and uses.

(c) Forestry issues and opportunities should be examined in a holistic and balanced manner within the overall context of environment and development, taking into consideration the multiple functions and uses of forests, including traditional uses, and the likely economic and social stress when these uses are constrained or restricted, as well as the potential for development that sustainable forest management can offer.

(d) These principles reflect a first global consensus on forests. In committing themselves to the prompt implementation of these principles, countries also decide to keep them under assessment for their adequacy with regard to further international cooperation on forest issues.

(e) These principles should apply to all types of forests, both natural and planted, in all geographical regions and climatic zones, including austral, boreal, subtemperate, temperate, subtropical and tropical.

(f) All types of forests embody complex and unique ecological processes which are the basis for their present and potential capacity to provide resources to satisfy human needs as well as environmental values, and as such their sound management and conservation is of concern to the Governments of the countries to which they belong and are of value to local communities and to the environment as a whole.

(g) Forests are essential to economic development and the maintenance of all forms of life.

(h) Recognizing that the responsibility for forest management, conservation and sustainable development is in many States allocated among federal/national, state/provincial and local levels of government, each State, in accordance with its constitution and/or national legislation, should pursue these principles at the appropriate level of government.

.

PRINCIPLES/ELEMENTS

1. (a) States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

(b) The agreed full incremental cost of achieving benefits associated with forest conservation and sustainable development requires increased international cooperation and should be equitably shared by the international community.

2. (a) States have the sovereign and inalienable right to utilize, manage and develop their forests in accordance with their development needs and level of socio-economic development and on the basis of national policies consistent with sustainable development and legislation, including the conversion of such areas for other uses within the overall socio-economic development plan and based on rational land-use policies.

(b) Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations. These needs are for forest products and services, such as wood and wood products, water, food, fodder, medicine, fuel, shelter, employment, recreation, habitats for wildlife, landscape diversity, carbon sinks and reservoirs, and for other forest products. Appropriate measures should be taken to protect forests against harmful effects of pollution, including air-borne pollution, fires, pests and diseases, in order to maintain their full multiple value.

(c) The provision of timely, reliable and accurate information on forests and forest ecosystems is essential for public understanding and informed decision-making and should be ensured.

(d) Governments should promote and provide opportunities for the participation of interested parties, including local communities and indigenous people, industries, labour, non-governmental organizations and individuals, forest dwellers and women, in the development, implementation and planning of national forest policies.

3. (a) National policies and strategies should provide a framework for increased efforts, including the development and strengthening of institutions and programmes for the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests and forest lands.

(b) International institutional arrangements, building on those organizations and mechanisms already in existence, as appropriate, should facilitate international cooperation in the field of forests.

(c) All aspects of environmental protection and social and economic development as they relate to forests and forest lands should be integrated and comprehensive.

4. The vital role of all types of forests in maintaining the ecological processes and balance at the local, national, regional and global levels through, inter alia, their role in protecting fragile ecosystems, watersheds and freshwater resources and as rich storehouses of biodiversity and biological resources and sources of genetic material for biotechnology products, as well as photosynthesis, should be recognized.

5. (a) National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic stake in forest use, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural identity and social organization, as well as adequate levels of livelihood and well-being, through, inter alia, those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the sustainable management of forests.

(b) The full participation of women in all aspects of the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should be actively promoted.

6. (a) All types of forests play an important role in meeting energy requirements through the provision of a renewable source of bio-energy, particularly in developing countries, and the demands for fuelwood for household and industrial needs should be met through sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation. To this end, the potential contribution of plantations of both indigenous and introduced species for the provision of both fuel and industrial wood should be recognized.

(b) National policies and programmes should take into account the relationship, where it exists, between the conservation, management and sustainable development of forests and all aspects related to the production, consumption, recycling and/or final disposal of forest products.

(c) Decisions taken on the management, conservation and sustainable development of forest resources should benefit, to the extent practicable, from a comprehensive assessment of economic and non-economic values of forest goods and services and of the environmental costs and benefits. The development and improvement of methodologies for such evaluations should be promoted.

(d) The role of planted forests and permanent agricultural crops as sustainable and environmentally sound sources of renewable energy and industrial raw material should be recognized, enhanced and promoted. Their contribution to the maintenance of ecological processes, to offsetting pressure on primary/old-growth forest and to providing regional employment and development with the adequate involvement of local inhabitants should be recognized and enhanced.

(e) Natural forests also constitute a source of goods and services, and their conservation, sustainable management and use should be promoted.

7. (a) Efforts should be made to promote a supportive international economic climate conducive to sustained and environmentally sound development of forests in all countries, which include, inter alia, the promotion of sustainable patterns of production and consumption, the eradication of poverty and the promotion of food security.

(b) Specific financial resources should be provided to developing countries with significant forest areas which establish programmes for the conservation of forests including protected natural forest areas. These resources should be directed notably to economic sectors which would stimulate economic and social substitution activities.

8. (a) Efforts should be undertaken towards the greening of the world.
All countries, notably developed countries, should take positive and transparent action towards reforestation, afforestation and forest conservation, as appropriate.

(b) Efforts to maintain and increase forest cover and forest productivity should be undertaken in ecologically, economically and socially sound ways through the rehabilitation, reforestation and re-establishment of trees and forests on unproductive, degraded and deforested lands, as well as through the management of existing forest resources.

(c) The implementation of national policies and programmes aimed at forest management, conservation and sustainable development, particularly in developing countries, should be supported by international financial and technical cooperation, including through the private sector, where appropriate.

(d) Sustainable forest management and use should be carried out in accordance with national development policies and priorities and on the basis of environmentally sound national guidelines. In the formulation of such guidelines, account should be taken, as appropriate and if applicable, of relevant internationally agreed methodologies and criteria.

(e) Forest management should be integrated with management of adjacent areas so as to maintain ecological balance and sustainable productivity.

(f) National policies and/or legislation aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should include the protection of ecologically viable representative or unique examples of forests, including primary/old-growth forests, cultural, spiritual, historical, religious and other unique and valued forests of national importance.

(g) Access to biological resources, including genetic material, shall be with due regard to the sovereign rights of the countries where the forests are located and to the sharing on mutually agreed terms of technology and profits from biotechnology products that are derived from these resources.

(h) National policies should ensure that environmental impact assessments should be carried out where actions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on important forest resources, and where such actions are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.

9. (a) The efforts of developing countries to strengthen the management, conservation and sustainable development of their forest resources should be supported by the international community, taking into account the importance of redressing external indebtedness, particularly where aggravated by the net transfer of resources to developed countries, as well as the problem of achieving at least the replacement value of forests through improved market access for forest products, especially processed products. In this respect, special attention should also be given to the countries undergoing the process of transition to market economies.

(b) The problems that hinder efforts to attain the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources and that stem from the lack of alternative options available to local communities, in particular the urban poor and poor rural populations who are economically and socially dependent on forests and forest resources, should be addressed by Governments and the international community.

(c) National policy formulation with respect to all types of forests should take account of the pressures and demands imposed on forest ecosystems and resources from influencing factors outside the forest sector, and intersectoral means of dealing with these pressures and demands should be sought.

10. New and additional financial resources should be provided to developing countries to enable them to sustainably manage, conserve and develop their forest resources, including through afforestation, reforestation and combating deforestation and forest and land degradation.

11. In order to enable, in particular, developing countries to enhance their endogenous capacity and to better manage, conserve and develop their forest resources, the access to and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and corresponding know-how on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Agenda 21, should be promoted, facilitated and financed, as appropriate.

12. (a) Scientific research, forest inventories and assessments carried out by national institutions which take into account, where relevant, biological, physical, social and economic variables, as well as technological development and its application in the field of sustainable forest management, conservation and development, should be strengthened through effective modalities, including international cooperation. In this context, attention should also be given to research and development of sustainably harvested non-wood products.

(b) National and, where appropriate, regional and international institutional capabilities in education, training, science, technology, economics, anthropology and social aspects of forests and forest management are essential to the conservation and sustainable development of forests and should be strengthened.

(c) International exchange of information on the results of forest and forest management research and development should be enhanced and broadened, as appropriate, making full use of education and training institutions, including those in the private sector.

(d) Appropriate indigenous capacity and local knowledge regarding the conservation and sustainable development of forests should, through institutional and financial support and in collaboration with the people in the local communities concerned, be recognized, respected, recorded, developed and, as appropriate, introduced in the implementation of programmes. Benefits arising from the utilization of indigenous knowledge should therefore be equitably shared with such people.

13. (a) Trade in forest products should be based on non-discriminatory and multilaterally agreed rules and procedures consistent with international trade law and practices. In this context, open and free international trade in forest products should be facilitated.

(b) Reduction or removal of tariff barriers and impediments to the provision of better market access and better prices for higher value-added forest products and their local processing should be encouraged to enable producer countries to better conserve and manage their renewable forest resources.

(c) Incorporation of environmental costs and benefits into market forces and mechanisms, in order to achieve forest conservation and sustainable development, should be encouraged both domestically and internationally.

(d) Forest conservation and sustainable development policies should be integrated with economic, trade and other relevant policies.

(e) Fiscal, trade, industrial, transportation and other policies and practices that may lead to forest degradation should be avoided. Adequate policies, aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development of forests, including, where appropriate, incentives, should be encouraged.

14. Unilateral measures, incompatible with international obligations or agreements, to restrict and/or ban international trade in timber or other forest products should be removed or avoided, in order to attain long-term sustainable forest management.

15. Pollutants, particularly air-borne pollutants, including those responsible for acidic deposition, that are harmful to the health of forest ecosystems at the local, national, regional and global levels should be controlled.’

.

The UN position in 2007:

‘Following nearly 3 years of intense negotiations, starting from UNFF5 and culminating at UNFF7, the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All types of Forests was adopted on 28 April 2007. The Instrument was adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 62/98) on 17 December 2007.

The purpose of this instrument is:

(a) To strengthen political commitment and action at all levels to implement effectively sustainable management of all types of forests and to achieve the shared global objectives on forests;

(b) To enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, in particular with respect to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability;

– end of article –

.

Rainforest Reality, 2011:

‘Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon Region Increases 400% in One Year’ [ May 2011]

[20110520, hispanicallyspeakingnews.com]

‘Brazil is reporting a dramatic increase in deforestation in the Amazon that has the country’s environmental protectionists and some government officials troubled. In just one year – March/April of 2010 -2011 – Brazil’s Amazon has seen a 400 percent increase in the amount of acres that have undergone deforestation – 25,451 acres to 146,533, according to satellite images from the Brazilian space research institute.

Environmental protectionists believe the increased demand for cattle and soy are behind the decision to clear so many acres, while other blame the government for not being hesitant in regards to laws to regulate deforestation. The country’s Environmental Minister Izabella Teixeira said she was troubled to see the satellite images, and said the government would establishing a special panel to address the matter.

Currently, Brazilian law states that 80 percent of the land in the Amazon region must remain forested, and that has been in place since 1934. Still, deforestation advocates claim additional clearing is needed. In the state of Mato Grosso, deforestation occurs in large part to make room for soybean production.’

[Source: ^http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/deforestation-in-brazils-amazon-region-increases-400-in-one-year/7782/, accessed 20110728]

Editor’s comment: ‘This the consequence of ‘non-legally binding UN ‘Forest Principles’.’

.

[1] United Nations Forum on Forests, ^http://www.un.org/esa/forests/

[2] Mongabay.com, ^http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

[3] Greenpeace.org, ^http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/second-largest-rate-of-amazon/

[4] Greenpeace campaign to save the Amazon, ^http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/forests/amazon/

[5] ‘Deforestation in decline but rate remains alarming, UN agency says‘, UN News Centre, ^http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34195

[6] ‘REDD’, The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, ^http://www.un-redd.org/

[7] ‘UN: $40bn a year could halve deforestation worldwide‘, by Will Nichols, 20110606, Business Green, ^http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2076417/-usd40bn-halve-deforestation-worldwide

(above references accessed 20110728)

.

– end of article –

Tags: Agenda 21: Combating Deforestation, Amazon forest, deforestation, Forest Principles, old growth conservation, old growth forest, Rainforest Reality, soybean, tigerquoll, U.N. Principles, UNCED, UNFF
Posted in Amazon (BR), Threats from Deforestation, Threats from Farming | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests: old growth granny killers

Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

Posted by Tigerquoll:

The VicMolesters are at it again.

Chainsaw-wielding loggers of VicForests are set to target old growth Mountain Ash near Sylvia Creek in the Central Highlands, to Melbourne’s north, east of Kinglake. That an inferno that was Black Saturday in February 2009 ripped through forests in the area around Narbethong, Toolangi and Kinglake matters squat to these woodchip mercenaries.

The Burned Area Emergency Response Report (BAER) commissioned by the Brumby Government after the 2009 bushfires recommended preserving refuge areas such as those in Toolangi for biodiversity recovery.

That the targeted forests have become isolated islands of habitat to rare wildlife matters squat to them. That the forests are home to Victoria’s endangered and disappearing Leadbeater’s possum, the Spotted-Tail Quoll, the Sooty Owl, and Baw Baw frog are but collateral damage to these bastards. “Over half the Leadbeater’s Possum’s forest habitat was destroyed in the Black Saturday bushfires, so every last bit that survives is incredibly precious, and essential to this tiny animals’ survival,” said spokesperson for local group ‘My Environment’ Sarah Rees.

“The criteria the government is using to identify Leadbeater’s Possum habitat are too conservative. We’re talking about Victoria’s wildlife emblem, we should be making sure they multiply and flourish, not simply cling on to the edge of survival.”

VicForests old growth logging is all for a quick buck from woodchip sales to make Reflex Paper. They would sell their daughters for less.

“DSE has confirmed the logging coupe contains old growth trees, even though VicForests and Government Minister Louise Asher insisted last week that it was not old growth forest,” said Wilderness Society forest campaigner Luke Chamberlain.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

Tags: Baw Baw Frog, Black Saturday, Burned Area Emergency Response Report, DSE, Eucalyptus regnans, Leadbeaters Possum, old growth granny killers, Sooty Owl, Spotted-Tail Quoll, Sylvia Creek, The Wilderness Society, Toolangi, VicForests, VicMolesters
Posted in Owls, Possums and Gliders, Quolls, Reptiles, Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests slaughters 500 y.o. Australian

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll 20090408 on CanDoBetter.net:

Radiocarbon-testing has confirmed that a giant rare old-growth Eucalyptus regnans located in its natural forest habitat on East Gippsland’s Brown Mountain has been chainsawed by VicForests, despite it being scientifically confirmed to be at least 500 years old.

No regard has been made for the existence value of a Victorian 500 year old natural asset, nor the habitat requirements for the typical arboreal animals and forest owls dependent on this old growth habitat tree or its associative forest dependent habitat. Under State-

sanction, ignorant VicForest butchers have plundered, ransacked and run.

Manager, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Orbost, Steve DeVoogd, has been formally advised that this chainsawing of rare old growth forest is an offence committed under the section 46(1) of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. The action is also a breach of Code of Forest Practices (CFP). VicForests Chairman, Warren Hodgson, Board members Monica Gould, Jim Houghton, Fiona McNabb, Bob Smith, Susan Walpole, and Chief Executive Officer David Pollard should all be sacked forthwith. VicForests token ‘vision’ ‘purpose’ and ‘values’ which profess motherhood notions of ‘sustainable’, ‘environmentally responsible’ and ‘ethical’ are but ‘Mugabean’. This 500 year old tree epitomises the reality of Brumby’s ‘Sustainability Charter for State forests.

Botanist Steve Mueck has worked for the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment and is now a consultant in the private sector. He says radiocarbon dating of eucalypts is unusual and the result in this case is significant.

“Current forest managements practices are looking at harvesting on rotation times in the vicinity of 80 to 120 years with the perception that that’s a particularly long period of time,” he said.

“Now it is, I suppose, in the context of a human lifetime, but it is a very, very short period of time in comparison to the age in which many of the components that live in these forests can in fact get to in a natural system.”

Back in the 1860s timber workers and naturalists emerged from the forests with stories of massive trees towering to immense heights and as wide as houses.

Government botanist Ferdinand von Mueller recounted the existence of a tree as high as the Egyptian Pyramids at 480 ft (144m) and another fallen tree in the Dandenong Ranges over 400 ft (120m). A giant was sighted in the Otways with a girth of 64 ft (19m).

VicForests senseless decapitation of one of the last Victorian giants is a harbinger of extinction to Victoria’s old growth forests.

It’s like grabbing an old ANZAC from a ‘march past’ and slitting his throat.

.

Comments:

‘Victorian Labor’s “sustainable” principles are thin and shallow’

by Vivienne 20090410:

.

In 2006 the Labor Party pledged to “protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system”.

This promise was blatantly broken.

The trees on of Brown Mountain have not burned for 200 years despite repeated fire threats. The resistance of these old forests to bushfire is evident. This area is also the home of several highly endangered native species.

Clear felling of old growth forests has continued despite their critical role in storing carbon and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

The Victorian government states that 90% of our forests are preserved. However, only 16% of Victoria is protected, and over 80 percent of what is logged in East Gippsland ends up as mere woodchips!

Clearing 10% of our forests is plainly too much considering that Victoria remains the most cleared and damaged State of Australia.

Our Brumby government is guilty of serious eco-destruction and policy violation, and any claims of “sustainable” principles are demonstrated to be thin and shallow.

.

– end of article –

Tags: biodiversity, Brown Mountain, Brumby's 'Sustainability Charter for State forests, Code of Forest Practices, deforestation, Department of Sparks and Embers, East Gippsland logging, John Brumby, save our forests, Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, VicForests, Victoria's old growth forests, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victorian Labor
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Conservationists charged with ‘conserving’

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll on 20090326 on CanDoBetter.net:

On Thursday 26th March 2009, four people were charged in their efforts to save East Gippsland old growth forests at Upper Delegate River from being chopped down.

‘The Goongerah Blockade’

Protesting against logging of old growth forests in East Gippsland

….prepared to be arrested for habitat.

March 2009.

eco-warriors all!

Conservationists trying to conserve protected old growth forests have been charged with illegal conservation. Is Victorian Premier Brumby’s strongman stance seeking to emulate Mugabean democracy?

Is Brumby’s hypocritical law for conservationists that of prima facie guilt of conservation? Surely the need to conserve rare and remnant old growth forests makes conservation self-evident?

Premier Brumby’s DSE and VicForests under their own laws maintain these catchment forests under environmental protection legislation. Yet in breach of their own laws, Brumby’s environmental watchdogs have become lapdogs, watching loggers irreparably destroy these centuries-old Eucalypts and lay witness to Victoria’s disappearing natural heritage. It’s no different to Indonesia condoning destruction of Sumatran and Kalimantan rainforests.

When was the last time Brumby bushwalked through old growth Gippsland? Last year, or never?

A dedicated group of 20 forest conservationists prevented clearfelling in the upper Delegate River catchment up until now. “This particular old growth forest was recently surveyed by trained biologists and the result showed very high density of tree dwelling mammals”, said spokesperson for the group Carmel Roberts.

“The DSE is neglecting their responsibilities to protect endangered wildlife habitat, even though it clearly states in their Forest Management Plan that where high numbers of threatened species are found, habitat must be protected.

“The DSE are saying they are unable to protect these species’ habitat despite the logging being in clear breach of their legal obligations. The government puts more value on a months work by a few people than protecting endangered wildlife from extinction.

“In 2006, Premier Brumby made an election promise to protect the “last significant stands of old growth”. These forests are the very the last refuges for our rare species.”

“Since the devastation caused by the bushfires, East Gippsland’s forests are now even more critical to the survival of Victoria’s native species than before. Rare native wildlife could have been made locally extinct in other areas due to the fire damage.”

“Old growth forest habitats such as hollow-bearing trees, are critically important for the survival of these threatened species in Victoria. The logging industry can survive in plantations and regrowth, endangered wildlife can’t.”

.

Comments:

.

Woodchip mafia has Brumby well trained

March 28th, 2009 by ‘Blackdog’:

.
The Brumby government is truly the lapdog to the loggers. The woodchip mafia has him well trained. The rule book says the threatened species have to be saved. He destroys them and their habitat. The promise back in 2006 was to save the old growth – but all he’s done is cover for the increased targeting of prime areas.

Yep – no different to Indonesia or the Amazon. Only Brumby employs better media spin experts. Pity the public don’t wear it.

.

Lap dog governments are following Easter Island

On March 28th, 2009 Tigerquoll says:

Blackdog’s comments hit the mark.

I go further than black dog.

Lap dog governments are supporting destructionist loggers while publicly advocating environmental protection in another department.

This is gross hypocracy, a conflict of interest and corrupt.

I worry also that as more clever HSC graduates take on degrees in ‘communications’, which so frequently entices them into well paid jobs in government and corporate spin machines, that pure ethics is neglected at both senior school and at most university courses.

By denying our children skills and wisdom in worldly ethics, our children are being denied their rights to cope with ethical decisions. A degree without a base in ethics is a degree in propaganda, and don’t our lapdog governments lap them up?

Take the following example and ask why in our education system and supposed independent journalism, that Australians are more aware of the extremely rich celebrities than the natural and indigenous exploitation and neglect condoned by governmenst in Australia’s World region?

SOURCE: www.drmartinwilliams.com/conservation-and-environment/indonesian-forest-destruction-corruption-plays-a-role.html

“Since 1982, forest fires on a large scale in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Java have come with the onset of each dry season. A fire in Kalimantan in 1983, reportedly the largest in human history, destroyed 3.7 million hectares of rainforest, an area the size of the Netherlands.

In 1987, 2 million hectares, 1.4 million of primary rainforest, were destroyed in Kalimantan, Sumatra, East Timor, Sulawesi and mountain regions of Java.

In 1991 smoke and ash from fires blanketed Singapore, Malaysia and the Straits of Malacca, forcing Indonesia to call for international help.

Forest fires of this magnitude coincide with a rapid increase in logging and plantation activities which began in the early 1980s. In 1966, 82% of Indonesia’s land mass was covered by primary forest. By 1982 this had shrunk to 68%, and recent satellite photographs indicate that forest cover – including timber plantations – is now down to about 55%.

In late 1996, the Indonesian minister of forests said that 20 million hectares of forest were in a critical state and warned that this was increasing rapidly. The World Bank estimates 800,000 hectares of forest are lost each year.

Around 64 million hectares – one-third of Indonesia’s land mass – is devoted to commercial logging. In 1996 Indonesia became the world’s largest plywood exporter.
…
On September 9, Suharto reissued a 1995 ban on burning forest and called on the military to help enforce it. Companies were given until October 3 to prove they were not the culprits.

Laws allow up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a 100 million rupiah fine for polluters. Not one company, however, has ever been convicted. Even the environment minister, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, admitted to Reuters on September 22 that environmental laws are not policed properly.

Soon after Suharto’s announcement, the number of fires increased, as companies rushed to clear as much land as possible before the deadline. Even if the deadline was strictly adhered to, it would only let companies finish clearing land at a time the normal rainy season would have forced them to do so.

…

But it is not just the greed of Suharto and the logging and plantation firms which has created this disaster.

Government investment and development policies which have promoted destructive land clearing practices are spurred on by market forces and capitalism’s endless drive for profit. Many of the projects were championed by and funded by institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which pressure countries such as Indonesia to increase exports.”

In 2009, we must learn from Easter Island’s ancient community and its unsustainable culture of nature exploitation which ended up condemning its civilization to extinction. Else, despite our iPods, in 2009 we risk the same fate.

.

Injustice rules the forests

March 30th, 2009 by Sheila Newman:

About time this shameful situation got coverage. I would like to see a story for EVERY charge against conservationists on candobetter.

It is quite true, as you say, that the Victorian Government frequently breaks the law in its forest activities. In fact it has practically torn up its own rule book.

Keep fighting!

– end of article –

Tags: Carmel Roberts, clear felling, conservationists charged, East Gippsland, Goongerah Blockade, John Brumby, Logging, old growth forests, Premier Brumby, tigerquoll, Upper Delegate River, VicForests, woodchip
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Tiger Quoll?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

This is a Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)
Photo courtesy of Sean McClean.

.

It is Australia’s largest carnivorous marsupial on the mainland and it has become endangered because of humans destroying its habitat, shooting it and poisoning it.

It is not a cat. Much information may be obtained online simply by typing ‘tiger quoll’ on Google.

.

The following extract is from the website ‘Convict Creations‘ (15-Feb-2010):

‘Tiger Quoll…the next to die’

“Without disrespecting the Koala or Kangaroo, the Tiger Quoll is one of Australia’s most interesting animals. It sort of resembles a cat except it has a pouch, bright eyes, a moist pink nose and a powerful bite. It can grow to up to 75 cm in length and weigh up to 7kg. If trained, it will even use a kitty litter tray.

The Tiger Quoll is the type of animal that tourists would love to see on their Australian safari.

Unfortunately, they are quite rare so few have ever caught a glimpse of them.
European colonisation of Australia could have been great for the Tiger Quoll. With Europeans introducing rabbits, rats and mice, the Quoll saw a drastic increase in its food source. Had the colonists warmed to them, then a mutually beneficial relationship could have formed. Farmers could have encouraged Quolls to take up residency in order to keep rodent numbers down with little fear that their livestock would be in danger. As an added bonus, by eating carrion, the Quolls would have reduced the threat of blowfly strike.

Alternatively, they could have just made pets out of the Quoll. Apparently the Quoll has all the positive characteristics of a cat or dog. According to Professor Mike Archer, Former Director of the Australian Museum, who once kept a Quoll as a pet:

“I just can’t praise these animals highly enough as companions for human beings. They have all the good features in dogs and cats, and in my experience not a single downside”.

If colonial owners had taken care of their Quolls, then both Quoll and owner would have been happy. If not, the Quoll would have just escaped and done Australia a service by cleaning up decaying meat, rabbits and other introduced vermin.

Unfortunately, colonists never formed mutually beneficial relationships with the Quoll. Instead, they introduced the cat to serve the role of pest controller. For more than a century, farmers deliberately released cats onto their properties in order to control rabbit and mice populations. Once the cats went feral, they started to compete with the Quoll for food. Although the Quoll was better adapted to Australia’s cycle of droughts, the cat’s symbiotic relationship with humans proved to be an even better environmental adaptation. If feral cats were ever wiped out in a drought, or declined for whatever reason, they still had the family home as an oasis in the desert. From the family home, they were well placed to repopulate the bush once good conditions returned.

Even worse than competition from the cat were the environmentalists’ attempts to “help” them. The use of 1080 poison has been one of the main helping strategies. When it is used to kill rabbits, it indirectly deprives Quolls of food. So much so, by killing rabbits, human deprive Quolls of even more food than is lost due to competition by cats. To compound matters, when 1080 poison is used to kill the cats and foxes competiting with Quolls, it also ends up being eaten by Quolls. In fact, Quolls are more likely to eat the poisons because they have a keen nose for carrion while the feral predators prefer fresh kills.

A very odd example of the misguided environmental policy was recently seen in in Tasmania. 1080 was first used to reduce rabbit numbers. A rumour then developed that foxes had finally established a breeding community in the island state. Even though it was just a rumour, to be on the safe side, environmentalists decided a large scale baiting regime needed to be implemented to eradicate foxes as well. On the State Government’s own data, more than 140,000 poison baits were laid. So far, there has been no evidence that foxes were actually present. There was; however, plenty of evidence of Quoll dying!

The odd wilderness protection policy caught the attention of David Obendorf, a vet with a research focus in marsupial diseases. According to Obendorf:

“Three Tasmanians have each offered $1,000 fox rewards (Tasmanian Times: “$1,000 fox reward”). All remain unclaimed despite farmers, landowners and professional shooters all knowing about them. And yet the government “guessimate” claims there are up to 400 foxes living in Tasmania … somewhere. In my opinion Tasmania’s use of 1080 poison over the last five decades – to kill browsing and grazing native herbivores – has had a significant effect on the over-population followed by the facial tumour disease-crash in devil numbers and in the widespread establishment of feral cats across the island….Ironically the state government has now ceased the use of 1080-laced carrot/apple baits on public lands to kill grazing wildlife but now uses tens of thousands of meat baits in public forests where they claim they are targeting those cryptic foxes.” (1)

The use of 1080 poison could be legitimately referred to as Australia’s dumbest environmental policy since the construction of a 1,833 km fence to “keep” rabbits out of WA. It seems that Western Australians weren’t smart enough to realise that rabbits can dig under fences. All that was required was for a single pregnant female to dig a hole and then 1,833 km of fence line would be obsolete. Perhaps WA politicians did in fact realise the folly of it all, but decided it was more to important to show they were “doing something”.

As an added bonus, “doing something” kept people in regional Australia employed. Perhaps 1080 poison is used for similar reasons. Unfortunately, “doing something” to help Quolls is really not helping them at all. It forces them into wilderness reserves where scientists can erect huge fences to keep out ferals and then make a lucrative income maintaining them. (2)

Even though the Tiger Quoll is mainland Australia’s largest native predator, Australia doesn’t have any professional sporting team named after them. In fact, they don’t really exist in public consciousness in any significant shape or form. Perhaps this is because Quolls spend their time out in the bush where they are only ever seen by rangers.
Alternatively, perhaps the name Quoll just isn’t scary enough.

Zoos – The only real industry is as a research subjects by scientists, or to provide an endangered animal story that can be used by wilderness groups to write emotive appeals asking for funding to save them.

Pest controllers – Potentially, Quolls could make great pest controllers. They could compete with cats and foxes for food, and eliminate rabbits and rats in the process. Landowners could breed them and sell them as a substitute to 1080 poison.

Pets – Sometimes scientists have made great pets out of Quolls. At present, the general public is not allowed to do likewise. The general argument is that Quolls require special care that only a scientist can give. Consequently, Australians have to reserve their abusive ownership methods for dogs and cats that simply go bush if they are unhappy with their owners.”

.

The Snowy River is a surviving stronghold of the Tiger Quoll

.

“In East Gippsland, the areas on the Errinundra Plateau, Snowy River and Tingaringy are strongholds of the Spot-tailed Quoll”. (GECO)

“The Upper Snowy River and its tributaries was the Victorian stronghold of the Tiger Quoll before (the 2003) devastating Alpine bush fires. The Tiger Quoll is believed to have lost up to 75% of an estimated population of 1,000 in the area.

Following the devastating effects of recent bush fires The Tiger, or Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) has been reclassified as nationally endangered. it is feared that the fires will have a lasting effect on the Quolls that remain.”

.

References:

[1] ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s145805.htm
[2] David Obendorf – ^http://www.animal-lib.org.au/news/1080–the-real-killer.htm”
[3] ^http://www.fame.org.au/current_projects.html

.

~ article by Tigerquoll, first published on CanDoBetter.net 15-Feb-2011

Tags: Errinundra Plateau, spotted-tailed quoll, Tiger Quoll, tigerquoll
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Quolls, Tasmania (AU), Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation, Threats from Development | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

The Habitat Advocate

Archive for the ‘Threats from Deforestation’ Category

Pilliga Forests under ongoing attack

.

The Pilliga Forests

.

.

.

‘The Pilliga’..after rain

.

.

Where is ‘The Pilliga’?

.

.

.

The Pilliga’s history of colonial exploitation

.

.

.

The endemic ‘Pilliga Mouse’

.

.

The Pilliga… now threatened by Mining

‘Eastern Star Gas coal seam expansion in Pilliga under federal investigation’

.

.

‘Pilliga coal seam gas developments breach Federal environmental law: report’

Under the Radar report summary

..

.

‘Farmers see threat in $900m Santos buyout’

.

‘Under the Radar – new report lifts the lid on Eastern Star Gas operations’

.

.

‘A national treasure or an industrial wasteland?’

They want to put in 1,100 wellheads and 1,000km of pipelines across the eastern section of the Pilliga, clearing at least 2,410 hectares and fragmenting 85,000 hectares.

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

Related Reading:

.

[1] Wollembi Valley Against Gas Extraction,

.

.

[2] The Permaculture Research Institute of Australia, ‘Save Pilliga – NSW’s Largest Temperate Woodland’,

‘Save Pilliga – NSW’s Largest Temperate Woodland’

The gas production will clear at least 2,410 hectares of native vegetation!

.

.

[3] Pilliga Nature Reserve

.

.

[4] GreenLeft, ‘Pilliga Forest new CSG battlefront‘

‘Pilliga forest new CSG battlefront’

.

.

.

Links to articles on the dangers of Fracking Coal Seam Gas:

.

.

.

.

Community Solidarity:

Camden, NSW

Helensburgh and the Illawarra, NSW

Pilliga, NSW

Liverpool Plains, NSW

Wellington, NSW

Gunnedah Basin, NSW

Gloucester, NSW

Broke, NSW

Wollombi, NSW

Northern Rivers, NSW

Cooper Plains, SA,

Otways, Vic

Tara, Qld

Cecil Plains, Qld

‘Ministerial Statement: Tasmanian State Services Structural Reforms and Productivity Strategies’
by Lara Giddings Labor Premier of Tasmania