Archive for the ‘Threats from Deforestation’ Category
Thursday, August 26th, 2010
by Editor 20100826.
East Gippsland, Victoria April 2009:
 The senseless killing of a 500+ year old rare surviving Eucalyptus regnans
by VicForest contractors in April 2009.
( Photo courtesy of Environment East Gippsland)
Logging halted at iconic Bungywarr Creek (East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia)
29 April, 2009
‘Today independent forests conservationists are protecting ancient forests from logging in far East Gippsland.
“Two protestors are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”, says spokesperson for the group, Ms Lauren Caulfield. “This platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”
The tree-top protestors are supported by twenty-five forests conservationists on the site.
Bungywarr Creek was first blockaded in 1994, and has remained a contentious logging site ever since.
“Bungywarr Creek forest was identified as iconic almost two decades ago. The old-growth that remains at Bungywarr should be included in the Brumby government’s next round of forest protection”, said Ms Caulfield.
Earlier this month it was revealed that forests like the magnificent stands along Bungywarr Creek are sold to export woodchipping companies for less than the price of a Mars bar – a mere $2.50 per tonne.
“Selling our valuable and carbon-rich native forests for the price of a fast food snack is not making the best financial returns to Victorians”, said Ms Caulfield.
“For VicForests to continue to woodchip the remaining 8% of Victoria’s old-growth forests under Mr Brumby’s watch is a disgrace. Victorians expect and deserve management of our forests for a truly sustainable future.”
“Protecting nature is one of the most important ways to fight climate change”, continued Ms Caulfield. “The forest at Bungywarr Creek will do a better job fighting climate change if it is left intact and able to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”
“While the Brumby government dithers on delivering the ageing 2006 old-growth forest promise, logging at Bungywarr Creek is making climate change worse”, concluded Ms Caulfield.”
[Media Release courtesy of Environment East Gippsland]
© The Habitat Advocate Public Domain
Saturday, June 5th, 2010
by Editor 20100605.
…on the 2nd weekend in May each year
2010 Theme: ‘Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!’
Source: http://www.worldmigratorybirdday.org/2010/
Threats to migratory birds and their habitats include:
- Loss (reclamation) and degradation of habitat
- Human disturbance
- Poaching
- Introduced predators
- Invasive plants
- Climate change
About
‘World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was initiated in 2006 and is a annual awareness-raising campaign highlighting the need for the protection of migratory birds and their habitats. On the second weekend each May, people around the world take action and organise public events such as bird festivals, education programmes and birdwatching excursions to celebrate World Migratory Bird Day.’
‘World Migratory Bird Day activities take place in many different countries and places, but are all linked through a single global campaign and theme.’
‘Every year WMBD focuses on a different topic; this year’s theme is “Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!” – aims to raise awareness on globally threatened migratory birds, with a particular focus on those on the very edge of extinction – the Critically Endangered migratory birds. In line with the International Year of Biodiversity, the 2010 WMBD theme also highlights how migratory birds are part of the biological diversity of our world and how the threat of extinction faced by individual bird species is a reflection of the larger extinction crisis threatening other species and the natural diversity that underpins all life on earth.’
History
‘World Migratory Bird Day was initiated by the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) Secretariat in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) in 2006.’
‘Originally, the idea of designating a day for migratory birds arose in the United States in 1993, when the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology initiated celebrations of the ‘International Migratory Bird Day’ (IMBD), which encourages bird festivals and education programmes across the United States and other parts of the Americas. Although this day continues to be successfully celebrated in the western hemisphere, something similar was missing for the rest of the world.’
‘On the occasion of its 10th anniversary in 2005, the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (UNEP/AEWA) – a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) administered environmental treaty, initiated the Migratory Waterbird Days (MWD) which were held in Africa, Europe and parts of Asia. As this event was well received in the African-Eurasian region, the idea arose to broaden the scope into a commemorative day which celebrates the phenomenon of migration and all migrating birds, including waterbirds on a global scale.’
‘Hence, the very first World Migratory Bird Day was launched by AEWA and CMS on the weekend of 8-9 April 2006 on Ms. Kuki Gallmann’s famous wildlife reserve ‘Ole Ari Nyiro’ in Laikipia, Kenya. The central launching event called WINGS was inspired by the phenomenon of bird migration and was attended by a number of international personalities from the worlds of art, business and conservation.’
‘Since then, World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) has been celebrated in an increasing number of countries and has steadily grown in popularity each year. While the annual WMBD campaigns are prepared and coordinated centrally by the AEWA and CMS Secretariats, national authorities and NGOs worldwide, in particular BirdLife International and its partners, help to encourage individuals and organisations around the world to celebrate World Migratory Bird Day and to incorporate each year’s theme into their awareness-raising programmes and festivals.’
‘Through the help of thousands of committed individuals, organisations and government authorities – World Migratory Bird Day has turned into a truly global commemorative event, which helps turn the world’s attention to the wonders of bird migration and the need for their conservation in a concentrated and global scale each year.’
WMBD 2010 “Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!
‘The United Nations declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB). This is an appreciation of the value of biodiversity for our lives. However, it is not only a celebration, but also an invitation to take action to safeguard the variety of life on earth. Our planet’s biological diversity is very rich and amazing. It is the result of billions of years of evolution and forms the complex web of life of which we are part and upon which we totally depend. Humankind relies on this diversity, because it provides us with food, fuel, medicine and other essentials which we need every day.’
‘Regardless of that, species are disappearing because of human activities and there are a lot of species that are in danger of becoming extinct. These losses are irreversible and the decline of biodiversity endangers our livelihood. The current rate of extinction is a thousand times faster than the natural one. Normally, only one bird per century becomes extinct, but during the last thirty years 21 bird species disappeared. At the moment 192 birds are classified as Critically Endangered as a result of habitat loss, hunting, pollution, climate change, human disturbance and other reasons. These threats are directly or indirectly man-made. Without immediate action, many of these endangered species will not be here in a few years time. The Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), for example, is expected to become extinct within a human generation due to fisheries by-catch. And there are several other species which are extremely rare. The population size of Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris), New Zealand Storm-petrel (Oceanites maorianus) as well as Rueck’s Blue-flycatcher (Cyornis ruckii) is under 50 individuals.’
‘Therefore in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, World Migratory Bird Day focuses on Globally Threatened Migratory Birds and especially on those thirty-one migratory bird species, which are classified as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List. These are birds, which face extinction. Migratory birds rely on several different habitats; they need different locations for breeding and raising their young, and for feeding. Some of them migrate up to thousands of kilometers to find suitable areas and cross many different habitats, regardless of any political borders. Thus, saving migratory birds means saving their required habitats and that benefits other species as well. Because birds are found nearly everywhere and, with more than 10,000 described species, being the best known and best-researched taxon, they serve as vital indicators of distribution and state of biodiversity and the ecosystems they inhabit. If a bird species becomes threatened by extinction it is a clear sign that the conditions of, or the ecosystem itself, have changed and that other species that depend on this ecosystem may be affected as well. Saving every species is therefore essential, because if one species becomes extinct, the whole ecosystem will be affected.’
WMBD 2009 “Barriers to migration”
‘On 9-10 May 2009 World Migratory Bird Day was celebrated in over 50 countries around the world. Under the main theme “Barriers to migration”, 130 registered events took place. These events helped to raise awareness on man-made barriers and demonstrated that obstacles like wind turbines, power lines and tall buildings pose a threat to migratory birds.’
WMBD 2008 “Migratory Birds – Ambassadors for Biodiversity”
‘In 2008, World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for the third time on 10-11 May 2008. Over 136 activities took place in 59 countries around the world to mark World Migratory Bird Day in 2008 and the events helped spread the idea of migratory birds as messengers for the conservation of biodiversity worldwide.’
WMBD 2007 “Migratory birds in a changing climate”
‘In 2007, World Migratory Bird Day was celebrated in more than 58 countries and with more than 100 different events all across the planet on 12-13 May. The central theme “Migratory birds in a changing climate” helped to focus the world’s attention on the plight migratory birds are facing due to global warming. WMBD activities highlighted the effects that increasing temperatures, altered rainfall and vacillating weather conditions have on migratory birds.’
WMBD 2006 “Migratory birds need our support now!”
‘The first World migratory Bird Day took place on 8-9 April, 2006. At the time, migratory birds were receiving very negative media coverage as a result of them being falsely believed to be the main cause for the spread of Avian Influenza (H5N1) around the world. So the idea arose to use the first World Migratory Bird Day to counter some of the negative and often unbalanced publicity migratory birds were receiving at the peak of the Avian Influenza discussion. For this reason the theme of the first World Migratory Bird Day in 2006 became: “Migratory birds need our support now!”. The centre of the campaign was a launching event called WINGS which took place on the edge of the Great Rift Valley in Kenya and was hosted by Ms. Kuki Gallman, a famous writer and conservationist. Altogether, 68 other WMBD related events took place in all corners of the world to support the launch and the very first WMBD campaign.’
African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement [AEWA]
^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/
About AEWA
The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) is the largest of its kind developed so far under CMS. It was concluded on 16 June 1995 in the Hague, the Netherlands and entered into force on 1 November 1999 after the required number of at least fourteen Range States, comprising seven from Africa and seven from Eurasia had ratified. Since then the Agreement is an independent international treaty.
The AEWA covers 255 species of birds ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of divers, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, storks, rails, ibises, spoonbills, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, cranes, waders, gulls, terns, tropic birds, auks, frigate birds and even the south African penguin.
The agreement covers 118 countries and the European Union (EU) from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada, the Middle East and Africa. In fact, the geographical area covered by the AEWA stretches from the northern reaches of Canada and the Russian Federation to the southernmost tip of Africa. The Agreement provides for coordinated and concerted action to be taken by the Range States throughout the migration system of waterbirds to which it applies. Of the 118 Range States and the European Union (EU) currently 63 countries (as of 1 February 2010) have become a Contracting Party to AEWA.
Parties to the Agreement are called upon to engage in a wide range of conservation actions which are describes in a comprehensive Action Plan. This detailed plan addresses such key issues as: species and habitat conservation, management of human activities, research and monitoring, education and information, and implementation.
At the fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties, which took place from 15-19 September 2008 in Antananarivo, Madagascar, a number of important decisions were taken. For more information on Resolutions adopted at MOP4 click here.
Although the Agreement only entered into force a few years ago, its implementation is well underway. The European Union, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom increasingly support the implementation of AEWA. In addition to this support, the GEF council approved the African-Eurasian Flyways Project in November 2003 and its implementation started in July 2006. This project which is executed by Wetlands International in close cooperation with BirdLife International especially focuses on: capacity building, cooperative research and monitoring and communication activities.
AEWA Background
Throughout history, migration of animals has been a universal phenomenon. Many animals migrate in response to biological requirements, such as the need to find a suitable location for breeding and raising their young, and to be in favourable areas for feeding. In some cases, these specific requirements are fulfilled in locations separated by distances of thousand of kilometres.
During their migration, these animals cross political boundaries between nations; boundaries that have no inherent meaning for animals, but which have a dramatic influence on their annual life-cycles and their individual survival chances, due to the great differences that exist between countries in conservation policy. Migratory species are dependent on the specific sites they find at the end of their journey and along the way. Increasingly these sites are threatened by man-made disturbances and habitat degradation. Migratory animals may also fall victim to adverse natural phenomena, such as unfavourable climatic conditions.
The above mentioned influences are aggravated by the fact that it has long been held that migratory species legally do not fall within the jurisdiction of one particular country which could be held responsible for any harm occurring to them.
1972 In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, recognized the need for countries to co-operate in the conservation of animals that migrate across national boundaries or between areas of national jurisdiction and the high seas. This recommendation resulted in the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
1983 This Convention, commonly referred to as the Bonn Convention, (after the German city where it was concluded in 1979), came into force in 1983. The goal of the Convention is to provide conservation for migratory terrestrial, marine and avian species over the whole of their range. This is very important, because failure to conserve these species at any particular stage of their life cycle could adversely affect any conservation efforts elsewhere. The fundamental principle of the Bonn Convention therefore, is that the Parties of the Bonn Convention acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and of Range States agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, paying special attention to migratory species, the conservation status of which is unfavourable, and taking individually or in co-operation appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat. Parties acknowledge the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered. In particular, the Parties:
*shall endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix I;
*shall endeavour to conclude Agreements covering the conservation and management of migratory species included in Appendix II.
Agreements are the primary tools for the implementation of the main goal of the Bonn Convention. Moreover, they are more specific than the Convention itself, involve more deliberately the Range States of the species to be conserved, and are easier to put into practice than the whole Bonn Convention.
AEWA History
The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement is an international agreement aiming at the conservation of migratory waterbirds.
1988 After the first Conference of Parties of the Bonn Convention, where it was decided to prepare an Agreement for the Western Palearctic Anatidae, in 1988 the Dutch Government began developing a draft Western Palearctic Waterfowl Agreement as part of its Western Palearctic Flyway conservation programme. During the process of drafting and consultation, the name of the Agreement was changed into the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), emphasizing the importance of Africa for migratory birds.
1994 The first consultative meeting of Range States of AEWA was held in Nairobi in June 1994. This meeting strongly supported the concluding of AEWA, and consensus could be achieved on almost all matters of substance.
1995 In June 1995 the final negotiation meeting was held in The Hague. The Meeting adopted the Agreement by consensus and accepted with appreciation the offer of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to act as Depositary, to provide at its own expense until 1 January 1999, an Interim Secretariat and to host the first session of the Meeting of the Parties. For more information go to Agreement page.
1996 The Dutch Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, established the Interim Secretariat on 1 January 1996. On 15 August 1996, the Agreement was opened for signature at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
1999 In accordance with Article XIV, in 1999 the required number of at least fourteen Range States, comprising at least seven from Africa and seven from Eurasian, was achieved and the Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1999. Only a few days later the first Session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP1) took place in Cape Town, South Africa. The Meeting of the Parties is the governing body of the Agreement. For more information on this Meeting you are referred to the meetings section.
2000 As adopted by the Meeting of the Parties, a permanent Secretariat was established and co-located with the Convention Secretariat in Bonn. Following the decision of the Meeting of the Parties, this Secretariat is administered by UNEP.
2002 The second Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 25 – 27 September 2002 in Bonn, Germany. The Proceedings of the Meeting can be downloaded here.
2005 The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, which was concluded under the aegis of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals in The Hague, the Netherlands, on 16 June 1995 celebrated its 10th Anniversary.
2005 To mark the 10th anniversary of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) the Standing Committee of AEWA has established the AEWA Waterbird Conservation Award in order to recognise and honour institutions and individuals within the Agreement area that have significantly contributed towards the conservation and sustainable use of waterbirds.
2005 The third Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 23-27 October 2005, in Dakar, Senegal. For more information please visit the meetings section on the AEWA website.
2006 AEWA, together with the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and other partner organizations, launched the first World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) on the weekend of 8-9 April 2006.
2007 World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for second time in 56 countries and at more than 100 different locations all across the planet on the weekend of 12-13 May 2007. With these numbers, AEWA has managed to surpass the number of events and participating countries in 2006 (70 registered events in 46 countries)! During the course of summer of 2007, the AEWA Secretariat received 157 drawings from children from all over the world, who took part in the Drawing Competition. The children up to the age of 16 years were requested to portray their thoughts on this year’s WMBD theme “migratory birds in a changing climate” and to express their fears and visions on paper.
2008 World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for the third time on 10-11 May 2008 and this year more than 136 events were registered in 59 countries around the world.
2008 The fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 15-19 September 2008 in Antananarivo, Madagascar. For more information on the outcome of the meeting please visit the meetings section on the AEWA website.
2009 The fourth World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) took place on 9-10 May 2009 and motivated thousands of people in over 50 countries to conduct special events and activities to mark this global celebration.
The central theme of this year’s WMBD: “Barriers to migration” helped to highlight the increasing threat posed by man-made structures on migratory birds, such as wind turbines, power lines, windows and tall buildings etc. Over 130 different WMBD events, which took place in all corners of the world, were registered on the WMBD website (www.worldmigratorybirdday.org).
AEWA Contracting Parties (total 63)
(as of 1st February 2010)
*Date of Signing, agreement not yet entered into force in this country.
AEWA Publications
^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/publications/index.htm
AEWA Partners
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. It is an advocate, educator, catalyst and facilitator, promoting the wise use of the planet’s natural assets for sustainable development.
^ http://www.unep.org/
 The United Nations General Assembly declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. The goals of this special year are to raise awareness of the importance of biodiversity, highlighting the fact that it continues to be lost, and to celebrate novel solutions being carried out around the world for its conservation and sustainable use, and the equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources. The Year 2010 was chosen to coincide with the biodiversity target agreed by world leaders in 2002. During the Year scientists will report on a global trend on biodiversity.
^ http://www.cbd.int/2010/welcome/
 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS; also known as the Bonn Convention)aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Since the Convention’s entry into force, its membership has grown steadily to include 113 (as of 1 January 2010) parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania.
^ http://www.cms.int/
 African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)is an intergovernmental treaty developed under the CMS dedicated to the conservation of migratory waterbirds. The Agreement covers 255 species of birds, ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle. The treaty covers a large geographic area, including Europe, parts of Asia, Canada, the Middle East and Africa. So far 63 out of the 118 countries (as of 1 February 2010) in this area have become Contracting Parties to the International Agreement.
^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/
 BirdLife Internationalis a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity. BirdLife International has long been committed to the conservation of migratory birds and the habitats upon which they depend. The BirdLife Partnership is engaged in migratory bird conservation at numerous scales, from projects focused on individual species or key sites, to broader policy and advocacy work to promote migratory species conservation, and involvement in flyway-scale projects.
^ http://www.birdlife.org/
 Wetlands Internationalis an independent, non-profit, global organisation, dedicated to the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Wetlands International works globally, regionally and nationally to achieve the conservation and wise use of wetlands, to benefit biodiversity and human well-being.
^ http://www.wetlands.org/
 The Partnership for the East Asian – Australasian Flyway– Launched in November 2006, the Partnership is an informal and voluntary initiative, aimed at protecting migratory waterbirds, their habitat and the livelihoods of people dependent upon them. There are currently 21 partners including 10 countries, 3 intergovernmental agencies and 8 international non-government organisations. The Partnership provides a framework for international cooperation, including: (1) development of a Waterbird Site Network (for sites of international importance to migratory waterbirds), (2) collaborative activities to increase knowledge and raise awareness of migratory waterbirds along the flyway, and (3) building capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of migratory waterbird habitat along the flyway.
^http://www.eaaflyway.net/
 The World’s Rarest is a not-for-profit initiative that aims to highlight the plight of the most threatened species on Earth and to raise funds to support their conservation. During 2010, the project will be focussed on birds and contribute to BirdLife International’s Preventing Extinctions Programme. The project is based on a prestigious international photo competition, with exciting prizes, entry to which is open to anyone. Images submitted to the competition will be feature in a new book entitledThe World’s Rarest Birds, which is due to be published by the not-for-profit UK publisher WILDGuides in 2011.
^ http://www.theworldsrarestbirds.com/
© The Habitat Advocate Public Domain
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010
by Editor 2010330.
—————————————————————————-
Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain.
Reports:
(most recent at top)
Brown Mountain Landmark Court Case [Melbourne Supreme Court, 23-25 March 2010]
Court case finishes – summary of the final 3 days.
Quoted Source: Environment East Gippsland 20100330, http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/
‘The final days of summing up both VicForests’ and EEG’s arguments were heard in the Melbourne Supreme Court on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (23rd-25th March). These were the last submissions presented to Justice Osborn who heard the 17 day trial that started on the 1st March.
‘In summary – both sides presented their condensed arguments from the past 3 weeks. Early in the case, the economic claims were not allowed as VF had not made any allegations in its defence about economic impact, and there was only summary evidence supplied by VF, without details. The arguments focused on the laws covering protection of threatened species and how VF did or didn’t abide by them. Justice Osborn has reserved his decision . Our legal team have said he could hand this down in a month or two or three … Despite some fairly revealing and insightful evidence being given and some quite startling information to come out of cross examination of witnesses, the decision will be looking at the complexities of the laws governing forests and wildlife management.
‘A support team of about 45 people attended the Melbourne start of the case to show that there was widespread interest in Brown Mountain (see pics). Thanks everyone who came along and who sat through the proceedings.
1st Day (Tues) – the defence (VicForests) lawyers had the stage on day 1 and delivered their case.
‘To those who hadn’t heard the facts, arguments and cross examinations of the previous 3 weeks, it could have sounded fairly reasonable and even worrying. Read our responses to their arguments below. VF lawyers’ arguments consisted of the following:
- EEG didn’t have standing to take the case to court as we are too small a group, don’t have a special interest in Brown Mountain, only an emotional or intellectual interest. The fact that we didn’t apply to be on the local Shire environment committee, and the claim that we didn’t take part in the Nat Estate study on 1990 – (but we actually did) and various other arguments were used to attempt to argue we shouldn’t be able to sue VicForests.
- It was DSE that should have looked out for threatened species, not VicForests. VF can’t change zonings.
- The Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ within the meaning of the action statement (FFG Act) – although the animals and the sites were confirmed, the full two weeks of footage was withheld by EEG (under instruction from our lawyers) until late 2009 – making the authorities suspicious of possible tampering and was the reason given by VF for not protecting the area.
- Language in the FFG Act and Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act, is not enforceable.
- VF noted that the Forest Management Plan was out of date (ended in 2006), which generated much discussion. Justice Osborn pointed out that if it was no longer applicable, then all logging in EG was illegal as the FM Plan is needed before forest can be logged. That point was then quickly resolved.
- The Precautionary Principle, which was a major argument in the whole case. It was first claimed by VF not to give rise to any legally enforceable obligation against it, and even if it did, VF claimed it had observed the PP even if it wasn’t thought to be regarded as enough precaution.
- VF claim Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ to their or DSE’s satisfaction,
- On Quolls – there are 75 already protected in EG and that was enough,
- For the new species of crayfish – it’s still being named and so doesn’t have a prescription for protection and the 100 metre buffer around the creek will protect it
- Sooty and Powerful Owls – only dusk calls detected but no confirmed nesting or roosting sites so no need to protect. Plus there are enough Sooty Owls Management Areas and Powerful Owl Management Areas, despite some evidence from DSE suggesting the protection zone targets had not been reached.
- Giant Burrowing Frogs – even if it is high quality and likely habitat, none have yet been detected.
- Hollow Bearing Trees – logging prescriptions are claimed to look after them.
- Gliders are there in high numbers, yes – but it’s not for VF to protect them and 100 mts along creek should do anyway.
- The Precautionary Principle requires caution, but not total infallibility. Actions to express adherence to the PP can be many. VF argued that a 100 metre buffer along the creek was caution enough for all the species.
2nd day of summing up (Wed) –EEG, the plaintiff’s case was presented.
Debbie Mortimer SC argued that:
- ‘The standards and conditions in the FFG Act Action Statements, Forest Management Plan and the Code of Forest Practices hasn’t been and can’t be complied with by VicForests.
- VicForests was the “agent of harm” about to begin clearfelling when we applied for the first injunction, and VF was as obliged to adhere to the law for threatened wildlife as was DSE.
- VF don’t need to have DSE declare a conservation zone for VF to adhere to the law or decide not to log.
- The Allocation Order (giving forests to VicForests from DSE), Timber Release Plan and the Code (for logging) all mention adhering to the Forest Management Plan.
- The issue of whether EEG has legal standing to bring the case to court was argued well for showing we did have standing. It had not been objected to by VF strongly before we embarked on the 17 day trial.
- If various surveys had not have been carried out (owls, Gliders, Crayfish and Potoroos), the court case would not have commenced. Surveys show a genuine interest.
- Obligation on VF are mandatory – they don’t allow them to ‘duck and weave’ around these obligations.
- The main law is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act – it deals directly with Threatened Species, and binds the state/crown to protect endangered wildlife. The FM Plan and the Code both refer to it.
- Forests are a community property. Managed for common good into future. DSE’s position in the evidence given by Lee Meizis was that the Timber Release Plan gave ownership of forests to VF to exploit, but with the right to exploit comes responsibilities for conservation.
- FFG Act has strong ‘must do’ language and is imposed on government authorities. Important objectives of FFGA disregarded by VF. Action Statements within the FFGA are enforceable.
- Debbie Mortimer said “In every way, VicForests pushed away from its conservation duties” to benefit its access to forests for logging.
- VF is not abiding by the law by merely reading the Action Statements.
- Logging high quality Quoll habitat is endangering the animal’s survival. At odds with the Precautionary Principle because this species is only found at a functional level in East Gippsland now.
- Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act directly forced VF to adhere to the Code. Allocation Order also states VF MUST comply with CFP, PP, AS and FMP.
- Not complying with the Code was a breach. Acts refer to the Code being adhered to.
- VF must consider advice from relevant experts in Flora and Fauna. The advice of these internal DSE experts were ‘completely sidelined’ during the process that lead to the decision to clearfell Brown Mountain. It was also claimed that the Minister was not given important information on these species.
- The 100 mt buffer offered by VF would not protect the Gliders, Quoll, owls, Potoroo and Large Brown Tree Frog and was unknown if it would adequately protect the Giant Burrowing Frog, Brown Mt Crayfish and Square-tailed Kite. Leaving additional large trees while logging and burning the remainder would be unlikely to protect the habitat values of hollow bearing trees (85 out of 207 was all that survived the logged and burnt coupe across the creek in April 2009).
- The guideline to protect 100 ha for rich populations of gliders is self-regulating and doesn’t need major fuss – just needs to be mapped and complied with.
- Justice Osborn discussed decent reserve designs and ‘whacking in’ some reserve along the creek.
- The oft-cited ‘risk-weighted consequences’ of the precautionary principle the VF lawyers used daily, does not mention social or economic ‘balance’ and in context is only about conservation risks and consequences.
- We are dealing with some species in a demonstrable state of decline. Failure to halt damage is serious. There is lack of scientific certainty as there is no research or info on impact of logging.
- New reserves mean nothing unless we assess the quality and type of the habitat, logging history etc.
- BHP was used as an example of a company which must employ specialist ecologists/biologists if it plans to carry out potentially damaging work. VF either needs to employ biodiversity staff, or get in consultants to survey and advise forest planning.
- Potoroo detections 100% authentic – no questioning by VF of witnesses – fully accepted, yet despite 3 verified detections, VF made no attempt to consult with DSE biologists or protect 50 ha for each as stated in the FFGA.
- DSE set up its own ‘rules’ outside of existing legislation.
- DM asked for full injunction to logging.
Day 3 – Thursday – response from Defendant (VF)
- ‘Having to abide by the SFT Act could mean that every logger, truckie, contractor, roading operator must comply with these laws as well. Does that mean every worker has to set up a biodiversity unit and consult biologists?
- Argues again, it’s all DSE’s responsibility.
- Argues that the words for Greater Glider protection in the FMP says “approximately 100 ha” is unenforceable – how much is ‘approximately’?
- VicForests Lawyers couldn’t find any expert biologists to speak for them. They tried.
- Not being given the entire potoroo footage was the whole problem.
- The 400 ha reserve to the (drier, steeper) west is a benefit for all the species.
- Crays were found in the creek next to a previously logged forest so therefore they can survive OK.
- Potoroo no 2 (on camera) wasn’t used in original evidence (it was actually discovered after writ was served but this was overlooked by VF lawyers).
- The hair tube evidence of the Potoroo near proposed coupe 19 didn’t come with a copy of the note when it was sent off for analysis – so how do we know where it really was?
This ended the long trial for the wildlife of Brown Mountain. We await Justice Osborn’s final decision …”
Court Case:
‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 53 (25 February 2010)’
(Supreme Court of Victoria)
SOURCE: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/53.html
|
JUDGE:
|
|
|
WHERE HELD:
|
Melbourne
|
|
DATE OF HEARING:
|
|
|
DATE OF RULING:
|
|
|
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
|
Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (Ruling No 2) |
|
|
|
Revised 4 March 2010
|
HIS HONOUR:
1 ‘The background to this proceeding is stated in the decision of his Honour Justice J Forrest made last year, and granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff. The injunction restrains logging and associated works within coupes located at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland. The underlying basis on which the plaintiff seeks relief in the proceeding, and upon which it sought and obtained injunctions is that the coupes in issue have such conservation significance that logging of them would be unlawful, having regard to applicable legislative and governmental controls which seek to protect such significance.
2 The plaintiff by summons dated 23 February 2010 now seeks leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with a form of amendment appended to the summons. That application is resisted by the defendant insofar as the amendments raise allegations of the presence of the three animal species within the relevant area, which have not previously formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. The matter is fixed for trial at Sale commencing on Monday next, and has been the subject of a framework of pre-trial directions intended to ensure that it would be ready to proceed at that date, and to ensure that the defendant was accorded procedural fairness. The defendant wishes the matter to proceed next Monday whether or not the amendments are permitted, because any delay will result in the continuation of the injunction which it submits is causing it continuing economic loss and prejudice. The plaintiff contends that the amendments can be made at this very late stage without the necessity of any adjournment of the trial, and that the trial can proceed with adequate procedural fairness from the defendant’s point of view. I accept the relevant principles relating to the application were restated by the High Court in the case of Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v ANU.
3 For present purposes it is sufficient to repeat what was said in the judgment of the plurality: An application for leave to amend a pleading should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim, subject to payment of costs by way of compensation. There is no such entitlement. All matters relevant to the exercise of the power to permit amendment should be weighed. The fact of substantial delay and wasted costs, the concerns of case management, will assume importance on an application for leave to amend.
4 The underlying objective of the court must of course be to achieve a just resolution of the dispute between the parties. That notion in a case such as the present extends to the objective insofar as it is reasonably possible of ensuring that justice is seen to be done with respect to the real matters in dispute between the parties. In the present, case I accept that the amendments in issue arise out of circumstances to which the plaintiff was alerted by advice given to the plaintiff by a series of expert witnesses who have carried out ongoing site investigations for the purposes of preparing reports for the trial. If the amendments are refused, and this evidence is excluded, the evidence will not be the best evidence available as at the date of trial of the conservation significance of the land.
5 In my view, such a refusal would not only on the face of it prejudice the plaintiff’s case, but also necessarily detract from the credibility of the evidentiary basis on which the Court proceeds to determine the matter. And I am further of the view that this issue is of particular significance in the present case because it raises issues of the public interest both from the point of view of the position of the plaintiff and the defendant.
6 Accordingly the amendments should be allowed in the absence of prejudice to the defendant, which can be said to outweigh the prima facie desirability of the amendment. The notion of prejudice is to be approached broadly as the decision of Aon makes clear. In the present case, it is first submitted on behalf of the defendant that there has been delay on the part of the plaintiff which should preclude the granting of any indulgence to it. In particular, reference is made to the identification of a new species of crayfish in a report dated 7 December 2009 prepared by Dr McCormack.
7 The substance of this report was not the subject of advice to the defendant’s solicitor until 18 February this year. I accept the delay was regrettable and contrary to the intention and indeed the spirit of the directions made previously by the court in order to put the case in a proper position for trial. Nevertheless, the relevant expert retained by the defendant has now had the opportunity to consider and respond to the report in issue, and I am not persuaded that delay with respect to this aspect of the matter justifies refusal of the amendment.
8 Next it is submitted the defendant will suffer significant procedural prejudice if the amendments are allowed. It is not submitted that repleading the defence will occasion undue difficulty. And on the face of it, the probability is that the defence will be repleaded in parallel terms to the pleas which have previously been made in relation to other species which the plaintiff alleges are present in the relevant area.
9 The problem from the defendant’s point of view is in respect of obtaining expert advice responsive to the material now put forward in respect of the alleged presence of bird and frog species only recently identified as relevant on behalf of the plaintiff. This difficulty is exacerbated due to personal circumstances affecting the expert whom the defendant has retained in this matter, and proposes to call to give evidence.
10 Although the question is, I accept, finely balanced, I have come to the view that the procedural prejudice in issue can be significantly ameliorated and it may reasonably be hoped avoided, if an appropriate basket of directions is made by the Court. First, I would not fix a time for the filing and service of an amended defence, but simply direct that such an amended defence be filed and served as soon as is reasonably practicable.
11 Secondly, I would direct that save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to the matters of fact alleged in the amendments prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Thirdly, I would direct that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response. And fourthly, I would specifically direct that the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions relating to the evidence concerning such matters.
12 It seems to me that if these directions are made, then having regard to the pleadings as a whole as they currently stand and the expert evidence foreshadowed in the documents that have been filed with the Court, a fair trial should be reasonably possible. I should further record that during the course of argument I indicated to counsel for the defendant that the court would adopt a flexible approach to the giving of Professor Ferguson’s evidence if that should become necessary.
13 In addition to the procedural concerns which the defendant has expressed, the defendant also submitted that it could not be satisfactorily compensated by an order for costs thrown away in respect of the consequences of any amendment. It was submitted that there was a real prospect that an order for costs would not be able to be met by the plaintiff, and reference was made to the debate in the practice court with respect to this aspect of the matter at the time of the hearing relating to injunctive relief.
14 I have come to the view that such prejudice will be minimised if I fix an amount in respect of such costs and order that it be paid within a relatively short time. The parties have now agreed that it would be appropriate to order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the statement of claim, fixed in the amount of $12,000, and that that amount be paid by 5 March 2010.
15 Finally I should add for the sake of completeness that it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that certain amendments proposed with respect to the statement of claim by way of deletion of factual allegations do not go far enough. I am not persuaded that the pleading is on the face of it materially inadequate in relation to the matters raised, for the reasons I discussed with counsel during argument. It seems to me that the underlying issue is one which will have to be resolved at trial and in the light of the evidence as it emerges during the course of the hearing.
16 Accordingly, I propose to make orders generally in accordance with the oral reasons I have just given. First, that the plaintiff have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim generally in accordance with the form appended to the summons dated 23 February 2010. I say generally because the proposed paragraph 80D needs to be denoted as such in the amended statement of claim.
17 Secondly, that the defendant file and serve an amended defence to the amended statement of claim as soon as is reasonably practicable. Thirdly, save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to matters of fact alleged in the amendments permitted to the statement of claim prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Fourthly, that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response to the plaintiff.18 Fifthly, the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions with respect to evidence relating to such matters. Sixthly, that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendments, including the costs of this application fixed at $12,000, on or before 5 March 2010.’
© The Habitat Advocate Public Domain
Tuesday, March 30th, 2010
by Editor 2010330.
The New South Wales government logging agency, euphemistically named ‘Forests NSW’, has ongoing plans to log old growth native forests through the South East Corner bioregion of NSW. These forests provide rare and important habitat for Australian fauna, some of which in this region are now critically threatened with extinction due to the logging, burning and deforesting activities of Forests NSW, the National Parks Service under its parent which changes its name every frew years, and the NSW Rural Fire Service.
Australia’s SE Corner (SEC) Bioregion encompasses the shires of Eurobodalla, Bega Valley, Bombala and parts of Cooma-Monaro and Snowy River. The South East Corner forests include the Tilba, Bermagui, Murrah, Mumbulla, Tanja and Wapengo State Forests . It also includes a number of national parks including the Biamanga National Park.
Not surprisingly, many Australians, and particularly locals in this bioregion, value these forests being protected and are opposed to the habitat destruction being wrought to the old growth forests. Key active environmental organisations seeking to protect these forests include the Friends for Five Forests and the South East Region Conservation Alliance Inc. (SERCA). SERCA is an umbrella organisation for conservation, environment and for citizens’ groups who want to conserve and protect the natural environment of South East NSW, Australia. SERCA’s member organisations include Bega Environment Network | Chipstop | The Coastwatchers Association Inc | Colong Foundation for Wilderness | Friends of Durras | National Parks Association – Far South Coast | Natural Native Forests | SE Forest Rescue | Yurangalo Inc.
SERCA formed in September 2005 to ’maximise efforts and resources’ of these organisations to combat the continued NSW Government-sanctioned woodchipping of native forests, to participate in formal environmental planning by the NSW Government in the regionprocesses and importantly to protect these forest habitats from damaging development and land and forest management practices.
Below is a series of reports on the events affecting these forests from these various organisations and from media reports up until March 2010.
Forests NSW have moved into log the Mumbulla State Forest
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100329, http://www.fiveforests.net/
29 March 2010:
‘Forests NSW have moved into Compartments 2133 and 2135 in Mumbulla State Forest.
‘After a local resident photographed koala prints on Lizard road, near Cpt 2163 next on the logging list, the DECCW have apparently decided to undertake surveys before their burning operation on the other side of the road.
‘Much of the forest in Mumbulla creek catchment of Biamanga NP is growing on the Murrah soil landscape – still the only place koalas have been located. On this basis and in combination with the State Government’s management, the species remains endangered and likely to become extinct.’
Tanja State Forest – local residents meeting with State Forest reps.
Richard Blakers, 20100322 http://www.serca-online.org/our_media_releases/2010/Blakers22.rtf
22 March 2010:
‘Residents shocked by scale of proposed logging in Tanja State Forest Local residents met with State Forest representatives last week to discuss proposed logging operations in Tanja State Forests.’
‘The residents thanked the State Forests representatives for meeting with them and listened carefully to the information they provided. However, residents are very unhappy with the outcome of the meeting. They were shocked to discover the scale and intensity of the proposed logging and are not satisfied with State Forest responses to any of the concerns raised.’
‘The areas to be logged lie between Bega and Tathra along the north side of the Bega River. Near Mogareeka, the logging comes to within 50 metres of the river. It is also along the eastern side of ReedySwamp Road and extending along all the ridges and down to within 15 -20 metres of the drainage lines and creeks draining into the Bega River.’
‘The State Forests representatives explained steps taken to protect water quality, wildlife and scenic values in the logging operations. However it was clear that the measures are the barest minimum and worked out to allow for maximum tree removal, not maximum protection of other forest values.’
‘State Forests representatives conceded that after the proposed logging operation all available larger trees will have been removed from the forest and it will be well over 100 years before similar trees will again be available for commercial logging.’
‘They also stated that the logging was being driven by their need to meet wood supply agreements, and that within 3-5 years this kind of logging would stop in the Southern Region Forests because the supply of older trees will be exhausted. Once this happened, the industry would restructure to be able to use smaller trees.’
‘State Forests acknowledged that this logging will have significant short and long term impacts on local residents, and suggested the solution might be for residents to question their decision to buy property adjoining state forest.’
‘Residents think this is not a helpful attitude that does not address any of their issues.’
‘The residents have legitimate concerns about what happening to the public forests around our towns and homes. State Forests representatives do not seem to be in any position to cater to the residents needs because they are under pressure to meet wood supply agreements.’
‘Residents are therefore demanding that the State Government bring forward plans to restructure the timber industry and place a moratorium on logging in these coastal forests. It is not reasonable that these areas of older forest that have significant values other than just timber production should be sacrificed in order to meet such short term
goals.’
Koala colony under threat
Source: ABC 7pm TV News NSW, 18 March 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/18/2849958.htm
‘Environmental groups say State Government plans to commence logging in the Bega Valley, on the NSW far south coast, will decimate the local koala population.The last known population of koalas on NSW’s far south coast could be under threat by State Government plans to log their habitat.’
Forests NSW & RFS burn 700 ha of Biamanga NP
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100329, http://www.fiveforests.net/
Early March 2010:
‘Working collaboratively the NPWS, Forests NSW and the Rural Fire Service [RFS] have decided to burn close to seven hundred hectares of Biamanga National Park.
‘It appears the timing of this operation is consistent with plans to begin unsustainable logging on Monday 29 March. Consequently the NPWS is proposing to close the Lizard road to reduce access to the logging area from the east.’
NSW Government report on koalas in Mumbulla State Forest is flawed
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 201002, http://www.fiveforests.net/
February 2010:
‘The month ends with NSW government releasing a belated ‘interim’ report on the highly inefficient and non-adaptive/heuristic koala surveys. Amongst other disturbing elements the survey took 5 times as long to complete as the pilot survey. The cost to date, leaving aside the eight arrests and other time runs at over $1million, being twice the estimated value of all the sawlogs remaining in Mumbulla State Forest.’
‘The survey outcome, based on employing a 2% (?!) activity contour, is that less than 5% (1089 ha) of the area surveyed (22,000 ha) is said to be occupied by koalas. Regrettably there is some uncertainty about how this area has been derived as the RGB-SAT methodology measure for a single tree in a plot is 3.3%. There are no details as to how the 2% contour has been calculated although theoretically it should encompass a greater area than a 3.3% contour but this is apparently not the case.’
‘Seems to be another example of how the NSW and other governments put unsustainable logging above all else. On a positive note the genetic analysis demonstrates the NSW Scientific Committee was quite wrong.’
Loggers are set to destroy one of Australia’s last remaining koala habitats.
Source: John Hibberd, SERCA: http://www.serca-online.org/our_media_releases/sercamembers/Koala.pdf
February 2010:
‘The NSW Government has started sending contractors into the forests in South Eastern NSW. Negotiations between the NSW Department of Environment and the state government agency responsible for logging, Forests NSW, appear to have failed to reach a compromise.
‘The irony is that the NSW Government last year ordered a survey to try and find koalas in the coastal forests that are now about to be logged. The survey, which was conducted across all land tenures, found a small, active population of about 30 koalas and is continuing.
‘It seems the NSW Government has now decided its contractual obligations to supply saw logs locally and woodchips to Asia are more important then protecting this much loved native animal, which is immortalized in Australian culture.
‘The disease, Chlamydia, plus loss of habitat have contributed to a dramatic decline in koala numbers over recent decades, with the species now close to being declared endangered.
“Soon it will be too late to save the species.” Says Debora Numbers of koalas in Australia may be as low as 45,000 recent surveys by the Australian Koala Foundation show.
‘The koala population in South Eastern NSW was once healthy but in the last 100 years has been decimated by hunters interested in koala pelts and by logging.
‘Forests NSW have not publically given a date for the start of logging in the Mumbulla State Forest, no doubt expecting direct action from conservationists who forced loggers out of an area close by three years ago.
‘The issue will put heat on the new premier of the state of NSW, American-born Kristina Keneally, who was installed by the right-wing faction of the party recently.
‘And Commonwealth Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett – a former rock star with internationally successful band Midnight Oil and environmentalist – has been asked to intervene.
‘Steve Phillips – arguably NSW most experienced and expert Koala scientist, said on ABC radio recently,” We have got the management prescriptions (for koalas) wrong, especially in the SE …. The small area of koala habitat remaining is such a precious resource …. They have just got to be protected so they can continue to expand ….. there is no longer any argument about what is important habitat”.
‘NSW Minister for forestry Ian MacDonald stated in Parliament in 2008 that despite recurrent financial losses, logging in native forests will continue, in order to support jobs.
‘Yet billions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been pumped into plantations as replacement timber and fiber for industry and export. NSW Forests rely heavily on the outdated Regional Forest Agreements that were signed off in the late 90s giving new areas in National Parks to the state but retaining forests for logging. Conservationists say the industry is outdated and only propped up by political will and union backing.
‘These agreements are excluded from the Environment Protection Act (EPBC) as well as climate change and water supplies.
‘Will zoos soon be the only places to see koala? Will NSW Premier Kristine Keneally do her part and stop logging these coastal forests of Mumbulla, sealing the fate of these last few koala?’
‘It seems not despite 2010 being The Year of Biodiversity.’
Logging Plan Poses Threat to Precious Koala Colony
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100124, http://www.fiveforests.net/ from Sydney Morning Herald.
January 2010:
‘The year begins with the NSW government deciding to support the (Japanese) native forest logging industry and their proposals to eliminate the last koalas. According to the Sydney Morning Herald: Forests NSW and the Department of Environment and Climate Change are “ . . . in search of a compromise between felling trees and maintaining enough forest to allow the koalas to survive.” (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/logging-plan-poses-threat-to-precious-koala-colony-20100124-msm7.html)
‘Referring to the Regional Forest Agreements the recently released independent review of the EPBC Act states “ . . . if the terms of the approval are not complied with, or if there is insufficient reporting information to verify that compliance, Dr Hawke recommends that the approval should be terminated.” And “ . . . the full protections of the Act should apply to forest activities.” In his press release Environment Minister Peter Garret stated:
“ . . . the Government notes the concerns raised by Dr Hawke in recommendation 38 in the review regarding the current mechanisms in the Act for forest management under Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs), and is committed to working with state governments to improve the review, audit and monitoring arrangements for RFAs, including their timely completion, clearer assessment of performance against environmental and sustainable forestry outcomes, and a greater focus on compliance of RFAs in the intervening years.”
‘The Government intends to use upcoming RFA renewal processes to improve the achievement of these outcomes in future RFAs. In light of this, the Government rejects the mechanisms proposed in recommendation 38 and does not propose to review section 38 of the EPBC Act as it currently applies to RFAs.” [Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/mr20091221.html]
The fact that the DECC are working with Forests NSW to ensure logging in the catchments suggests that they either remain unconvinced that logging spreads Bell-miners or they believe that koalas like sick trees. If the Commonwealth are committed to these ideas they should have no problems working with the state government.’
Forests NSW ignores koalas to permit logging of Mumbulla State Forest
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100329, http://www.fiveforests.net/
December 2009:
‘With no apparent reason, other than to progress koala extinction the NSW Government is reportedly planning business as usual when work resumes in the New Year. This work has begun and the Department of the Environment for Climate Change (DECC) has deleted from their website all information about the koala surveys over the past 2 years.’
‘The NPWS Regional manager Tim Shepard is reported as saying “. . . now we have a good idea of where Koalas live . .” We are using this information to help us plan our hazard reduction programs”(Coastal Custodians, Nov/Dec 2009). Also, a rumour has spread from the Wapengo Watershed Association claiming Forests NSW will begin the year logging koala habitat in Mumbulla State Forest. While the source of this proposal remains unconfirmed, it does confirm some suspicions. Notably that logging is to be suspended at Bermagui so the negative impacts of uncontrollable wildfire in logging slash adjacent to the town, can be reduced over summer. Killing koalas is, apparently, OK.’
Logging begins in Compartment 2001 in Bermagui State Forest
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100329, http://www.fiveforests.net/
‘Forests NSW have approved logging in 89% of the compartment as opposed to the maximum of 60% allowed for in their legal approvals. Desperate to maintain timber supplies this logging confirms the statement from Forests NSW manager Mr Martin Linehan that “We can do what we want when we want“.
‘Fifteen months after the NSW Government released a map that is inconsistent with the outcomes of the pilot koala surveys. Koala expert Dr Steve Phillips has been interviewed ABC local radio about the uncertain fate for koalas at a national level and the last few Five Forests koalas.’
Forests NSW Illegally Logging in Bermagui
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20100329, http://www.fiveforests.net/
September 2009:
‘Four arrests have been made as a result of Forests NSW claims, but examination of the operational map, the prohibited area notice and the logging plan(s) for Cpt 2002 demonstrate the logging is outside the IFOA. Critical koala habitat is being destroyed while the NSW police support Forests NSW illegal logging.’
‘Logging began in Compartment 2002 of Bermagui State Forest on Thursday September 10. The logging plans (download from resources page) for the compartment are not an accurate or honest representation of soil, flora, water or roads in the compartment. Details of concerns about the operations, also available on the resources page, have been passed onto the NSW police and NCS International.
‘Forests NSW can log this critical koala habitat on the only soil landscape known to have koalas because they have been able to abuse the process based on unproven claims about koalas in the south east.’
‘A community conducted review of the Eden Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) between the Commonwealth and NSW State Governments has found that forests in the southeast are being exploited at rate that far exceeds the limits of ecological sustainability and those of the relevant legislation.’
‘Community representative on the Forest Resources and Management Systems Committee for the Eden assessment process and review author Mr Robert Bertram believes that the RFA has failed to achieve the legislated ecological milestones and this failure has negative implications at local, regional and global levels.’
“ The review analyses Annual reports from the NSW Forestry Commission that indicate dramatically reduced timber yields of 60% for sawlogs and 40% for pulp logs and a massive escalation in areas being logged, such that over the past five years nearly 50% of all State forests in the Eden region have been scheduled for logging.’
“These outcomes confirm that extensive canopy dieback and the associated death of millions of trees in the southeast is having a significant impact on the native forest logging industry. It is apparent that some 50,000 hectares of additional forests have been covertly handed over to ensure wood supplies.’
“These additional forests include areas that the Forestry Commission failed to declare during the Eden assessment and vast tracts of forests on the tablelands, that have similarly not been assessed. It is apparent that these Crown forests are being logged with the assistance of significant public subsidies and at a rate that greatly exceeds the requirements of the RFA.
However, of greatest concern is that the RFAs are designed to ignore the science that explains the decline of eucalyptus forests and it’s relationship to timber supplies, species extinction, catchment degradation and climate change. It seems that Government departments and other publicly funded organizations are either threatened or ‘paid off’ to ignore or suppress relevant information. The success of the RFA has been to demonstrate that ignorance and greed has overcome credible science, accountability and intergenerational equity.”
‘The review entitled: ‘The effects of deforestation on timber volumes, areas logged and associated climate change issues: A community review of the EdenRegionalForest Agreement” can be downloaded at the Friends of the Five Forests website: http://www.fiveforests.net/resources
Forests NSW has compartment 2002 in the Bermagui State Forest on its worklist
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 2005, http://www.fiveforests.net/
‘Friends of Five Forests and their supporters will have to mount yet another campaign to have the logging stopped if Black Lagoon and Meads Bay are to be protected in accordance with the sanctuary zone classification they have been given as part of the Batemans Marine Park, and if the very few remaining koalas are to have any chance of survival. This large compartment of predominantly spotted gums is a significant part of the catchment for Narira Creek and Black Lagoon, which link into Meads Bay.’
‘The Batemans Marine Park provides for the highest level of protection of Black Lagoon and Meads Bay as sanctuary Zones. Logging can be expected to lead to further serious siltation of the Creek, and to damage plant and fish life in both the Lagoon and Meads Bay. The Park Zone Plan does not come into operation until June 2007.’
‘Pre-emptive action by Forests NSW to log compartment 2002 in the interim would make a mockery of the Marine Park zoning.’
‘The compartment contains areas of significant koala habitat. It is also next to part of the Kooraban National Park that contains the only koalas in this immediate region. Both this area and compartment 2002 are occupied by the Five Forests koala population, which was nominated as endangered some years ago.’
‘NSW Government release of a report by consultants on a Koala Management Plan for the region is now well overdue.’
‘Friends of Five Forests and their supporters will have to mount yet another campaign to have the logging stopped if Black Lagoon and Meads Bay are to be protected in accordance with the sanctuary zone classification they have been given as part of the Batemans Marine Park, and if the very few remaining koalas are to have any chance of survival.’
150 residents call for immediate halt to all logging operations in the Five Forests
SOURCE: Friends for Five Forests, 20050320, http://www.fiveforests.net/
20 March 2005:
‘More than 150 people from many areas of the Bega Valley Shire and beyond attended a meeting at the Murrah Hall to hear about logging operations being implemented by non-adaptive land managers in the coastal forests around Bermagui.’
‘The meeting was unanimous in calling for an immediate halt to all logging operations in the Five Forests.’
‘In late May 2005 the NSW Forestry Commission breached the conditions of the Regional Forest Agreements and their Threatened Species licence when they started to log critical Koala habitat in Cuttagee catchment part of Murrah State Forest.
‘As a result of community actions the logging crew pulled the operation four days after it started and after FNSW arrested two people.’
‘Several actions are being planned and implemented that are aimed at stopping the further destruction of our flora, fauna and degradation coastal catchments and implementing sustainable forest management.’
The second stage has been the production of management and research proposals that take a holistic approach to natural resource management. The management and research proposals blend appropriate restoration forestry with world’s best practise and public accountability.’
As a result of the communities efforts and after failing to find anyone in DEC prepared to accept the mission, the NSW State Government has recently employed consultants to gather community opinions for possible input into a Koala Management Framework.’
[Background Ecology] ‘Koalas in the Bega Valley’
SOURCE: John Hiberd, SERCA, 201002, http://www.serca-online.org/latest_news/koala.pdf
‘There were once, 100 years ago, hundreds of thousands of koalas in the Bega Valley. They were so numerous that you could even see them in the trees along Bega’s main street! Hunting for the fur trade, habitat loss through extensive clearing, and fire have all decimated that once vast population.
Now all we know for sure is that a tiny remnant clings on in Mumbulla State Forest, with a few scattered individuals possibly elsewhere. And this is what they
are going to log and burn. Recent DECCW surveys have shown that this population is slowly recovering, and may now number up to 50 individuals. Studies of tree species preferred by Mumbulla koalas have shown that species diversity appears to be important for them.’
‘Surprisingly, given this population’s small size, DNA analysis by Sydney University has shown that Mumbulla koalas are genetically strong, and thus potentially able to increase their numbers without some of the inbreeding problems that have affected other disjunct koala populations.
Koalas need space. They need space to find the most nutrient rich leaves for their highly specialised diet; they need space so that young males, forced from their homes, can find new territories; they need space to handle our changing climate with more frequent and longer droughts; and they need space if their population is going to grow to a more viable size, capable of withstanding major events such as fire or disease.’
‘It is this space that they are being denied. And for what? For the sake of a few months supply of sawlogs and woodchips. Once they have logged and burnt, we may have prolonged the inevitable decline of the local sawlog industry, but we will have lost our koalas for ever!’
‘It is also no good just thinking that we can log carefully. The requirements of koalas are so poorly understood as to make it impossible to be certain which trees they are going to need, or in which direction they are going to need to move. Perhaps forestry believe that they can get away with just “not logging the trees with koalas in them”! And once the forest has been logged it will be burnt, which will nicely finish off any remaining koalas!’
‘The koalas of the Far South Coast are an integral component of our natural heritage – a natural heritage which has endured for millenia – respected by the traditional Aboriginal custodians of the land – a heritage which has led to the designation of this area as Australia’s Coastal Wilderness, with a campaign aimed at increasing tourism in the area and thus improving the local economy. Yet again we face the dilemma of short-term economic gain versus long-term
environmental degradation and the loss of opportunity to establish a truly sustainable local economy.’
‘A Koala recovery programme in these coastal forests has the potential to become an internationally recognised species recovery project, since:
-
They are an iconic species facing regional extinction, but for which there appears to be a reasonable chance of recovery with appropriate management actions;
-
There is a significant role for indigenous people, both because they are custodians of the area (especially the adjacent Biamanga National Park), and because of potential training and employment opportunities that could arise through the recovery program;
-
We now have a sound scientifically-based foundation giving us the capacity to monitor the conservation status of the population;
-
There are a range of educational and research outreach opportunities involving tertiary institutions, schools and field studies centres;
-
We can build a significant role for the local community; and,
-
We can develop substantial opportunities for research-based tourism and thus grow the local economy in a sustainable manner.
© The Habitat Advocate Public Domain
Tags: Bermagui State Forest, Biamanga National Park, Forests NSW, Koala, Logging, Mumbulla, Murrah, SE Corner Forests, SERCA, South East Region Conservation Alliance, Tanja, Tilba, Wapengo
Posted in Koalas, South East Corner (AU), Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
(This article was first compiled back on 20100316. The video by Brent Melton ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ highlights issues and threats that remain highly prevalent):
.
Tarkine Wilderness
(Photo by Des Houghton)
.
The Tarkine in north-west Tasmania contains Australia’s largest tract of temperate rainforest, and is home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species.These include such unique animals as the Giant Freshwater Lobster – the world’s largest freshwater crustacean, and the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle – Australia’s largest Eagle, and the famous Tasmanian Devil.
However, the Tasmanian Labor Government has plans to construct a new tourist road through over 5 kilometres pristine rainforest for tourism development. The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area. .
On 16-Mar-2010 Director Brent Melton released the free webcast video ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ :
.
Video Source: ^http://photopia.me/index.php/client-downloads/cat_view/15-downloads.html
.
.
‘Tarkine Emergency National Heritage Listing’
.
[Source: Tarkine National Coalition: ^http://www.tarkine.org/]
.
‘Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has used emergency provisions under national environment law to include the Tarkine in the National Heritage List. This is a significant milestone in the campaign to protect the Tarkine, and now ensures that the Tarkine Road and any future developments will now have to be assessed against the National Heritage Listing. The boundary of the 447,000 hectare listing follows the boundary for the proposed Tarkine National Park. The fight goes on. The Tarkine Road still is not defeated, and the long term aim of a Tarkine National Park and World Heritage Area will require us to continue the campaign to ensure protection of this special place.’
.
.
‘Tarkine Road referred to Commonwealth’
.
‘The $23million Forestry Tasmania Tarkine Road has been referred to the Commonwealth for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act assessment. This project will intorduce the fatal Devil facial tumor disease to this last refuge of isolated healthy Tasmanian devils.The project is critically non-compliant, and is clearly unacceptable.’
‘Forestry Tasmania’s “Tarkine Drive”- A proposal to bulldoze a new road through the heart of the Tarkine rainforest.’
.
.
‘Tasmanian Government Lodges its Tarkine Road Project with the Commonwealth’
.
The Tasmanian Government has lodged the Tarkine Road project with the Commonwealth for Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
“Impact on the Tasmanian devil is considered to be potentially significant for the following reasons:
- There is considerable potential for increased roadkill rates following completion of the road.
- Animals with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates and low natural densities (such as devils) tend to be negatively affected by roads and traffic (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009).
- The increase in Arthur River crossing sites may lead to the spread of DFTD into new areas south of the Arthur River. “
– Excerpt from the Tasmanian Government’s Tarkine Road EPBC referral lodged 28 October 2009.
.
‘The public comment period has now closed.’
‘The Tasmanian government’s logging agency, Forestry Tasmania, has recently produced a proposal to carve a road right through the pristine rainforest in the heart of the Tarkine.’
‘The proposed road is clearly destructive from an environmental point of view – as, in its current form, it would involve bulldozing over twenty kilometres of new road into remote, virgin rainforest. It would also dramatically increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, invasion from weeds and feral species, along with exacerbating myrtle wilt disease in the heart of the Tarkine Rainforest.’
‘It will also compromise the last wild refuge of disease free Tasmanian devils – a move described by scientists as condemning the Devil to exctintion in the wild. Even the government’s own report aknowledges that the road will likely introduce the facial tumor disease into this isolated healthy population.’
‘The proposal also diverts $23 million of the Tasmanian government’s money away from a strategic tourism plan for the Tarkine region towards this road proposal. The road will aim to ‘capture’ all of the tourists visiting the Tarkine region, divert them away from ugly logging operations, and direct them on a sanitised Forestry Tasmania controlled drive channelling visitors to Forestry Tasmania’s failing ‘Dismal swamp’ visitor centre. In doing so, – this road proposal would involve bulldozing several sections of road through pristine rainforest, including in globally significant rainforest reserves in the heart of the Tarkine.’
‘It is critically important that a strategic rather than piecemeal approach to public investment in the Tarkine is taken. It is also critically important that government puts public money towards infrastructure and projects that don’t harm the environment, are good value for money, and deliver benefits to the broader community. The Tarkine already has hundreds of kilometres of sealed and unsealed roads, extensive infrastructure, and extensive accessibility for tourists to world-class natural attractions. It already has several accessible and popular ‘loop’ roads showcasing its extraordinary values. However, it doesn’t have the basic signage, promotion, visitor entry points and other basic tourist infrastructure needed to really help put the region on the map.’
‘When weighed up against the dozens of exciting projects in the Tarkine region that could and should be funded – along with the desperate need for development of the most basic infrastructure such as visitor signs and entry points to the Tarkine – this would be a very poor way for government to spend taxpayers’ dollars.’
Reference Documents
Originally available at the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5169
.
.
‘Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources – Proposed Tarkine Tourist Drive’
.
Source: Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, Originally available at: ^http://dierp.dot.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/45404/DIER_Tarkine_Tourist_Drive_Overview.pdf
.
.
.
‘Tarkine road plan sparks tourism row’
.
[Source: ABC Northern Tasmania, 20090524, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579226.htm?site=northtas]
.
 Forestry Tasmania says it gains nothing from building the Tarkine tourism road.
(ABC News: Simon Cullen, file photo)
.
A Tarkine wilderness lobby group has called for reform of Forestry Tasmania and questioned the agency’s role in running tourism ventures.
Concerns about the State Government’s plan to build a $23 million tourist road through the Tarkine, in the north-west, were raised at a forum in Wynyard yesterday.
The project is expected to create 600 jobs and inject $70 million a year into the north-west economy.
But there is concern the project could impact on the Tasmanian devil and jeopardise tourism by tarnishing the Tarkine’s wilderness brand.
The Tarkine National Coalition’s spokesman Phil Pullinger says some of the $23 million should be going to local tourism ventures rather than Forestry Tasmania to build the road.
“We’ve got these tourism operators that are completely having to sink or swim on their own merits and we’ve got a government agency, which is supposed to be returning money to the taxpayer, swallowing up all of the public money,” he said.
“That is a real problem and that is what we need clear reform on.”
Forestry Tasmania’s Ken Jeffreys says it would not gain from building the road.
“Forestry Tasmania will not make a brass razoo out of this $23 million Tarkine drive, in fact it will lose access to some 650 hectares of forest that would otherwise be available for harvesting, so this is really a community service by Forestry Tasmania,” he said.
Both Opposition parties are urging the government to drop the plan.
The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area.’
.
.
.
‘The Federal Government last night confirmed that it had still not received any referral for the proposed Tarkine Road from Forestry Tasmania or the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.
Greens Deputy Leader, Christine Milne says the delayed referral shows the Bartlett government is worried that a tick from the Environment Minister will be felt in poling booths at the upcoming state elections.
“It seems that Premier Bartlett is keen to delay the referral so that consideration is squashed into the Christmas, New Year holiday season in the hope that people are so distracted that they will miss the 10 day period for public consultation.”
Senator Milne called on the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, to reject the road immediately upon receiving the application as he did with for the proposed coal port at Shoalwater Bay.
“The Tasmanian Devil is on the road to extinction and Premier Bartlett’s Tarkine vandalism will see the process accelerated. This is a test of Minister Garrett’s commitment to the protection of biodiversity and Australian species.”
“With Premier Bartlett speaking at the Press Club today he should explain to the nation’s journalist’s why he is intent on wasting $23m of tax payer’s money and risk sending the Tasmanian Devil further along the road to extinction all to support a logging industry extravaganza. Hardly clean and green Mr Bartlett.”
.
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain.
.
Reports:
(most recent at top)
‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has concluded in the Supreme Court on Thursday 25th March – after a 16 day trial.’
© Environment East Gippsland 2010 ^ http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/
East Gippsland residents outside Victorian State Parliament in early 2010
protesting against the Victorian Government’s immoral and illegal logging and scorched earthing
of old growth forests of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland Victoria, Australia.
.
The photos show a Greater Glider [Petauroides volans]. The Greater Glider is strictly nocturnal, and largely solitary, arboreal species of undisturbed eucalypt-dominated woodland habitats. It is endemic to south eastern Australian forests including Brown Mountain and its population is decreasing largely due to land clearing for agriculture, logging, and bushfires.
[Source: Environment East Gippsland, 20100327, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]
.
‘Justice Osborn has reserved his decision. It could take anywhere from one month to six months to hand down a finding, but of course we are hoping sooner.
The four week trial has been marked by finger-pointing between government logging bodies VicForests and DSE about who is responsible for endangered species. The behavior of those charged with protecting our wildlife has been exposed to public scrutiny and the Supreme Court’s enquiry.
We believe the government doesn’t survey for endangered wildlife before they log old growth forest, because they don’t want to find anything that would prevent logging. The Court heard that VicForests doesn’t employ wildlife experts, and EEG has argued that both VicForests and the DSE sideline the opinion of the government’s biodiversity unit. We now hope the Minister is fully informed about the very high conservation values in this area.
EEG presented evidence of a new species of crayfish in Brown Mountain Creek, plus experts claiming the stands of old growth are high quality habitat for two species of rare frogs, and the Spotted-tailed Quoll. The evidence for the Spotted-tailed Quoll was heart-breaking – the three last remaining viable colonies are in East Gippsland.
This case has been all about whether irreversible damage would be caused by logging. And as our legal team stated:
“You can’t get damage that is more irreversible than extinction.”
The outcome of this case is important for the protection of wildlife in other stands of high conservation value native forests under threat of clearfelling.’
.
.
‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has begun!’
[Source: Environment East Gippsland, 20100315, ^ http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]
.
‘After months of preparation, our legal team and supporters have gathered in Sale and begun the two-week Brown Mountain landmark trial.
Everything is going very well so far. It’s difficult to report on a hearing that is in progress, particularly since we are the plaintiff, so this article might lack a few things.
Our lead barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, spent Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning in Court outlining what we say are the facts and the law, in a fascinating opening submission.
She spoke about the beautiful native wildlife that is central to our case, and the Court was treated to large pictures of the critters. It was almost surreal, but quite appropriate in our view, to see a team of lawyers in black gowns and wigs defending the furry, the feathered, the cray and the frog.
She said that VicForests has a number of legal responsibilities towards the environment, including endangered species, and that those responsibilities are inconsistent with logging at Brown Mountain.
For a more detailed summary of the first day’s hearing, read this excellent article by The Age journalist Kate Hagen, who is attending the hearing Click here Journalists from ABC Radio and Win TV (channel 9) are also attending the hearings.
VicForests’ lead barrister Ian Waller SC started outlining VicForests’ case this afternoon. When Court adjourned today, he said he still had about an hour to go, so we haven’t got the full picture yet.
But generally speaking he contended that VicForests’ responsibility to the environment wasn’t anywhere near as strong as we made out, and was balanced by its requirement to create economic and social benefits. He said that, to the extent to which VicForests has responsibilities to the environment and native wildlife, it has fulfilled them.
Today (Wednesday), Justice Osborn and the legal teams are having a look at Brown Mountain first hand. It’s not just a bushwalk, though; they will observe first hand some places and concepts about forests, logging and post-logging practices that will later on be discussed in Court.
On Thursday morning, VicForests’ opening submissions will finish, then Environment East Gippsland will bring out our witnesses.’
.
Fate of native Forest Hangs on ‘David v Goliath’ Court Case
Source: Environment East Gippsland, (EEG), 20100301, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/
.
Environment East Gippsland Inc (EEG) v Vic Forests Brown Mountain Court Case, Sale, Monday, March 1
‘The fate of a native forest with trees dating back to Joan of Arc’s time is at stake in a Supreme Court case to be heard at the Victorian centre of Sale from Monday (March 1).
‘The landmark Brown Mountain case has national implications for all native forests in Australia and major political implications, with the green vote likely to be vital for both State and Federal Labor Governments in an election year – which is also the UN’s Year of Biodiversity.
‘In a David and Goliath battle, Environment East Gippsland (EEG) is seeking to stop state-owned logging monopoly VicForests from clear-felling Brown Mountain, a rich and ancient forest which is “chockablock” with threatened and endangered species.
‘The action marks the first time a Victorian court has been asked to grant a permanent injunction against state-sanctioned logging. It will also raise the fundamental conflict in Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement – where the State Government charged with protecting the forests is also the logger.
‘That was underlined in Victoria last year when Environment Minister Gavin Jennings gave the go-ahead to logging at Brown Mountain, declaring there were no threatened species in there. That very morning an EEG camera captured footage at Brown Mountain of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species.
‘In the absence of government protection, EEG was forced to take legal action to defend the forest – an enormous and costly step for a community group.
‘In an Australian first, EEG last year won a temporary injunction on logging at Brown Mountain, ahead of the full hearing, with Supreme Court Justice Forrest comparing images from the forest to the WW1 battlefields of the Somme. But even if successful with their action, conservationists anticipate the Victorian Government may favour the logging industry and over-ride the court’s decision as has happened in previous high-profile cases in both Victoria and Tasmania.’
.
.
Brown Mountain Background
Source: Environment East Gippsland ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/
.
‘Brown Mountain, in East Gippsland in Victoria, contains old growth forest with ancient trees, one carbon-dated to 600 years old. It is prime habitat for threatened species including the Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, the Large Brown Tree Frog, the Square-tailed Kite, and the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is also a hotspot for arboreal mammals, like the Greater Glider and the Yellow-bellied glider.
‘Environment East Gippsland (EEG) alleges that logging four coupes on Brown Mountain is unlawful because it breaches provisions to protect endangered and threatened species in the Victorian Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. In particular EEG says that VicForests has failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007.
‘In the 2006 election, the Bracks Labor Government promised to protect “the last significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. Brown Mountain should clearly have been included but, instead, 20 hectares were logged in summer 2008-09. Threatened species surveys triggered a moratorium in February 2009 followed by more surveys over winter and spring and, in August 2009, an EEG survey camera recorded the presence of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species, despite the government’s declaration – earlier that same day- that there were NO threatened species at Brown Mountain.
‘In September 2009, EEG successfully obtained an interim injunction against VicForests to prevent logging in the coupes. In granting the injunction, Justice Forrest likened photographs of logging to ‘pictures of the battlefields of the Somme’.
‘Already the case has delivered important precedents:
- The Supreme Court refused VicForests’ application for up to $163,000 in security from EEG before a court injunction was granted to stop logging on Brown Mountain. Having to pay such a large sum would have stopped the community group being able to challenge critical habitat logging.
- The interim injunction, granted late last year, was also a groundbreaking decision because no Victorian court has ever ordered an injunction on logging before.
‘However there are concerns that the Victorian Government could override a logging ban, if the EEG case is successful.
‘Greens Leader Bob Brown successfully brought a court case to halt logging at the Wielangta forest in Tasmania because it threatened the endangered Swift Parrot, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle and Wielangta Stag Beetle. Then Prime Minister John Howard and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon amended the Regional Forest Agreement to permit logging to continue.
‘In 1998, logging at Goolengook in far eastern Victoria, the site of Australia’s longest running forest blockade from 1997 to 2002, was found to be unlawful because it was within a protected area next to a Heritage River. The Victorian government changed the law retrospectively to make the logging legal.’
.
.
Member’s Statement: VicForests – Brown Mountain old growth forest
SOURCE: Victorian Greens, 20090402, ^http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/1057
.
‘Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has confirmed that a tree cut down by VicForests in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was between 550 and 600 years old. Until now foresters have claimed that these large trees were between 200 and 250 years old. Others have assumed that between 300 and 400 years would be the age limit before the trees succumb to rot. The tree was young when Joan of Arc lived and Christopher Columbus discovered America. It measured 11 metres around the stump close to the ground. Other trees on Brown Mountain have girths of 12 metres and more and could between 700 and 800 years old. They would have been mature when Marco Polo travelled the world. These trees are ancient relics and part of our precious national heritage.
‘VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50-to-80-year rotation. It would take until 2600 AD for a tree to grow to the same size.
In 2006 Premier Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests. Since then hundreds of hectares of these ancient forests have been cut down. It is not good enough for the government to claim that VicForests is independent and that the government can do nothing to save Brown Mountain. The government must act now to protect all remaining old growth forests in East Gippsland.’
.
.
Brown Mountain to stay green – for now
SOURCE: The Wilderness Society, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/brown-mountain-to-stay-green-2013-for-now
.
‘Brown Mountain, in Victoria’s East Gippsland, is home to magnificent old-growth trees as well as endangered species like the Orbost spiny crayfish and the Long-footed potoroo.
‘One of the giant Brown Mountain trees that will hopefully be saved by the Supreme Court Injunction.
(Photo: Luke Chamberlain)
.
‘But despite previous promises from the Victorian government to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests in the state, Brown Mountain still has no protection against logging by VicForests.
‘Early in 2009, things were looking dire. Ignoring community outrage, VicForests’ bulldozers continued to destroy trees as old as 500 years.
‘Supported by the Wilderness Society, along with many concerned residents, volunteers and other concerned Victorians, Environment East Gippsland brought a last-minute court injunction against the logging at Brown Mountain.
‘Environment East Gippsland is Victoria’s longest running community forest group working solely for the protection of Victoria’s last and largest area of ancient forest in the state. Environment East Gippsland drew a line in the sand, and submitted for a court injunction to halt the logging.’VicForests, the Victorian Government’s commercial logging agency, stood up in court and argued for logging to begin as soon as possible.
Incredibly, VicForests said that it is not their responsibility, nor is it possible for them to comply with endangered species legislation!
‘Supreme Court judge Justice Jack Forrest commented on photographs showing the ”apparent total obliteration” of an old-growth logging coupe in Brown Mountain and subsequent burning off, saying they reminded him of the battlefields of the Somme.
”To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term,” he said.’
An injunction against logging was granted just in time. But an expensive trial over the issue will be heard in March. The Brown Mountain forests will need all the help they can get.
.
Minister ‘on two fronts’ in forest
SOURCE: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100303, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/minister-on-two-fronts-in-forest-20100302-pgg1.html
.
‘Environment Minister Gavin Jennings moved to protect significant areas of old-growth forest in East Gippsland at the same time as releasing some of it for logging, a court has heard.
‘Ian Waller, SC, for the state government’s commercial timber agency VicForests, said the minister announced new parks and reserves in the vicinity of Brown Mountain last year along with other measures to protect threatened species in the area. ‘They included a 100-metre buffer zone around Brown Mountain Creek and the retention per hectare of at least five hollow-bearing trees, which are important for habitat and breeding, where they were present in sufficient numbers.
‘VicForests is defending itself against a claim by Environment East Gippsland that logging of about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain would breach legislation aimed at protecting endangered and threatened species.
In an opening address yesterday to the Supreme Court sitting at Sale, Mr Waller said much of the newly protected area had never been logged, despite claims to the contrary by the environment group. ‘He said VicForests was meeting its obligations under various pieces of legislation and took a great deal of care in preparing its timber release plans, which had to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Environment and Sustainability (DSE) before logging could occur.
“‘It is not a random exercise by which areas of forest are deemed suitable for harvesting and only then checked for difficulties,” Mr Waller said. ”The entire process from beginning to end is one of checks and balances, where precautions are observed in identifying areas to be harvested as well as the manner in which harvesting is to occur.”
Mr Waller said it was the DSE, and not VicForests, that had the power and responsibility to create special protection zones where they were warranted. He said that logging might not pose a risk to the long-footed potoroo, listed as endangered by the federal government, because surveys after logging showed prevalence of the species had increased. Mr Waller said there was evidence that factors other than logging were threatening spot-tailed quolls, since the species was not secure even in areas of plentiful habitat. He said the guaranteed survival and flourishing of flora and fauna, as specified in legislation, was an ”aspirational goal” rather than an enforceable requirement. ”If a complete and utter guarantee had to be enforced in all respects it may be that harvesting would cease absolutely,” he said. ”Yet it is obvious the regime is to promote and allow harvesting.”
The trial is due to continue before Justice Robert Osborn, who today will view the contested site.’
.
.
Logging ‘a threat to wildlife’
Source: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100302, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/logging-a-threat-to-wildlife-20100301-pdlh.html
‘STATE-SANCTIONED logging of old-growth forest in East Gippsland poses a risk to threatened and endangered species and is at odds with the government’s own legislation, an environment group has said.
Environment East Gippsland is suing VicForests, the government agency responsible for logging in state forests, over plans to log about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain, which greens and the timber industry see as a symbolic battleground.
The group won an injunction last year preventing logging in the area before the trial, which began in the Supreme Court sitting at Sale yesterday.
The group acted after Environment Minister Gavin Jennings lifted a seven-month moratorium on logging at Brown Mountain, saying government scientists had found no evidence of endangered species there. But in an opening address yesterday, Debbie Mortimer, SC, for Environment East Gippsland, said VicForests relied on ”desktop planning”, using often outdated records that were at odds with evidence from field experts on the ground.
She listed nine species in the area that were recognised as being ”in a demonstrable state of decline” and prone to extinction, including the square-tailed kite, powerful owl, spot-tailed quoll and giant burrowing frog.
She said the long-footed potoroo, which the federal government listed as an endangered species, was particularly vulnerable.
”To an outsider it’s tempting to characterise this as a case about trees and whether they should be cut down,” Ms Mortimer said. ”In our submission that is to see this forest only as a kind of farm … for the purpose of harvesting trees.
”Our case is to see it as an ecosystem that grows and decays on its own cycles. Flora and fauna depend on it. It is complex and not fully understood.”
Ms Mortimer said logging in Brown Mountain was incompatible with a ”suite of legislation” enacted in Victoria aimed at protecting and conserving biodiversity.
She said the legislation was ”not intended to turn tracts of forests into islands where isolated populations of species inevitably lack biodiversity and the optimal breeding conditions and habitat range to recover and flourish.
”We do not dispute that native forest logging involves very different, frequently competing interests. What we seek to demonstrate is that logging of old-growth forests inhabited by many threatened species … under the present administration by VicForests favours logging in a way that the legislative and regulatory scheme does not envisage or allow.” She said forests were a ”community resource” that belonged to all Victorians.
The case before Justice Robert Osborn is due to continue today, when lawyers for VicForests are due to respond. ‘
.
‘Old-growth trees logged at Brown Mountain over 500 years old’
Source: The Wilderness Society, 20100301, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/old-growth-trees-logged-at-brown-mountain-over-500-years-old
.
‘The Brumby government’s 2006 policy to protect old-growth forests in East Gippsland has been put to shame by VicForests who has been caught out logging trees over 500 years old.
In a state first, radiocarbon dating has confirmed that a tree logged and killed at Brown Mountain began growing before Christopher Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas. The carbon sample shows that there is a 68% chance that the tree started growing between 1435 and 1490 AD, and it is believed that there are even older trees being logged.
In 2006, the ALP state government promised to protect the last significant stands of old growth forests. In a move that can only be described as environmental and political vandalism, VicForests sent the bulldozers into the first of three logging coupes at Brown Mountain in October last year.
Recent flora and fauna surveys have revealed that Brown Mountain is extremely rich in arobreal species and contains endangered species such as the Orbost Spiny Crayfish and the Long-footed Potoroo.
However, VicForests continues to ignore community calls to end the logging at Brown Mountain and has refused to remove two more coupes planned to be logged any day now.
VicForests must be reigned in from destroying East Gippsland’s last remaining unprotected old-growth forests.’
.
|
|
The senseless killing of a 500+ year old rare surviving Eucalyptus regnans
by VicForest contractors in April 2009.
( Photo courtesy of Environment East Gippsland)
