It’s a remarkable photograph: A pregnant Orang-utan protectively clutching her five-year-old child as death seems imminent at the hands of bounty hunters armed with knives.

Ordeal…the mother and baby Orang-utan, above, were lucky to have escaped

a group of juvenile Indonesian poachers (below)  in Kalimantan (Borneo)

(© Photo by Vier Pfoten of  Four Paws International, ^http://www.four-paws.org.uk/  and
PT Restorasi Habitat Orangutan Indonesia (RHOI)

 ^http://forest-carbon.org/project-list/first-project)

.

At The Habitat Advocate we wish to emphasise and thank the vital role of wildlife photographers around the world whose photos continue to help convey the plight of wildlife at the hands of humans.  Without such photos, the truth would be less disseminated.

The following article was reproduced in The Sun-Herald newspaper (Sydney) on 20120129 on page 30.  The article was borrowed from the New York Daily News newspaper (New York) which published the article on 20120127.  The original source was the Daily MAIL (UK), written by Richard Shears, 20120127, under the long heading: ‘Don’t hurt my baby! Pregnant Orang-utan protectively hugs her daughter as ruthless Borneo bounty hunters move in for the kill‘.

The ultimate source is from the website of Four Paws UK.

Four Paws International is an international animal charity, campaigning to end animal suffering and cruelty.  Four Paws International was founded in 1988 in Austria to campaign against fur farms and against battery farmed eggs.

Visit their website (English office) : ^http://www.four-paws.org.uk/

The partner organisation based in Indonesia is PT Restorasi Habitat Orang-utan Indonesia (RHOI), which translates into English as the Borneo Orang-utan Survival (BOS).  Its name could not be more literal!  Humans are systematically exterminating a species – the Orang-utan.

BOS has developed an Ecosystem Restoration Concession with the intention of using the forest area as a release site for rehabilitated Orang-utans. The proposed concession is in East Kalimantan is comprised of the ex-PT Mugitriman International (MGI) timber concession. BOS would like to obtain sustainable funding for managing and safeguarding this forest and is currently exploring the option of an avoided deforestation/REDD project where the sale of carbon.

Visit their website: ^http://forest-carbon.org/project-list/first-project

.

---

.

‘Pregnant Orang-utan mother and child rescued at last minute from knife-bearing bounty hunters in Borneo’,

by Rolando Pujol in the New York Daily News, Friday, 20120127, ^http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pregnant-orangutan-mother-child-rescued-minute-knife-bearing-bounty-hunters-borneo-article-1.1013270?]

.

It’s a remarkable photograph: A pregnant Orang-utan protectively clutching her five-year-old child as death seems imminent at the hands of bounty hunters armed with knives.

At the last minute, however, members of Four Paws International, an international animal-rescue group, swooped in last week and prevented their killings in Borneo, the Daily Mail reported.

“A few minutes later and the Orang-utans could have been dead,” said Dr. Signe Preuschoft, a primate expert with the British-based organization, according to the Daily Mail. “We discovered a gang of young men surrounding them and both victims were clearly petrified.”

The incident showcases the threat Orang-utans are facing as they are targeted for slaughter with a price on their heads.

“The gang meanwhile were jubilant in anticipation of their rewards for catching and killing the animals.”

The incident, compellingly captured in a dramatic photo of the mother cradling her child for dear life, casts a fresh light on the disturbing plight of Orang-utans, who were once common throughout Southeast Asia but now mostly live in Borneo and other areas in Indonesia.

The mother, estimated to be between 25 and 30, and the child were the only Orang-utans the team found alive in the area surrounding a palm-oil plantation. The group said it was scouting the area after reports of mass Orang-utan slaughter.

The spread of palm oil plantations, the group said, is accelerating the demise of the already endangered animals, which are losing native habitat because of widespread deforestation. The very name Orang-utan means “person of the forest,” as they spend most of their time in trees.

.

The palm-oil companies, the group said, are allegedly making matters worse by offering rewards of about $100 per dead Orang-utan, because they see the animals as nuisances.

.

“These massacres must not be allowed to continue,” Preuschoft said to the Daily Mail.

The rescued animals have since been released back in the wild in an area far from where they almost met death. The mother was fitted with a radio transmitter to help ensure the apes stay safe, the group said.

“Tens of thousands of adult Orang-utans have been slaughtered, while their orphaned offspring is frequently being sold off as pets or left behind to die, if they aren’t killed on the spot as well“, Four Paws International posted on its website.

The slaughter of Orang-utans is illegal in Indonesia, but enforcement has stepped up only recently, the group said.

“Mass graves that were discovered last September triggered the first few serious arrests, including a senior plantation manager“, the group wrote.

---

.

A similar article (in more detail) by the Daily Mail (UK):

.

‘Don’t hurt my baby! Pregnant Orang-utan protectively hugs her daughter as ruthless Borneo bounty hunters move in for the kill’

[Source: ”Don’t hurt my baby! Pregnant Orang-utan protectively hugs her daughter as ruthless Borneo bounty hunters move in for the kill’, by Richard Shears, 20120127, Daily Mail (UK), ^http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092722/Pregnant-orang-utan-hugs-daughter-bounty-hunters-Borneo-in.html] .

• Pair saved at last minute by UK-based animal rescue group

• Palm oil firms trying to clear plantations said to be offering £70 for each Orang-utan killed on the Borneo palm oil plantations

.

As bounty hunters with bush knives entrapped them in a circle and moved in for the kill, the only thing this mother Orang-utan could think to do was to wrap a giant protective arm around her daughter.  The pair seemed to be facing a certain death as a gang of hunters surrounded them in Borneo, keen to cash in on the palm oil plantations’ bid to be rid of the animals.

But, happily, a team from the British-based international animal rescue group Four Paws International arrived in time to stop the slaughter and saved their lives.

The pregnant mother and daughter were captured and moved to a remote and safe area of the rainforest and released back into the wild – but not before the mother was equipped with a radio device so she and her young can be tracked to ensure they remain safe.

‘Our arrival could not have been more timely,’ said Dr Signe Preuschoft, a Four Paws primate expert.  ‘A few minutes later and the Orang-utans could have been dead.’

‘We discovered a gang of young men surrounding them and both victims were clearly petrified.

‘The gang meanwhile were jubilant in anticipation of their rewards for catching and killing the animals. These massacres must not be allowed to continue.’
Saved: ‘Our arrival could not have been more timely. A few minutes later and the Orang-utans could have been dead’ said Dr Signe Preuschoft, a Four Paws primate expert

‘A few minutes later and the Orang-utans could have been dead.’ said Dr Signe Preuschoft, a Four Paws International primate expert

Mother and daughter were captured and moved to a remote and safe area of the rainforest and released back into the wild – but not before the mother was equipped with a radio device so she and her young can be tracked to ensure they remain safe.

Mother and baby rescued and placed into the wild.

But with their rainforest wilderness rapidly being destroyed how long have these Orang-utans got?   What happened to the father?

.
Before the rescue, a Four Paws International team had scoured the area on the Indonesian side of Borneo, which is shared with Malaysia, but found no other Orangutans which had survived an earlier slaughter.

.

Deforestation has dramatically reduced their habitat and their numbers have dropped from 250,000 a few decades ago to only 50,000 in the wild.  And while the loss of their habitat by logging companies has created a major threat to their existence, a more brutal form of reducing their numbers has emerged in recent years – direct slaughter.

.

Palm oil is used in hundreds of products from chocolate to oven chips, but the demand for buying it at a low price has resulted in significant deforestation as habitats are being destroyed to make way for plantations.  Some palm oil companies see Orang-utans as pests, a threat to their lucrative business, and have placed a bounty on their heads.

Company executives are reported to be offering up to £70 to employees for each Orang-utan killed on the palm oil plantations.  While such stories were at first denied, proof of the slaughter emerged last September when graves and bones were found by investigators.

‘Killing of Orang-utans is illegal in Indonesia but the law is lacking enforcement,’ said a Four Paws UK spokesman.

‘Before November last year only two low-level arrests had ever been made.  But in the last two months 10 more arrests have taken place including the arrest of the senior manager of the plantation where the worst graves have been found.’

In an equally tragic scenario, babies left alive after adult Orang-utans have been slaughtered have been put up for sale in the Pet Trade by hunters.

When traumatised babies are found by Four Paws International and other animal rescue teams they are taken to a sanctuary and taught skills they will need in order to return to the wild.

.

---

 .

Selected comments from readers:

.

‘Boycott any product with palm oil!!!’

~ maninthemiddle, 20120128.
.

“Let’s find the corporate entities who are paying for the palm oil,then boycott,very sad story,very touching”

~ olefan_is_a_moron, 20120128.

olefan_is_a_moron (20120128):.
“The real problem in the world is overpopulation. Natural resources replace themselves unless they are overburdened by excessive demand due to a big population. Cutting down 1% of a forest will not harm it since trees will just grow back but when you’re destroying too much at once you’re just striping the land bare.”

~ DocPaul (20120128)

.

“Soon man shall be the only “animal” left for hunting.”

~ 3 VULTURES  (20120128).

.

“Orang-utans are critically endangered in the wild because of rapid deforestation and the expansion of palm oil plantations into their rainforest home. The situation described in this article is all too common unfortunately. If nothing is done to protect these amazing creatures, they will be extinct in just a few years. Visit the Orangutan Outreach website to learn more and make a difference! http://redapes.org   Reach out and save the orangutans! Adopt an orangutan today! {:(|}”

~ OrangutanOutreach (20120128).

.

“How about a bounty of $150 per dead bounty hunter?”

~ Meowmeister, 20120128.

.

“This is what happens when you have: 1. People believing that the so-called phrase “and man shall have dominion over the beasts” means they can be killed at will and 2. When human beings believe nothing absolutely nothing is more important than profit.”

~ itsallinperception, 20120128.

.
“Farmers are being killed in south America for the same reason, land. Plantation owners want the land to get money for carbon credits…”

~ nlohu, 20120128.

.

“So sad. Palm oil is not just used in food. It is also used in cosmetics. I think it is called retinyl palmitate, something like that. Any ingredient that has “palmitate (ie: palm) is from palm oil. It is a form of vitamin A, used in skin creams alot.”

~ ana63, 20120128.

.

“These companies should not be allowed to trade in the UK. We shouldn’t be trading with any company that doesn’t respect life and the environment.”

~ Lo, cheshire, UK, 20120128.

.

“Everything that is wrong with the world is due to humans. We will continue to destroy our world unless something radical happens to reduce the human population and to change the greedy mindset of the human population. This makes me so incredibly sad!”

~ GB, UK, 20120128.

.

“…I think what would be more helpful is to have the names of the food manufacturers who are purchasing the palm oil from those companies. I suspect we would see major names such as Nabisco, Kraft, etc.”

~ InfoOverload, 20120128.

.

---

.

ANSWER:   The largest palm oil company worldwide is ‘Wilmar International’

.

One of the most powerful opponents of our ‘Save our Borneo’ activists is Wilmar International, the largest palm oil company worldwide, based in Singapore.

“Wilmar International Limited, founded in 1991, is Asia’s leading agribusiness group.

“We are amongst the largest listed companies by market capitalisation on the Singapore Exchange.  Our business activities include oil palm cultivation, oilseeds crushing, edible oils refining, sugar, specialty fats, oleochemicals and biodiesel manufacturing and grains processing. Headquartered in Singapore, Wilmar has over 300 manufacturing plants and an extensive distribution network covering China, India, Indonesia and some 50 other countries to support a well established processing and merchandising business. Wilmar also manufactures and distributes fertilisers and owns a fleet of vessels. The Group is backed by a multi-national workforce of approximately 90,000 people.”

“We are today:

• The largest global processor and merchandiser of palm and lauric oils
• One of the largest plantation companies in Indonesia/Malaysia
• The largest palm biodiesel manufacturer in the world
• A leading consumer pack edible oils producer, oilseeds crusher, edible oils refiner, specialty fats and oleochemicals manufacturer in China
• One of the largest edible oils refiners and a leading producer of consumer pack edible oils in India
• The largest edible oils refiner in Ukraine
• The leading importer of edible oils into East Africa and one of the largest importers of edible oils into South-east Africa.

‘We will continue to leverage on the scale and strengths of our business model to benefit from the long term growth potential of the agricultural commodity business, especially in Asia.”

Visit website:  ^http://www.wilmar-international.com/

.

---

.

Cyclone Yasi 2011 destruction sees Wilmar take over Australia’s CSR’s Sucrogen

.

[Source: ‘Proserpine creditors approve sale of mill to Sucrogen‘, 20111209, ^http://www.sucrogen.com/media/news]

.

‘Sucrogen, the Australian-based sugar subsidiary of Singapore-listed Wilmar International Limited, looks forward to an exciting future as the new owner of Proserpine Sugar Mill after a majority of Proserpine creditors, by number and value, voted today to approve Sucrogen’s purchase of the mill.

Sucrogen CEO Ian Glasson said the creditors’ vote was a great outcome and paved the way for the sale transaction to be completed immediately.

“The positive result means creditors will be paid, in full, before Christmas,” Mr Glasson said.  “We are grateful to have received such strong support from creditors, who have clearly shown faith in us and our plans for the Proserpine region.”

Sucrogen’s offer comprised a headline price of A$120 million, plus a working capital adjustment, normal settlement adjustments, as well as absorption of the mill’s normal operating costs and certain critical capital expenditure incurred from 31 October 2011.

Mr Glasson said while Sucrogen was pleased to finally purchase the mill, it was disappointing the sale was not possible before the Co-operative was placed into voluntary administration.

“The negative campaign Tully ran to derail the first two member votes has, ultimately, cost members a substantial amount of money in administration and legal fees,” he said.  Critically, it has also delayed capital and maintenance at the mill.”

However, the transition to Sucrogen management and leadership will begin immediately and we will hit the ground running next week and do our best to ensure the mill is ready for the start of 2012 season, despite the lengthy delays.”

Mr Glasson said Wilmar had expressed a strong interest in working with growers to help expand Proserpine’s sugar industry.

“We look forward to a long and productive relationship with local growers, Proserpine Sugar Mill employees and the whole Proserpine community.”

.

So the company that is behind the palm plantation clearing destroying Orang-utan habitat and encouraging Oran-gutans to be slaughtered, is the parent company that sells CSR Sugar across Australia and Chelsea Sugar across New Zealand and the artificial sweetener ‘Equal‘.

.

---

.

The palm oil industry says: ‘Orang-utans are pests!’

[Source: ^http://www.rainforest-rescue.org/newsletter/1267/282c3e5ec03e375e7afa82c63564ae41]

 

This juvenile Orang-utang’s mother was killed on one of the palm oil plantations
.

“Dear friends of the rainforest, the BBC reports that Orang-utans are treated as “pest” and exterminated on Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil plantations. In the last year alone, up to 1,800 Orang-utans were killed in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo).  They wander hungry through the plantations as though in a daze, looking for food and thus eat the palm seedlings. Palm oil plantation workers are paid to kill Orang-utans either before a forest is cleared or, if they see any in a plantation. Either way, it is totally illegal to harass, harm or kill any Orang-utans.”

[Source: ”Borneo: Environmentalists need help for preserving the rainforest’, ^https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/donate/90/borneo-environmentalists-need-help-for-preserving-the-rainforest]

.

“The current trend of converting rainforest into palm oil plantations is devastating our country. Our people cannot provide for themselves any longer; and endangered species such as the Orang-utans are doomed to die. It is high time for us to join forces and jointly put a stop to the palm oil industry’s  illegal activities on all levels.“

Nordin, head and founder of our partner organisation ‘Save our Borneo’ (SOB) has lately experienced a great deal of suffering caused by the destruction of tropical rainforest in his home province Central Kalimantan in Borneo – including his own family. His little son Mirza was born when wildfires were raging for several months, obscuring the sky over Central Kalimantan and making breathing truly agonizing. Due to his chronic breathing difficulties, Mirza had to be hospitalised often. Even though slash and burn clearing methods are prohibited in Indonesia, fires are started again and again in order to gain more space for palm oil plantations.

One of the most powerful opponents of our ‘Save our Borneo’ activists is Wilmar International, the largest palm oil company worldwide.

.

(Wilmar International) act as if no rules apply to them. This company has the rainforest illegally logged and new plantations set up; they drive peasants off their land and arrest them if they defend themselves. Wilmar keeps founding new subsidiaries, and bribes officials to side-step the law.

.
Therefore, Save Our Borneo’s boss Nordin sent ‘Rainforest Rescue’ a strategic plan in order to unite our efforts and take action against Wilmar: We are also supported by regional environmentalists of ‘Walhi’, the Indonesian branch of ‘Friends of the Earth’.

.

“We want to sue the Wilmar Group at their headquarters in Singapore for their crimes committed against humans and nature,“ says Nordin. “However, first we will have to gather enough detailed facts and evidence for an absolutely watertight lawsuit.”

.

Their strategic plan is set to run for 18 months and works on all levels, including:

1. Workshops with affected peasant families to discuss land rights and, possibly, draw up maps. Another goal is to inform the population about Wilmar’s modus operandi and how to defend themselves.
2. Training in Forest Management and Land Rights
3. Research and data gathering regarding activities of Wilmar subsidiaries.
4. Workshops on corruption
5. Public relations activities disclosing Wilmar’s law violations as well as any political involvement (multimedia campaign on TV, radio or the internet such as facebook, brochures etc.)
6. Public dialogues between all the parties involved, having politicians, scientists, journalists, environmentalists and victims of the palm oil industry all sit together at one table.

.

Nordin calls his major offensive against Wilmar International an “Action Plan for a Better Life“.

Visit Rainforest Rescue website:  ^http://www.rainforest-rescue.org/

.

.

Since 12^thMay 2005, Blue Mountains Swamps have been listed as an endangered ecological community under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (EPBC Act), as amended in 2005.  Blue Mountains Swamps are listed under the scientific category of Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone.

The objectives of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance and to conserve Australian biodiversity.  In the case of Blue Mountains Swamps, the EPBC Act serves to prevent the actions of land use developers and others posing a significant impact upon the integrity of these vital swamp ecosystems.

A Blue Mountains Swamp

…blatantly slashed, reclaimed and exotic grass introduced by this property development

on the wild edge of Katoomba, adjacent to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

.

The steel fence of the development is built right into the Blue Mountains Swamp

(Photo by Editor 20120118, free in public domain, click to enlarge)

.

This housing development was approved by Blue Mountains Council.

At the same time, Blue Mountains Council’s Upland Swamp Rehabilitation Programme was commenced in 2006 after Blue Mountains Swamps were listed as part of the Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone endangered ecological community, with the aim of protecting and restoring Blue Mountains Swamp across the Local Government Area (LGA).

“In August 2008 Blue Mountains Council and Lithgow Council formed a partnership to deliver the ‘Saving our Swamps’ (S.O.S) project to restore Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone across both LGAs. With grant funding of $250,000 over 3 years from the Urban Sustainability program of the NSW Environmental Trust, the SOS project will both strengthen Blue Mountains Council’s long term Upland Swamp Rehabilitation Programme and transfer skills to build the capacity of Lithgow Council to protect the Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamp endangered ecological community of the Newnes Plateau.”

Local community volunteers helping Blue Mountains Council

to rehabilitate Kitty Hawk Swamp at Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains

[Source: Blue Mountains Council’s ‘Swampwatch’ Factsheet 7)

.

“The SOS initiative will build on the Blue Mountains Council’s Upland Swamp Rehabilitation Programme, by providing funds for bush regeneration, soft engineering swamp re-hydration and creek bank stabilization in degraded Blue Mountains Swamps on both public and private land. The project will also deliver a community and school education program to raise awareness of the significance of Blue Mountains Swamps and their associated threatened species and to explain how the community can assist in their protection.

The successful partnership between BMCC and LCC was expanded in 2009 to incorporate Wingecarribee Shire Council and Gosford Council. The resultant SOS stage 2 project received a $400,000 federal Caring for Country grant over 12 months to expand the model across all four LGAS under the leadership of Blue Mountains Council.”

[Source:  ^http://saveourswamps.com.au/Blue-Mountains-City-Council.php]

.

Am I missing something here?

Blue Mountains Council receiving $250,000 plus $400,000

to save Blue Mountains Swamps,

while approving development into them?

Saving Our Swamps by Council-approved slashing, bulldozing and reclamation

This is immediately adjacent to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

.

Location of Fifth Avenue adjacent to Blue Mountain National Park (BMNP)

BMNP forms part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

.

“This park, which is part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, protects an unusually diverse range of vegetation communities. There are rare and ancient plants and isolated animal populations tucked away in its deep gorges.” 

[Source: NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, ^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkHome.aspx?id=N0004]

.

The Tasman Highway, Tasmania – now just like everywhere else

It could be New South Wales, western Victoria, West Australia’s wheatbelt,

or New Zealand’s Canterbury Plains (in drought), or even North America’s mid-west

(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

Forest Reserve Map – ‘Interim Reserve Boundaries’  (IGA)

Tasmanian Forest Agreement Verification: Advice to Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania

(Click map to enlarge, then click map again to enlarge again)

.

Tasmanian Forests Agreement – some key documents

(newest to oldest – with format ‘document title YYYYMMDD‘)

.

[17]  Conservation Agreement (Gillard Govt with Forestry Tasmania 20120113).pdf  [272kB]

.

[16]  Tasmanian Forests IGA Newsletter Final_20111121.pdf  [85kB]

[15]  Deed Poll of Undertaking Relating to Contractors Voluntary Exit Grants 20111026.pdf  [25kB]

.

[14]  National Partnership Agreement (IGA) Tasmania and Commonwealth 20110929.pdf  [48kB]

.

[13]  ENGO Report of Logging breaching IGA Clause 26 – 20110920.pdf  [4.3MB]

.

[12]  Tasmanian Forests Agreement Independent Verification Group 20110909.pdf  [40kB]

.

[11]  Independent Verification Group Terms of Reference 20110819.pdf  [71kB]

.

[10]  Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 20110807.pdf  [271kB]

.

[9]  Heads of Agreement 20110724.pdf  [47kB]

.

[8]  FIAT Submission to Legislative Council Re Transition out of Forestry 20110407.pdf  [2.8MB]

.

[7]  Tasmanian Forest Contractors Exit Assistance Program 201011.pdf  [64kB]

.

[6]  Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles 20101007.pdf  [82kB]

.

[5]  Tasmanian Forests Interim Report (Bill Kelty 2010331).pdf  [15MB]

.

[4]  Tasmanian Forest Agreement (Howard Liberal Government) CFA 20050510.pdf  [2111kB]

.

[3]  Protecting Private Forests (Howard Liberal Government 20050905).pdf   [267kB]

.

[2]  Blueprint for Tasmania’s Forest (Timber Workers for Forests 200408).pdf  [550kB]

.

[1]  Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 19991020.pdf   [84kB]

.

 

On Sunday 13th November 2006  two separate bushfire ignitions were believed to have been started by lightning just west of the Grose Valley of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, according to the Rural Fire Service (RFS).  One ignition was located outside the small rural village of Hartley Vale in a valley referred to as Lawsons Long Alley, while the other was in rugged bushland at Burra Korain Head about 4 km east of the village of Mount Victoria.   Ten days later catastrophe…

Pyrocumulus cloud as the Grose Valley goes up in smoke on 23rd November 2006

.

‘Two bushfires that were believed to have been started by lightning strikes on Monday are burning in the Blue Mountains National Park. A fire burning 2 km north of Mount Victoria has burnt out about 1100 hectares of private property and parkland and is burning on both sides of the Darling Causeway. The Darling Causeway remains closed to traffic and motorists are advised to use the Great Western Highway and Bells Line of Road as alternate routes.

A second fire burning about 5 km north of Blackheath in the Grose Valley has burnt out about 500 hectares of parkland. Waterbombing aircraft are slowing the progress of the fire as it is burning in difficult and inaccessible terrain.’

[Source: New South Wales Rural Fire Service Blue Mountains website, Fire Name: Lawsons Long Alley, Time Message Issued: 1700, Date Message Issued: 16/11/06, ^http://lists.rfs.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bluemountains-info]

.

At the time the RFS reported that the ‘fire is not threatening any properties or homes at this stage‘, but it was this reassurance that lulled the fire fighting effort into a false sense of security.  Over the coming days the fires were not earnestly suppressed but instead allowed to burn out of control as neither were ‘threatening any properties or homes at this stage‘.  Famous last words.  Worse was that a series of broadscale backburns were started by the RFS at Hartley Vale, Blackheath and along Bells Line of Road – each of which at times got out of control.

.

Comparison with 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

Three years prior, four ignitions that had been purportedly been sparked by lighting on 8th January 2003 were allowed to burn out of control in remote bushland outside Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and starting outside the ACT in NSW.   At the time, those fires were deemed not to be threatening any properties or homes at that stage too.  Ten days later, the four fires – McIntyre’s Hut Fire, the Bendora Fire, the Stockyard Spur Fire and the Mount Gingera Fire all coalesced into what became known as the 2003 Canberra Firestorm in which four people perished.

McIntyre’s Hut Fire 20030108 – distant, isolated and remote at this stage.

Ten days later it became the 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

Three years hence, the two bushfires west of the Grose Valley after seven days had coalesced into what has become known as the 2006 Grose Valley Fires that ended up incinerating 14,070 hectares of wild bush habitat, including the iconic Blue Gum Forest down in the Grose Valley inside the Greater Blue Mountains World heritage Area .

Both catastrophic bushfires were ultimately the responsibility of the RFS in New South Wales to suppress in order to prevent them becoming uncontrollable firestorms.    The RFS failed catastrophically on both occasions with RFS Commissioner Phil Koperberg at the helm.  The lessons from the 2003 Canberra Firestorm had not been heeded.

An aerial view of a fire-devastated Chauvel Circle in the suburb of Chapman on 21st January, 2003 in Canberra,

where 15 of 20 homes in the street were destroyed by fire.

Four people were killed and 419 homes destroyed when the fires being fought on five fronts swept through the nation’s capital.

(Photo by Daniel Berehulak, Getty Images)

.

According to the report of the official enquiry into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm by ACT Coroner Maria Doogan,  she states:

‘During the inquiry it was submitted that the severity of the firestorm could not have been foreseen.  I do not accept this. Australia has a recorded history of extreme fire events dating back to at least 1851.  As discussed in Chapter 7 (of the Coroner’s Report), CSIRO fire expert Phil Cheney predicted several years ago a conflagration of the type experienced in January 2003.  He made his prediction on the basis of information in the report of one  of the seven inquiries that have been held since 1986 to examine various aspects of the ACT’s emergency services.

‘The point to make here is that experiences in life, be they good or bad, serve no useful purpose if we fail to learn from them.  It is hoped, therefore, that the many lessons that can be learnt from this catastrophe in the ACT are in fact learnt and result in positive action, not just supportive words and shallow promises.’

[Source: ‘The Canberra Firestorm: Inquest and Inquiry into Four Deaths and Four Fires between 8 and 18 January 2003’, Vol 1, Ch1, pp.2-3., by ACT Coroner]

.

Blue Mountains Council’s response to the 2006 Grose Valley Fires

.

The 2006 Grose Valley Fires coalesced into a conflagration on Thursday 23rd November 2006 down in the World Heritage Grose Valley.  Many in the local Blue Mountains community were outraged that this could have been allowed to have occurred.  Public demands for answers finally led Blue Mountains Council two months later on Tuesday 30th January 2007 to agree to support the call of ‘concerned residents’ for the New South Wales Government to undertake a thorough, independent review of the Grose Valley Fires.

It is important to note that at the time there was a Labor Government in New South Wales, which was ultimately held responsible for both the 2003 and 2006 bushfire emergency responses.

The following is a copy of the official meeting minutes of Blue Mountains Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 20070130, two months after the 2003 Grose Valley Fires:

.

‘A Motion was moved by Councillors (Terri) Hamilton (Independent) and (Daniel) Myles (Liberal):

.
1. That the Council gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the volunteers, professionals and agencies that worked together to control the recent Grose Valley Fire.

.

2. That the Council, in order that improvements in fire management can continue for the Blue Mountains and other parts of NSW, as a matter of urgency, writes to the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon Morris Iemma, stating it supports the call of concerned residents on the New South Wales Government, which appeared on page 13 of the Blue Mountains Gazette of 6 December, 2006, as follows:

“1. Undertake a thorough, independent review of the Grose Valley Fire, involving all stakeholders with particular attention to the following questions:

•  Were fire detection and initial suppression timely and adequate?
•  Were resources adequate, appropriate and supported?
•  Were the adopted strategies the best available under the circumstances?
• Could other strategies of closer containment have offered lower risk to the community, better firefighter safety, higher probabilities of success, lower costs and less impact on the environment?
• Was existing knowledge and planning adequately utilised?
• Is fire management funded to the most effective way?

2. Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage.
3. Fund more research to improve understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression.
4. Improve research and training in strategies for controlling fires in large bushland areas.
5. Improve pre-fire planning to support decision-making during incidents.
6. Improve systems to ensure that local fire planning and expertise is fully utilised during incidents, and that the protection of the natural and cultural values of World Heritage areas and other bushland are fully considered.”

.
3. That the independent review includes addressing the questions raised by Blue Mountains Conservation Society:

a. The Blue Mountains City Council therefore supports the following adopted position of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and would like the review to address the following questions:

i.    In what circumstances are back burning from the “Northern Strategic Line” and the Bells Line of Road appropriate?
ii.   What can be improved to ensure that lightning strikes or arson fires are contained as quickly as possible?
iii.  What can be done to better manage fire risk in the Grose Valley in terms of preparation and suppression to minimise damage to people, property and biodiversity?
iv.  What is needed to allow remote area fire teams to be able to work at night when conditions are more benign?
v.   How can funding of bushfire management and suppression be changed to reduce overall costs to the community. (Federal funding of suppression under section 44 means funding for trail maintenance and planning is limited.)

.

b. If practicable, would the review also address the following?

i.    The World Heritage Area contains a number of threatened species and ecological communities that, in addition to the direct threats associated with climate change, are particularly vulnerable to increased fire frequency and intensity.
ii.   The effects on biodiversity of the fire regimes in the Grose Valley over the last 40 years, where there has been a succession of large intense wild fires without sufficient interval between them.
iii.   Climate change predictions suggest a probability of more frequent and more intensive fire events, with significant implications for fire management and integrity of ecosystems.
iv.   The Blue Mountains City Council also supports and requests involvement in the forum being organised by the Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, on the 17 February 2007.

.
4. That the Council emphasises that the requested review should be of a scientific and technical nature.

.

5. That a copy of this letter be forwarded to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon Tony Kelly, the Member for the Blue Mountains, the Hon. Bob Debus, and the New South Wales Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam.

.
Upon being PUT to the Meeting, the MOTION was CARRIED, the voting being:

FOR:

1. Fiona Creed  (Liberal)
2. Terri Hamilton (Independent)
3. Pippa McInnes (Greens)
4. Daniel Myles (Liberal)
5. Kerrin O’Grady  (Greens)
6. Lyn Trindall (Blue Mountains First

.

AGAINST:

1. Mayor Jim Angel   (Labor)
2. Kevin Frappell   (Labor)
3. Alison McLaren  (Labor)
4. Adam Searle  (Labor)
5. Chris Van der Kley  (Liberal)  and Chair of Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee

The Hartley Vale backburn 20061115 escaped up Hartley Vale Road and over the Darling Causeway (above) toward the Grose Valley to the right

(Photo by Editor 20070204, free in pubic domain, click to enlarge)

..

Editor’s Note:

Ahead of the Blue Mountains Council voting for the above motion, two Labor Councillors, Clr Chris Van der Kley (also Chair of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee) and Clr Kevin Frappell (Labor) moved an alternative motion, however it was lost upon voting. This proposed alternative motion was labelled an ‘amendment’ but it was significantly different in detail.  The proposed amendment excluded calls for an independent review (per the first item in the original motion). 

This proposed amendment also excluded asking the six key questions put by the concerned residents such as ‘Were fire detection and initial suppression timely and adequate?‘, ‘Is fire management funded to the most effective way?‘, etc. 

This proposed amendment also excluded that part of Item 1 which recommended strategic improvements to bushfire management such as ‘Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage‘ and ‘Fund more research to improve understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression‘, etc.

This proposed amendment  instead drew upon the view of the leadership of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society at the time that considered an independent enquiry would equate to criticism and assigning blame and so be politicised.    This did however include advocating “an interagency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”

.

The Amendment (although lost in the Council voting) is important for the record and read as follows:

1. That the Blue Mountains City Council gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the volunteers, professionals and agencies that worked together to control the recent Grose
Valley fire.

.
2. That the Blue Mountains City Council supports the recent position adopted by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society in relation to the Grose Valley fire in November
2006.   We note and support the position of the Society when it says,

“The circumstances of the bushfire are complex and it is not in anyone’s interest for criticism or blame to be apportioned. However, there is much to be gained by looking at what was done and how it can be improved. The Society does not therefore support a large public inquiry and its attendant politicisation. Instead, the Society advocates an interagency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”

.

3. That the Blue Mountains City Council therefore supports the following adopted position of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and would like the review to
address the following questions:

1. In what circumstances are back burning from the “Northern Strategic Line” and the Bells Line of Road appropriate?
2. What can be improved to ensure that lightning strikes or arson fires are contained as quickly as possible?
3. What can be done to better manage fire risk in the Grose Valley in terms of preparation and suppression to minimise damage to people, property and biodiversity?
4. What is needed to allow remote area fire teams to be able to work at night when conditions are more benign?
5. How can funding of bushfire management and suppression be changed to reduce overall costs to the community. (Federal funding of suppression under Section 44 means funding for trail maintenance and planning is limited.)

.
If practicable, would the review also address the following?

1. The World Heritage Area contains a number of threatened species and ecological communities that, in addition to the direct threats associated with climate change, are particularly vulnerable to increased fire frequency and intensity.
2. The effects on biodiversity of the fire regimes in the Grose Valley over the last 40 years, where there has been a succession of large intense wild fires without
   sufficient interval between them.
3. Climate change predictions suggest a probability of more frequent and more intensive fire events, with significant implications for fire management and
   integrity of ecosystems.
4.  That the Blue Mountains City Council also supports and requests involvement in the forum being organised by the Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, on the 17 February 2007.

.

Upon being PUT to the Meeting, the AMENDMENT was LOST, the voting being:

FOR:

1. Mayor Jim Angel   (Labor)
2. Kevin Frappell   (Labor)
3. Alison McLaren   (Labor)
4. Adam Searle   (Labor)
5. Chris Van der Kley   (Liberal, and Chair of Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee)

.

AGAINST:

1. Creed   (Liberal)
2. Hamilton   (Independent)
3. McInnes   (Greens)
4. Myles   (Liberal)
5. O’Grady  (Greens)
6. Trindall   (Blue Mountains First)

.

[Source: Blue Mountains Council’s Ordinary Meeting, 20070130, Minute No. 7, File Ref. C01095. Subject: ‘Grose Valley Fire’, pp.15-16]

.

Editor’s Analysis:

.

1. Similar failure by the RFS and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to muster all available necessary resources to suppress and extinguished both the Lawson’s Long Alley and Burra Korain Head fires, demonstrated that lessons from the 2003 Canberra Firestorm had not been learnt.  Critical time was lost in the initial days of the ignitions at both to effectively suppress the fires while they were of a small size and weather conditions relatively favourable to enable suppression.
2. The RFS strategy to apply excessive broadscale backburning on multiple fronts at at Hartley Vale, Blackheath and Bells Line of Road exacerbated the complexity and scale of both fires and in the most part contributed to the conflagration of all the fires down in the Grose Valley on 23rd November 2006
3. The shortcoming of not mustering all necessary resources to suppress and extinguish bushfires, irrespective of whether a fire is immediately affecting property and homes or not, is flawed, negligent and only heightens the inherent risk of a bushfire escalating out of control.  The risk of a bushfire escalation into uncontrollable firestorm is heightened as time allows for the prospect of worsening bushfire weather conditions – increased wind, wind gusts,  wind direction, temperatures, and lowering humidity – contributory factors in both the respective Canberra and Grose Valley Fires.  There is no indication that this operational culture has changed.
4. That a bushfire is situated in inaccessible terrain is not an excuse for bushfire management not to muster all airborne and RAFT resources to suppress and extinguish it as soon as feasibly possible
5. After local community realisation that the bushfire had overrun the Grose Valley including burning through the iconic Blue Gum Forest on 23rd November, an informal collection of local ‘concerned residents‘ formed numbering 143 and co-ordinated by Blue Mountains resident Ian Brown.  By Wednesday 6th December, within days of the fire finally being suppressed (3rd Dec), this informal group had collectively paid for a full page letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper costing $2,131.40(page 13). The letter was entitled ‘Burning Issues – fire in the Grose Valley – A statement funded and supported by concerned residents‘.   The context was that detailed in Council’s carried motion above.
6. Blue Mountains Council’s response was simply a manifestation of the “supportive words and shallow promises” whom ACT Coroner Maria Doogan had cautioned in the Coroner’s Report into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm.  No effective Council follow up to its supportive words was undertaken.  Sure per Council’s carried motion, Council’s then acting General Manager, Dave Allen, sent off the letter with supportive words to the NSW Premier Morris Iemma, on 20th February 2007, but Council took no other review or enquiry action.
7. In the Central Blue Mountains, there are three government agencies responsible for bushfire management  – the New South Wales Rural Fires Service, the National Parks and Wildlife Service as part of the NSW Department of Environment (what ever its frequently changing title)  and Blue Mountains Council.  Collectively these three bodies have co-operated under the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee, which was/is chaired by Blue Mountains Councillor Chris van der Kley.) and is responsible for planning in relating to bush fire prevention and coordinated bush fire fighting, as well as responsible for advising the Commissioner on bush fire prevention; mitigation and coordinated bush fire suppression.  Included on the Committee is also the Commissioner of the RFS, and a nominated representative respectively from the NSW Fire Brigades, Forests NSW, NPWS, the Local Government Association of NSW, the Shires Association of NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service Association, NSW Police, a nominee of the Minister for the Environment (then Bob Debus), a representative of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, a person appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Farmers Association, a representative of the Department of Community Services and a representative of the Department of Lands. In March 2008, the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee (BMBFMC) staged a series of community workshops on the Plan’s review process.   The Plan was approved on 14th December 2000 with a required review every five years.  So by the Grose Valley Fire, the Plan was a year out of date and by March 2008 the Plan was three years out of date.
8. It is not surprisingly that the above proposed amendment to the Council letter to the NSW Premier excluded calls for an independent review.  Those who proposed the motion and who voted for it  were either all Labor Party members or in the case of Liberal Councillor Chris Van Der Kley, Chair of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee who was operationally involved.  An independent enquiry and the proposed strategic improvements to the bushfire management establishment would have likely revealed operational and government failings and recommended changes to the RFS structure, strategies, and management and importantly to its culture.  The amendment was rejected anyway due to Labor having insufficient votes on Council.
9. On Sunday 13th November 2006  two separate bushfire ignitions were believed to have been lit by lightning just west of the Grose Valley of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by the RFS.  Following a back burn/hazard reduction burn that had got  out of control up Hartley Vale Road and crossed the Darling Causeway, on Wednesday 15th November the RFS declared a formal escalation to a Section 44 bushfire emergency.  This four day delay in detection and suppression is unexplained by the RFS.
10. Despite the calls by the concerned residents (with Blue Mountains Council’s supportive words) for the ‘NSW Government to undertake a thorough, independent  review of the Grose Valley Fire, involving all stakeholders, so such independent review was done.
11. The local Labor member for the NSW Seat of Blue Mountains at the time and NSW Minister for the Environment was Bob Debus MP, who categorically refused requests for either an independent review or a public review into the management of the Grose Valley Fires.
12. The Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) similarly rejected calls for a public enquiry, stating “the circumstances of the bushfire are complex and it is not in anyone’s interest for criticism or blame to be apportioned. However, there is much to be gained by looking at what was done and how it can be improved. The Society does not therefore support a large public inquiry and its attendant politicisation. Instead, the Society advocates an inter-agency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”  It needs to be pointed out that key committee members of the BMCS were/are also active members of the RFS, which raises the issue of and actual or perceived conflict of interest.
    
13. There were two reviews of sorts, none independent and none public.
1. On Tuesday 19th December 2006 there was apparently an ‘Inter-Agency Review‘ which took place at Katoomba behind closed doors by members of bushfire management and operating personnel involved in the fire fighting. Despite requests by this Editor, no minutes or reports of that meeting were ever forthcoming.  The meeting was internal and secret.
2. On Saturday 17th February 2007, there was a ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum‘ held at Mount Tomah organised by Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute.  Only selected participants were permitted to attend – mainly from the bushfire management, fire experts and selected members of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society.  A copy of the report of that forum will be publicised on this website shortly.
14. Following ongoing community concerns about the lack of transparency, no evidence of any lessons being learned from the Grose Valley Fires and even of a cover up into some of the operational decisions, in January 2007 Bob Debus MP announced a suggestion of there being an Environmental Summit to be staged in the Blue Mountains to provide the first public forum into important environmental issues affecting the Blue Mountains region, notably to discuss the Grose Valley Fire.  Well, by the time the summit eventuated it was over a year later and held on the weekend of 23rd and 24th February 2008.   By then Bob Debus had moved to federal politics (though still representing the Blue Mountains via the Seat of Macquarie.  The summit was chaired by the RFS Commissioner responsible for the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, Philk Koperberg (now local Labor MP) and even the bushfire Incident Controller of the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, RFS Superintendent Mal Cronstedt, was in attendance.  However, the summit was now called a conference and the agenda had expanded to many issues including Energy, Social Systems, Natural Systems and Water.  Discussion about bushfire was restricted to a two hour workshop and so available time to the Grose Fire to one or two questions which copped only official spiel.  It was a classic Labor tactic or stalling on accountability until the community gives up or forgets.
15. Since 2006, the Blue Mountains community still doesn’t know whether in the 2006 Grose Valley Fire or currently:

• Fire detection and initial suppression was/is timely and adequate?
• Whether bushfire management resources were/are adequate, appropriate and supported?
• Whether in the Grose Valley Fire the adopted strategies were the best available under the circumstances?
• Whether other strategies of closer containment could have offered lower risk to the community
• Whether currently it has better firefighter safety, higher probabilities of success, lower costs and will cause less impact on the environment?
• Whether existing knowledge and planning is adequately utilised?
• Whether bushfire management is funded to the most effective way?
• Is adequate funding available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage?

.

Another three years hence, in the Blue Mountains we have witnessed from afar the catastrophic Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ Bushfires of 7th February 2009.

.

Another three years hence in 2012, have we learnt anything? 

.

Tarkine National Coalition (TNC) has questioned the motives behind the watering down of the EPBC assessment approach to the Tarkine Road proposal in Tasmania.

The Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has opted for the less stringent Public Environment Report approach despite the original Tarkine Road proposal being subject to an Environmental Impact Statement approach prior to it’s withdrawal. This comes on top of the Minister’s refusal to National Heritage List the area despite the former proposal triggering a Emergency National Heritage Listing in 2009 by former minister Peter Garrett (lapsed by Minister Burke in 2010).

“There are some questions here that the Minister must answer. Clearly the revise Tarkine Road proposal is not being subjected to the same scrutiny as the original proposal, at a time when the risks to the area are even better understood than in 2009,” said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

The resubmitting of the Tarkine Road proposal by the Tasmanian Government called into play a promise made by Minister Burke in December 2010 that if the Tarkine Road was resubmitted, that he would immediately re-list the Tarkine. The Minister failed to deliver on that promise.

TNC has maintained conditional support for the revised project, subject to the altered route, staging of the project sections and there being demonstrable evidence that proposed mitigation measures address the expected increase in roadkill of Tasmanian devil and Spotted tailed quoll normally seen with road sealing. So far no mitigation trials have been conducted and that evidence does not exist.

“The lowering of the bar doesn’t make sense given that the state government is increasing it’s efforts to reduce the impact of the road. I suspect pressure is coming from other sources”.

 “In my estimation, the lowering of the assessment approach has less to do with the alterations to the route, but the fact that a mining company now needs this route for transporting product to ports”.

.

‘Few understand how much transport influences land use patterns.  Transport leads land use.  Once an expressway or railway is built, it is easy to change the zoning and development laws to increase the population along the corridor.’

[Source: Then New South Wales Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, Sydney Morning Herald, 20080929, p11]

.

‘A road desecrates wilderness

and enslaves wildness’

~ Editor

.

.

The site of Blue Mountains Significant Tree #5 – it was a massive Eucalyptus oreades

~ Our endemic heritage woodchipped into oblivion

Lest we forget!

(Photo of Editor 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

This mature native tree was respected enough to have been listed on Blue Mountain Council’s Significant Tree Register.  Indeed it was the 5th such listed tree on Blue Mountains Council’s Register of Significant Trees back in 1988.

So what is the meaning of a ‘Significant Tree‘ on Blue Mountains Council’s register?

Well back on 21st June 1988 the Register of Significant Trees was adopted by Blue Mountains Council as an integral part of its Development Control Plan, which proclaimed significant trees be protected under Clause 6 ‘Protection of Items Listed in the Register of Significant Trees‘ so that:

.

‘No person shall ringbark, cut down, top, lop, injure, wilfully destroy or cause damage to the root system off any tree listed on the Register of Significant trees without consent of Council.’

.

Perhaps the current Blue Mountains Council mayor may care to publicly explain why its Significant Tree Number 5, a locally endemic Eucalyptus oreades (Blue Mountains Ash) of some stature located opposite 252 Old Bathurst Road Katoomba (Lot 2 DP707) has been woodchipped into oblivion?

• Was formal Blue Mountains Council consent given to kill it?
• If so, when was this Blue Mountains Council consent given to kill it?
• What Blue Mountains Council documentation is publicly available to validate such consent?
• What public notice was provided by Blue Mountains Council for community consultation about its killing?
• Does Blue Mountains Council give a bleeding toss?

.

The objectives of Blue Mountains Council’s Significant Tree Register include:

.
(a) identify and protect those trees listed on the Register
(b) promote greater public awareness of the existence of the Register, and the individual items listed
(c) ensure existing and, importantly, prospective land owners, are made aware of the Significant Trees which may be located on their property
(d) ensure correct on-going care and maintenance of those trees listed, through the recommendations included with the significant tree register

.

The following tree is not even on the Blue Mountains Council Significant Tree Register, so has even less chance of protection.

Katoomba’s most significant (grandfather) Eucalyptus oreades, beside Megalong Street

 Pitifully it manages to survive as an extremely rare relic of the once magnificent Oreades Forest

This tree is ‘endemic’ to the Central Upper Blue Mountains at Katoomba

(That is, it grows naturally nowhere else on the friggin Planet!) 

(Photo of Editor 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

But this tree is perpetually being subjected by Blue Mountains Council approved industrial development after industrial development – the road widening, the recent expansion of the bus depot across the road and now some ‘mega industrial’ estate behind it.  Blue Mountains Council pro-development forces are mounting against it.

.

The Mega industrial development immediately behind this magnificent native tree

~ but what would BMCC care?

(Photo by Habitat Investigator 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

The Theo Poulos promoted ‘Mega Industrial Park’

excavated right behind this rare, significant Eucalyptus oreades,

~ as if the developer or Theo Poulos gives a crap!

(Photo by Habitat Investigator 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

But then Blue Mountains Council’s so-called Significant Tree Register has always been a crock of deceptive community greenwashing!

As soon as any tree on its register becomes slightly inconvenient, our pro-development Blue Mountains Council, strangled by Liberal-Labor Party vested interests, easily turns a blind eye to significant Blue Mountain heritage and no more significant tree.

Is it any wonder that as the Blue Mountains is allowed to be developed and its natural amenity destroyed that outsiders no longer see the Blue Mountains as a significant attraction, but more as an extension of Sydney sprawl?  They just speed past on that forever faster, noisier and more dangerous Trucking Expressway!

.

Tasmania’s magnificent ‘Weld Forest’

~ one of Tasmania’s rare ancient forests constantly threatened

by Tasmanian Government recidivist logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’

.

Australia’s Gillard Labor Government yesterday (20120114)  announced an ‘interim legal protection for 428,000 ha’ ahead of tomorrow’s scheduled return of recidivist logging.

This appears good news which obviously the Gillard media release intends. But the process is duplicitous and sly.

Tasmania’s 2011 Forests Agreement is a community agreement about public forest protection involving taxpayer funded Forestry Tasmania so what moral right does the Labor Party have to deny the process being public – i.e. transparent and open?  Why is the forest map not publicly online showing the updates of the discussions?  Which 1950ha get the chainsaw and why?

This is the only available map. [Read Tasmanian Forest Protection Map 2011]

 

Professor Jonathan West, Chair of the Independent Verification Group has a lot to answer for.  Why has he not voiced outrage publicly of Forestry Tasmania’s illegal logging of the 430.000 hectares of native forests protected in Interim Reserves under the Agreement?

Relative position of the local Tasmanian community protest tree sit The Observer Tree

For ongoing updates visit The ObserverTree.org

.

 

Tasmania’s Forest Defender  – Miranda Gibson

stationed in a eco-Tree Sit 60 metres above the Styx Valley Forest floor

Visit: The ObserverTree.org

…waiting for Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard to honour her personal promise to Tasmanians to protect Tasmanian old growth forests for perpetuity.

.

572,000 hectares of Tasmania’s remaining old growth

…’as agreed‘ Julia!

.

‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’

[Source: ‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’, by political journalist Bruce Montgomery in Hobart, ^http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/tasmanian-forrests-deal-gillard-and-giddings/]above the Styx
.
‘The $276 million agreement that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings flaunted only a month ago as the ultimate peace deal to end the 40-year war in Tasmania’s forests is dead in the water.  It comes as no surprise to those who have sought to interpret the poorly drafted provisions of  the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed by Gillard and Giddings and those of the agreement that preceded it, the so-called Statement of Principles.

The Statement of Principles was the product of those purporting to represent the Tasmanian forest industry and the conservation movement to achieve a peace, most recently under the guidance of former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty.

Both documents appear to have been the work of plant operators rather than draftspeople.  Grammar and proofing blunders aside, the giant flaw in both agreements has been the right of conservation groups to identify and nominate another half a million hectares of Crown land in Tasmania to be annexed into reserves, perhaps to the status of national parks or World Heritage, in order to neuter, by law, the timber industry in Tasmania and to pay alms to its victims.

Private foresters, who manage 26% of the total forest cover, were excluded from the negotiations on the pretext that the talks did not involve forests on private land, yet clause 31 of the IGA specifically drags 885,000 hectares of private forests into the equation.

Such a deal, whether concluded at NGO or government level, was never going to pass Tasmania’s Upper House, the Legislative Council. If it did come to pass, it would seal the fate of the Labor-Green governments in Canberra and Hobart as far as Tasmanian voters were concerned.

The premise for the Statement of Principles and the IGA was that the major industrial player, Gunns, was getting out of native forest logging in favour of plantations in order to swing public and banker support behind its $2.5 billion pulp mill proposal at Long Reach on the Tamar River.

In effect, Gunns was about to place all its eggs in one basket, a world-scale pulp mill using only plantation timber.  Both agreements hinged on Gunns getting government compensation for its departure from public native forests, yet the mood in Tasmania has clearly been that Gunns should get nothing; its exit from native forests was being made on purely commercial grounds; it was immaterial that it had residual rights to use the public native forests.

If the Giddings government had been responsible for giving Gunns one red cent from the overall $276 million compensation package for the IGA, it would have faced political and electoral oblivion.

We don’t know what Gunns was offered in the end. It is thought to have been $23 million, but on the proviso that it pay its debts to Forestry Tasmania, a disputed $25 million.

Yesterday the Tasmanian government confirmed Gunns had rejected the offer, though Gunns, which has been in a trading halt on the stock exchange since August 8, said nothing.

Assuming that is right, it has the option to place those forest rights on the market. Since the IGA depends on those forests being protected, the keystone to the agreement is gone.’

.

‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups‘

[Source: ‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups’, by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Denholm, ‘The Australian’, 20120113, The Australian: ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tasmanian-forest-deal-riles-green-groups/story-fn59niix-1226243780040]

.

The Gillard Labor Government has announced interim legal protection for 428,000 ha of Tasmania’s forests, but has been accused of reneging on a deal to deliver a larger logging ban.

Australia’s 27th Prime Minister, The Hon. Julia Gillard     (June 2010 – ?)

In her vital and privileged position, she has the power, influence, connections and taxpayer resources

to protect Tasmania’s 572,000 hectares of old growth native forests consistent with the IGA.

As usual, it comes down to political will, courage and innovative thinking – which is what we expect of our leaders.

.

Environment Minister Tony Burke announced the move today after the Greens suspended normal relations with the government in protest at continues logging of areas deemed sensitive.

The new Conservation Agreement with the Tasmanian Government falls 1950ha short of the forest protection promised under last year’s intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Gillard and Giddings governments.

This provoked an angry reaction from environment groups, who said it had “shaken” their confidence in the two governments’ ability to deliver a broader agreement to protect up to 572,000ha.

And Greens leader Bob Brown said it was “a blueprint for the destruction of more than 20 square kilometres of high-conservation value forests”.

…The agreement provides legal protection to the area until an independent process decides how much of the larger area of 572,000ha deserves protection and can be locked up without harming existing timber contracts.

Mr Burke said the new interim deal was good for both forest conservation and jobs and would allow all parties to focus on supporting the longer-term independent verification process, expected to complete by June.

“With this agreement in place, all parties can now concentrate their efforts on assisting the important work of the Independent Verification Group, which is assessing the conservation values of the entire 572,000ha nominated by environmental non-governmental organisations, in addition to verifying long-term timber supply requirements,” Mr Burke said.

“This is a good result for Tasmania’s forestry industry, for local jobs and communities while protecting Tasmania’s iconic forests.”

However, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Environment Tasmania all condemned the two governments for allowing logging in the 1950 ha, saying this included iconic, ancient forests in the Styx Valley, Weld Valley and The Tarkine, including endangered species habitat.

Earlier this week Greens leader Bob Brown said he would not resume his regular meetings with Julia Gillard once parliament returns next month unless she committed to ending logging. This afternoon, Senator Brown said he remained open to ad-hoc talks with Ms Gillard, who will visit Tasmania on the weekend, but accused her of reneging on the promise to protect the full 430,000ha in the IGA announced in August last year.

.

How is Tasmania’s Premier Lara Giddings dealing with the colonial cultural right to log Tasmania’s remaining ancient forests?

Only when Tasmania’s condemned old growth forest is ultimately logged, will neanderthal loggers ugg…

.

‘Where’s me big trees gone’ ?

.

Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was a contradictory hoodwink

.

While the public message is $276 million (no less) to exit native forests and a logging moratorium, what is Lara Giddings saying privately to Forestry that we see its business as usual pursuing old growth logging self-righteously on its perceived right to log?

Under the conservation agreement, the Tasmanian government agency Forestry Tasmania is restrained from logging swathes of disputed public forest while the deal is settled.  However, evidence has been found of Forestry Tasmania continuing to penetrate its logging deep into these wilderness forests.   Meanwhile the contradictory message by the Giddings Labor Government to the Tasmanian forest industry is that it has a ‘guaranteed wood supply‘.

Perhaps having the $276 million cake she says its ok to log the forest too!

In 2004 the Timber Workers for Forests (TWFF) defended their “statutory requirement that a minimum of 300,000 m3 of high quality Eucalypt veneer and sawlog be made available annually.” It’s ‘Logging Statutory Requirement‘ versus ‘Native Logging Moratorium‘ allowing a duplicitous and sly parallel government message process.

Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was worse that a compromise.  Its complex and contradictory legalese was a hookwink. Kelty’s wording allowed Forestry to have its cake and eat it.   On the one hand it promises Conservation (lumped as “ENGO’s”) under Clauses 25, 26 and 27 …”The State will immediately place the 430,000 ha of native forest…into Informal Reserves.”

While at the same time it also guarantees Forestry wood supply for the remaining industry under Clause 17…”At least 155 000 thousand cubic metres per year of high quality sawlog, by regulation, 265 000 metres per year of peeler billets, a speciality timber supply, noting that the industry claim is 12,500 cubic metres per year, subject to verification.”

So Forestry has has a window of logging opportunity to go for it while Professor Jonathan West’s Independent Verification Group decides the exact boundaries of the 430,000 and 572,000 for either protection or the chainsaw (Clause 20).  That decision was due 31st Dec 2011, two weeks ago.

.

“It is little wonder that many Tasmanians now worry that the woodchippers’ greed destroys not only their natural heritage, but distorts their parliament, deforms their polity and poisons their society. And perhaps it is for that reason that the battle for forests in Tasmania is as much about free speech and democracy – about a people’s right to exercise some control over their destiny, about their desire to have a better, freer society – as it is about wild lands.”

[Source:  ‘Out of Control: The tragedy of Tasmania’s forests’, by Richard Flanagan, in The Monthly, May 2007, ^http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-richard-flanagan-out-control-tragedy-tasmania-s-forests-512]

.

Logging invades Tasmania’s South-West wilderness in the Huon valley,

not far downstream of the above photo.

This logging is ruining the integrity of the adjacent Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

whose boundaries have been drawn to protect the treeless mountaintops

and leave the forested valleys to the loggers.

.