At a time when the Tasmanian Government has a protracted budget crisis, when Gunns and its logging venture is on the brink of financial collapse, and the Australian Federal Government is offering a $276 million package to the Tasmanian logging industry to transition out of subsidy-dependent logging;  this is a time for strategic decision making.  This is a time for considering the next generation of Tasmanians.

The days of governments providing subsidies to forestry are numbered.  The writing is on the wall for multi-national/industrial hardwood forestry in Tasmania.

Despite the less than perfect negotiations, the undemocratic secrecy of the deal making, State and Federal governments’ poor grasp of change management, Tasmanians are presented with an olive branch.  The last time a middle-ground opportunity was available to the two warring sides was the 1989 Salamanca Agreement which was quickly scuttled by government.   A generation later, a considerable financial incentive and the facilitation of transition out of logging are on the table.

Irreplaceable old growth forest ecosystems are at stake, but equally at stake are rural livelihoods.  There are structural social repercussions that will last decades.  But then Tasmania’s poverty is already structural.  It has become inter-generational and Tasmanians need a transitional direction out of poverty.  While mindful of the recurring history of conflict and community polarisation, this current opportunity for change is rare and perhaps a once in a generation one at that.

In order to begin to appreciate the cultural depth of Tasmania’s ‘age-old conflict‘, at least four particular books should be read on this history:

1. ‘The South West Book: A Tasmanian Wilderness‘, compiled by Helen Gee,Janet Fenton and Greg Hodge in 1978, published by William Collins Pty Lts and The Australian Conservation Foundation [Read More]
2. Helen Gee’s 2001 book ‘For the Forests: A History of the Tasmanian Forest Campaigns‘, published by The Wilderness Society, Inc. [Read More]
3. Greg Buckman’s 2008 book ‘Tasmania’s Wilderness Battles: a history‘, published by Allen & Unwin   [Read More]
4. Anna Krien’s 2010 book ‘Into the Woods: the battle for Tasmania’s Forests‘, published by Black Ink   [Read More]

.

Perhaps as an interested outsider, a mainlander, I can consider this Tasmanian-wide conflict from a detached unencumbered perspective.  The younger generations have opportunities that their parents and ancestors never did.  Had my grandfather not died on the farm when my father was just eight years old, I may well have followed generations into sheep farming.  My grandmother with her only child left the farm to give my father the best opportunity she could.  I reflect on that opportunity and the greatly increased opportunity that my parents have provided me and my siblings.  It takes one opportunity, for others to become available and sometimes it takes generations.

While not setting out to be critical of sheep farming per se, in hindsight sheep farming in Australia over my lifetime has become low margin and commoditised (like woodchips) and many a wool grower have not experienced the anticipated opportunities flowing on from the halcyon days when Australia was built off the sheep’s back.  ‘Once a great nation-building icon, the wool business today is but a third of its size when Australia ‘rode on the sheep’s back’.  Compared to the more recent Australian Wheat Board scandal, 40 times more funds were lost in the downfall, and vastly more collateral social and economic damage was done in this country and across the globe.’   Indeed, Charles Massey’s 2011 book ‘Breaking the Sheep’s Back‘ tells the untold story of the events that led to Australia’s biggest industry disaster. [Read More].

Just as Australia’s traditional wool business has declined, so too has Australia’s traditional timber business.

‘Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.’

~ Robert Frost’s 1915 poem, ‘The Black Cottage’.

Woodchipping Tasmania only benefits foreign buyers, who must be laughing

.

Once island problems are recognised for what they are (internal island problems), the quicker more Tasmanian’s will recognise that the future challenges and opportunities of the island lie with industry diversification, value adding produce and services and with the world outside it.  Trading internationally directly is where Tasmania’s future prosperity lies.  Tasmania can learn much from the pure brand of ‘New Zealand’.  Much of Tasmania’s output competes in comparable industries with the output of New Zealand.

Past and current generations of Tasmanians have become familar with old growth forests and many have become complacent of their presence.  Future generations have a right to that familiarity.  

Tasmanian complacency was the root cultural cause behind the eventual extinction of the Thylacene.

Extinction is forever ~ the dark past should not curse our future

.

“Tasmania is slowly evolving towards goals we cannot now see. If we can revise our attitudes towards the land under our feet; if we can accept a role of steward and depart from the role of conqueror; if we accept the view that man and nature are inseparable parts of a unified whole – then Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform and largely artificial world”.

~ Olegas Truchanas, 1969

[Source: ^http://florentine.org.au/]

.

---

.

Intergovernmental Forests Agreement, 2011

.

In October 2010,  the major breakthrough in the almost century long dispute over Tasmania’s forests was reported secured in principle between the key parties, Tasmanian timber communities, forest unions, and industry, Gunns, Environment Tasmania, the Conservation Council, The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation.   Credit is due to the two instrumental negotiators, Gunns chief executive Greg L’Estrange and forest facilitator Bill Kelty.

Tasmanian History in the making

.

The aim was to find an agreement develop a more sustainable timber industry and to end logging Tasmania’s remaining valuable native forests.  It will mean an end to logging of native forests will also protect critical habitats for Tasmanian devils and other threatened species.  A moratorium on the logging of high native forests will be phased in over three months, while maintaining essential supplies for necessary timber mill operations.

The “Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles” were agreed to set Tasmania’s timber industry on a new path to economic opportunities through plantation-based forestry, protecting timber worker’s jobs and native forests.

.

>Read Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles

.

 

“The forestry industry, unions and environment groups have found common ground in the interests of all Tasmanians. This will pave the way for a sustainable timber industry that protects jobs and also protects the state’s remaining unique native forests,” said Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger..

.

[Source: ‘Forests: Peace in our time?’, by Andrew Darby, The Age, newspaper, 20101019, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/peace-in-our-time]

.

>Read Tasmanian Forests Agreement – August 2011

>Read Larger Detailed Map

.

---

.

Tasmanian Transition from High Volume/Low to Low Volume/ High Value Add Timber –  public debate recommended

.

While not advocating industrial logging of Tasmania’s native myrtle, a refocus from high volume/low margin woodchips toward low volume / high value specialised timbercraft is a Tasmanian industry that has potential to be both commercially viable while being ecologically sustainable, if excluding old growth and so long as it is appropriately tightly controlled and monitored.

A public debate on this potential is recommended.

High value-add Electric Guitar in Tasmanian Myrtle

[Source: ^http://tasmaniantonewoods.com/guitars]

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

‘Gunns rejects crucial financial offer’

.

[by Andrew Darby, The Age newspaper, 20110906, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/gunns-rejects-crucial-financial-offer-20110905-1ju9j.html]

.

‘Troubled forestry company Gunns has rejected a financial offer from the Tasmanian government seen as key to the future of the state’s timber industry.  The settlement for exiting native forest logging was critical both to Gunns’s future operations and to a landmark forests peace settlement.

”The state government has been formally advised by Gunns Limited of their decision to reject our offer of commercial settlement,” a spokesman for Premier Lara Giddings said yesterday.

The settlement was needed to unlock funding for contractors squeezed by the exit from native forests in a $276 million federal-state package.  Rejection comes with Gunns into the fifth week of a stock exchange trading halt, called for the settlement negotiations, with its share price at an all-time low of 20.5¢.  The settlement, covering tens of millions of dollars, was meant to extinguish Gunns’s legal rights over native forest contracts with Forestry Tasmania.

.

---

.

.

‘Tasmanian Forests Agreement   (official announcement)’

.

 

[Source: The Australian Government, 2011, ^http://australia.gov.au/content/tasmanian-forests-agreement]

.

‘The Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier have announced a $276 million funding package to support the adjustment of the Tasmanian forestry industry, and to create a significant conservation benefit by reserving and protecting High Conservation Value native forest areas.  The Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement is designed to support the forest industry to progressively transition to a more sustainable and diversified footing and to build regional economic diversity and community resilience.

The agreement includes:

.

Support for workers, contractors and communities

• Up to $25 million to provide immediate employment and training support for redundant forest workers
• Intensive support through Job Services Australia and other providers relocation support for redundant forestry workers
• $15 million for transition support payments (through ForestWorks)
• $1 million over two years for mental health counselling and community well-being services (through Rural Alive and Well)
• $45 million for voluntary exits from public native forest operations for haulage, harvest and silvicultural contractors.

Tasmanian forest industry workers can call the Tasmanian Forest Support Information Line on 1800 648 075 for more information about the services and payments that may be available to them.

Protecting high conservation value forests and ensuring sustainable wood supply

• Guaranteed annual sustainable timber supply of at least 155,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog per year and 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets each year
• Provision for speciality timber, noting that the industry claim is 12,500 cubic metres per year, subject to verification funding to support an independent verification process
• Funding for a voluntary sawlog contract buy-back program for sawmillers wishing to exit the industry
• 430,000 hectares of native forest immediately placed into Informal Reserves
• Legislation no later than 30 June 2012 to formally protect the areas of reserve determined by the independent verification
• $43 million to implement this Agreement (including at least $5 million to support provision of information and consultation with affected communities)
• $7 million per year to support management of additional reserves.

Economic diversification

• $120 million over 15 years to fund regional development projects
• Development of a process to identify by mid 2012:
  • the impacts of forestry adjustment on affected regions, including the scope for
  • alternative sectors and jobs to support regional adjustment
  • progress in implementing Commonwealth and Tasmanian adjustment measures
  • the need for further regional development assistance
• A major research and analytical project to underpin this process.

.

---

.

‘Giddings acts to avert budget crisis’

[Source: Brand Tasmania Newsletter, March, 2011, Issue 114, ^http://www.brandtasmania.com/newsletter.php?ACT=story&issue=114&story=1]

Tasmanian Premier and Treasurer, Lara Giddings

Photo courtesy of The Hobart Mercury

.

As unemployment figures for January showed a monthly rise from 5.0 to 5.6 %, the Premier and Treasurer, Lara Giddings, foreshadowed a 3 % cut in public sector spending and warned Tasmanians to expect three tough Budgets as the State’s balance sheet is shifted back into the black.

Releasing the Mid Year Financial Report on 10 February, Ms Giddings said several 2010 elections promises would have to be scrapped in the drive to off-set an $800 million loss of revenue. She outlined the following immediate savings:

• $97.5m cancellation of equity transfers to GBEs;
• $30.9m scrapping of planned Helicopter Emergency Medical Service;
• $18.0m shelving of proposed Cosgrove Specialist Sports School;
• $ 3.8m dropping of the Events Attraction Program;
• $ 2.0m closing down the Renewable Energy Loan Fund
• $ 3.9m deferring IT projects over two years; and
• $ 2.5m cutting ministerial and parliamentary office expenditure.

“These savings will improve the Government’s financial position in the short term while longer-term structural changes are being developed and implemented,” Ms Giddings said.

She told a media conference the savings needed were the equivalent of 2,300 jobs and she could not rule out forced redundancies in the public service, nor cuts to frontline services. Unions immediately branded her as the first Labor Premier in history to announce public service sackings.

.

“I want to be open and frank with people about the problems we are facing,” Ms Giddings said.

“We are in a place where we need to see significant action to avert a crisis. This is not a crisis; this is an unsustainable situation that will lead to a crisis if action isn’t taken now.”

.

[Editor’s note:

To the contrary, a ‘crisis‘ in a governmental context is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

“an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome <a financial crisis>“]

.

The number of people on the State Government payroll has increased 24 per cent this decade to 25,000 – almost one in every nine employed Tasmanians. Economic commentator Saul Eslake has pointed out that it costs public employees 14 per cent more a year to deliver services to each citizen, compared with their counterparts in Victoria.

So the Government expects job cuts, spending cutbacks and increased efficiency in the public service to contribute $270 million of the $420 million it hopes to save over the next four years.

Ms Giddings said it was regrettable that some worthwhile Government programs could not be continued, but strong action was needed in response to falls in GST revenue and other income in the wake of the global financial crisis. “I am determined to take the steps necessary to protect the Government’s financial position,” Ms Giddings said. “While I would prefer not to have to take some of these measures, I believe they are essential if we are to avoid sliding back into net debt.”

A Sensis Business Index released in late February reinforced the need for decisive action, Ms Giddings said. “The national downturn in retail trade is a concern the State Government shares with local retailers, as it continues to directly impact upon the State budget through reduced GST receipts.”

.

[Read More]

.

– end of article –

.

.

The Habitat Advocate’s raison d’être

 

Habitat Campaigning best starts close to home.   If everyone took this approach then the natural environment would be far more intact, the wildlife habitat more viable to sustain local wildlife, and the risk of species extinction far lower than where current trends are heading.

The Habitat Advocate established as a volunteer conservation group back in 2001 on the edge of a small steep creek valley within what we term The Gully Water Catchment based at The Habitat Advocate founder’s residential home on the bushland fringe of the regional township of Katoomba, situated in the central Upper Blue Mountains of New South Wales in Australia. 

The reference to this creek valley as ‘The Gully‘ is the historical affection name for the valley by former resident tenants.

Our raison d’être (purpose in forming) initiated on one Saturday morning within a few weeks of the founder, Steven, moving into his recently acquired house and suddenly being impacted by the roar of racing Mini Cooper cars down in the creek valley less than 100 metres away.  Having had all due diligence in conveyancing previously undertaken ahead of purchasing the property and the previous tenant advising how quite the area was, no mention had been made of the deafening motor racing circuit!  Local Blue Mountains [city} Council (local council) maps had labelled the small surrounding valley as ‘Katoomba Falls Creek Valley‘, with the northern portion near our house named by Council as ‘Frank Walford Park‘, but NOT as ‘Catalina Park‘ motor racing circuit.

So that was it, the battle to end the motor racing commenced. 

Steven soon learned about a local grassroots activist group of residents living around the edge of this creek valley, which had formed back in 1989 initially and primarily to end the car racing use of the valley and also to respect and rehabilitate the creek valley’s natural ecology.  Steven joined them in 2002 – ‘The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc.‘ (‘The Friends’), led by the now late Neil Stuart [1937-2016]. 

Between 2002 and 2007, Steven volunteered in The Friends working group’s activities – lobbying local council to end the racing, participating in community meetings about the valley, meeting with former residents of ‘The Gully’ (mostly Aboriginal), writing letters in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper, undertaking bushcare weeding and rubbish clean ups in the valley, and generally monitoring and reporting unsavoury goings such as illegal squatting by transient outsiders.

During those early years, The Friends learned about the tragic history of the creek valley’s 1957 forced eviction of former tenants by Council and its bulldozing of their homes so that the racetrack could be constructed.  The former tenants had referred to the creek valley as The Gully – mainly the northern portion of what Council had named Frank Walford Park after one of its mayors of the 1950s who had approved the racetrack usurpation* of the land previously known by former residents as The Gully.  A number of members of The Friends were indeed former residents of the valley – Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, as well as intermixed local families.

[Ed: *Usurpation is the act of taking somebody’s position and/or power without having the right to do this.  Land Usurpation is the appropriation of land from the previous or lawful owner].

 

In 1995, local council had renamed ‘Katoomba Falls Creek Valley‘ to being ‘Upper Kedumba River Valley‘.  In around 2007, The Gully Traditional Owners decided to rename The Gully as ‘Gungaree’ in Gundungurra aboriginal language acccording to historical doctoral research undertaken by Wentworth Falls historian Jim Smith, Ph.D.

Around the time from 2000 to 2002, as chance would have it, there occurred an environmentalist momentum in the area, followed by a local social momentum that firstly had the Blue Mountains region internationally recognised as a natural World Heritage area on Thursday 30th November 2000.  Secondly, portions of the valley became recognised and declared by the New South Wales Government as an Aboriginal Place under its National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 on 18th May 2002.  That declaration resulted in local council terminating the car racing in the valley. 

So job done!  It was certainly a changeable time, and Steven just happened to have arrived from Sydney, originally Melbourne.

By 2007, despite tirelsss efforts of The Friends since forming back in 1989 to persuade local council (as the legal owner of the valley) to end the racing and to consult with interested local residents around the valley and about managing a natural rehabilitation process for the valley, that was not to be. 

Instead, council bureaucracy over the years systematically thwarted all attempts by The Friends, and The Friends’ allied collaborated group The Gully Guardians (2004-2006) from having any say in joint community consultation and rehabilitation management of the valley.  In fact, due to the years of  The Friends demands upon local council to consult in rehabilitate the valley and The Friends’ relentless and strident criticism of local council (whilst valid in this author’s view), local council went further. 

By 2007, local council had completely ostracised The Friends from all community consultation concerning the valley and had bureaucratically driven a by-law wedge between The Friends and the local Aboriginal people who had been former residents of the valley before 1957. 

By 2007, local council had chosen to side solely with the newly formed Gundungurra Aboriginal group, The Gully Traditional Owners, in an exclusive management partnership for the valley.   From local council’s bureacuratic standpoint The Friends had effectively become personae non gratae. 

It wass in this year, that Steven sadly decided to resign from The Friends and focus his environmentaliost attention upon building the website of the Habitat Advocate. 

All the while and since then, Steven has continued to maintain close good friendship and communication with members of The Friends. 

 

The Gully Water Catchment?

 

In the upper Blue Mountains, a creek and series of wetlands following the upper reaches of the Upper Kedumba River above Katoomba Falls form an elongated upland valley covering an area of more than 100 hectares.  This creek valley has been known for many decades by its former residents and their descendants affectionately as ‘The Gully’.  Over more than a century since the 1870s, this natural valley was steadily deforested and around the fringes subdivided for housing so that the remnant natural area has been reduced to under 70 hectares..

Situated next to the township of Katoomba, The Gully has long been surrounded by housing development above it atop its steep valley embankments.  Yet, The Gully held  important ancestral cultural values to traditional Aboriginal peoples of the Gundungurra, Darug, Wanaruah, Wiradjuri, Darkinjung and Tharawal of the greater Blue Mountains region and adjoining lands.  These values contimue to be held by formre residents of the Gully and current generations. 

The Gully has been a ceremonial meeting place for traditional peoples of the Blue Mountains for perhaps thousands of years.  Since colonial settlement at Katoomba in the 1870s, The Gully has provided a secure haven for poor people both black and white, who although living in basic squat conditions in the extremes of Mountains weather, lived together as a close knit community; the Congregational ‘Mission’ Church for many years having played a key uniting role for Gully folk and as an informal umbrella protecting authority to stave off designs on the place by selfish others.

Jimmy War Sing, Chinese market gardener and fruiterer on his sulky in The Gully; the poor horse not well fed.

His ‘Chinese Garden’ was situated in a natural gully with a small watercourse running through it behind Loftus and Neale Streets (McRae’s Paddock).

(Photo circa 1903), supplied by Colin Slade in Pict. Memories Blue Mountains, John Low 2002)^http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue_mountains_library_-_local_studies/2669879647/  .

Two particular historic events have adversely impacted upon The Gully’s ecological integrity and its human community.  The first event was the bulldozing of the natural swamp of frogs hollow in the 1940s by developer Horace Gates to construct a dam as an artificial lake as part of his theme park scheme for the Gully.  A few years later a Catalina flying boat was floated in the dam (lake) as a tourism draw card.  At some time in the late 19th Century a local by the name of McRae, decided to bulldoze and infill the wetland in the mid part of the valley so that he could graze his horse stock.

The second event was the bulldozing of the entire top valley including the homes of several families in 1957 by the Blue Mountains Council in collaboration with a local fraternity car racing drivers and local businessmen to make way for a motor racing circuit – ‘Catalina Raceway’.  Those families were forcibly evicted from their homes, extricated from The Gully and one woman died of a heart attack during the raid.

Catalina Raceway was used for motor racing through the 1960s, by the 1970s the racing circuit had steadily fallen into disrepair. This was due to a number of factors – repeated foggy weather at many racing events, the inability of the racing association to repay its construction debt to the Blue Mountains Council, new competition from circuits nearer to Sydney (Oran Park and Amaroo Park), and due to the prohibitive cost of increasing motor racing safety standards, prompted by the death of two racing drivers on separate occasions at ‘Craven A Corner’.

The track became overgrown and weeds spread throughout the valley.  Blue Mountains Council named the valley ‘Catalina Park‘, and later named the top northern part of the valley as ‘Frank Walford Park’ after the namesake of a previous councillor who had been a key decision maker in approving the racetrack be built.  Car racing at Catalina, culminating in the formation of the Blue Mountains Tourist Association.

Catalina Raceway was a form of early Blue Mountains tourism and became very popular with car racing enthusiasts during the 1960s and 1970s.

 

In 1989, local nearby residents concerned about the poor state of the valley and with a desire to stop the car racing and protect the natural values of the valley, formed The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley, Inc. (‘The Friends’). 

This grassroots local community group of local Katoomba residents established as one of the first bushcare groups in the Blue Mountains and since then their volunteers have regularly engaged in bush regeneration throughout the valley. 

 

The Friends also galvanised local community support to stop the racing and to rehabilitate the valley back to its natural condition, holding street stalls to raise funds and to raise community awareness over the plight of the long neglected valley.   The Friends lobbied Blue Mountains Council over nearly three decades to have the car racing banned, to have the weeds removed and to restore the valley to its pre-1957 natural state. 

The Friends’ became instrumental in having plans prepared for the rehabilitation for the valley, most notably the 1993 Bell Report prepared by environmental consultant Fred Bell, the only one done so in consultation with the local community.  To date, none of the several plans drafted has been put into effect by local council, so the Gully remains neglected and the race track long abandoned, yet the natural bush vegetation is steadily recovering.

In 2000, local Darug elder, Aunty Dawn Colless, was instrumental in achieving proper recognition for The Gully as an official Aboriginal Place under the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act. On 18th May 2002, regrettably after Dawn’s passing, The Gully became protected under Sections 84, 85 and 90 from development and all racing formally banned.

 

 

 

Concerned local residents around The Gully back in 1988 began to realise that this natural creek valley immediately upstream and feeding Katoomba Falls and Kedumba River with fresh drinking water, was becoming increasingly under threat of destruction from various external vested interests.  So in 1989 a mob of them formed a local community environmental conservation bushcare and activist group , The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc. 

This committed volunteer community group ran for some 27 years under the leadership and inspiration of local social worker and teacher, Neil Stuart.  Most members of ‘The Friends’ initially lived within the water catchment of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley – a natural amphitheatre of multiple watercourses on the western side of the Blue Mountains township of Katoomba, which covered about 600 hectares.

So yes they were NIMBYS proudly, defending their beautiful natural place from selfish invaders threatening to ruin and exploit the Nature and its natural amenity.

Without the concerted efforts and activism of this committed community group, it is most likely that The Gully would now no longer exist, but be a valley of housing and recreational development.

The purpose of this webpage is to offer a perpetual factual account of the truth about The Gully, its recent history, its stories, its plethora of threats to undermine its integrity, values and spirit over many decades, and the stories of the ongoing abuse, neglect, battles, egos, bias – warts and all.

In 2004, the Blue Mountains {city} Council finally released it 2002 draft Plan of Management for The Gully, however,  after seven years is yet to be funded and implemented; council preferring to fund multi-million urban developments such as nearby Katoomba Cultural (Shopping) Centre.  In that same year,  past Aboriginal residents and descendants of The Gully collaborated with local council management to have an archaeological survey conducted at key traditional cultural sites throughout The Gully.

In early  2006, a collaborative coalition of various community members including traditional Gundungurra and Darug and The Friends and formed ‘The Gully Guardians’, although this was short-lived due to undermining tactics by political interests within Blue Mountains Council causing hostilities.   This was superseded by the establishment of the ‘Gully Traditional Owners’ in June 2006 by representatives of the Aboriginal people that had inhabited the Gully over many generations.  The Gully Traditional Owners has since that time collaborated with Blue Mountains {city} Council to achieve New South Wales grant funding for restoration works, including a planned interpretative walking track through the Gully.

 

‘The Gully Cause’

 

The Gully Cause (i.e. saving it from ongoing abuse and neglect) is an humanitarian one as it is an ecological one. 

This creek valley is the site of some of the Blue Mountains most divisive conservation battles that persist – citing the forced evictions by Council, the notorious 1957 bulldozing for a car racetrack, the bulldozing for Katoomba golf course, massive subdivision for housing, council profiteering from land sales for incremental housing development, deforestation for mass tourism, arson, a sports centre development by council,  the creek diverted into a dam as part of one of two wacky theme park developments, etc, etc.

The values, history, stories, threats, abuse and neglect remain ongoing.  The Habitat Advocate was established in 2006 as a conservation activist organisation based in The Gully water catchment situated in inner west Katoomba.  

Since the events of 1957, when council acquired the majority of what was then known as Katoomba Falls Creek Valley upstream of Katoomba Falls to the highway, most of the land has been deemed Council Community Land, so it is largely public open space, except for the many sections sold off for development – both housing subdivision and mass tourism.

The editor of The Habitat Advocate has lived within The Gully water catchment since 2001 and has contributed an active community voluntary role to protect the natural values of The Gully and assist local residents and former residents of The Gully and their descendants in a constructive way.   This includes years of Bushcare weeding, SCA Streamwatch drinking water quality monitoring winning five awards from the Sydney Catchment Authority, as well as community activism as a member of the former local Katoomba community group Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc. (affectionately termed ‘The Friends’ by its members), which spanned some 26 years (1989 – 2016) protecting and the defending this natural valley from all sort of development threats. 

In addition, our editor was a member of the former Gully Guardians (a joint informal coalition of both local Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal locals and former residents of The Gully and their descendants).   I have enjoyed ongoing co-operation with The Gully Traditional Owners.

The Habitat Advocate grew out of its editor’s five year membership of local Katoomba protest action group The Friends from 2002 to 2006.  The Habitat Advocate is intimately aware of The Gully’s values, cultural sensitivities, histories, issues and threats that continue to affect this special place.

  

The Gully Collection

 

This Habitat Advocate webpage is dedicated to the conservation values of The Gully and remains a work-in-progress, collating various records, documents, images and accounts on The Gully so that locals, past, present and emerging of all persuasions may learn more about the important conservation values of this special place, thus continuing in the conservation spirit of The Friends. 

We have amassed a considerable library of knowledge on The Gully spanning a century.

An early photo of The Gully’s landscape (circa. 1920), taken looking from from the rear of the Balmoral Guesthouse (then 196 Main Street, since renamed Bathurst Road)  in Katoomba perhaps by the renowned Blue Mountains photographer Harry Phillips (1873-1944)

 

The following hyperlinks below are to pages and posts internally on this website that over time will form a reference library of material on The Gully restricted to what is in the public interest – ‘The Gully Collection‘ (created by The Habitat Advocate from 2016):

 

>Go To The Gully Collection

 

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

A pastoral Bothwell ~ an ode to the British countryside

looking from Barrack Hill over the River Clyde

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain)

(click photo to enlarge, then again to enlarge again)

.

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

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

Bothwell

Situated in the Tasmanian South East Bioregion

.

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

Traditional Aboriginal Territories of Tasmania

.

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

‘Dead Heritage’

Stump of a Tasmanian Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans)

on Barrack Hill, overlooking Bothwell

 

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain

(click photo to enlarge, then again to enlarge again)

.

‘Tasmanian Natural Heritage’

Tasmanian Swamp Gum

 

The type of  Swamp Gum forest around Bothwell

that would have greeted the colonists back in the 1820s

 

(© Photo Magi Nams)

 

Source: http://www.nams.ca/MagiBlog/tag/tasmanian-snow-gum/page/2/

.

.

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

‘Tasmanian Colonial Heritage’

Oatlands’ Wind Mill

 

The 1837 landmark Callington Flour Mill, recently restored

 

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

 

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

.

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

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

The environmental cost of  Tasmanian Tourism

A new ten inch (wide) post inside Oatlands’ restored mill,

probably from local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua)

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

.

.

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘The Traditional Tasmanians‘, ^http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter52/5-Tasmania-traditional/traditional.htm [Read More]

.

– end of article –

.

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

© Photo by Duncan Fraser

^http://www.natureofgippsland.org/

.

Powerful Owl Call

(turn on your computer volume)

.

---

.

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

.

[Source: ‘Something is knocking the states owls off their perches‘, by John Elder, The Age newspaper (Victoria, Australia), 20100613, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/something-is-knocking-the-states-owls-off-their-perches-20100612-y4s0.html]

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

.

 

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘Conservation through Knowledge’ – a motto of leadership

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

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

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

.

---

.

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua)

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

Powerful Owl (weighs under 1.5 kg)

© Photo by Duncan Fraser

^http://www.natureofgippsland.org/

.

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

.

HABITAT

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

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

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

DISTRIBUTION

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

.

CONSERVATION STATUS

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

.

SURVIVAL THREATS

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

.

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

.

---

.

References and Further Reading:

.

[1]    The Nature of Gippsland (photographic website), ‘A photo gallery featuring the natural world of Gippsland, Victoria, Australia’, Photographs by Duncan Fraser, ^http://www.natureofgippsland.org/

[2]    Birds Australia,  (Special survey on Powerful Owl distribution around Sydney, 2011), ^http://birdsinbackyards.net/surveys/powerful-owl.cfm

[3]    ‘Powerful Owl (Conservation) Action Statement, Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, (1999), ^http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/103177/092_powerful_owl_1999.pdf [Read More] [4]    ‘Protecting Victoria’s Powerful Owls‘, Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, (2001), ^http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/102144/PowerfulOwls.pdf [Read More]

.

– end of article –

[The following article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CandoBetter.net on 20090730 under title ‘African Elephants – still slaughtered for tusk (‘ivory’) trinkets by backward Japanese and Chinese‘, with some modifications]

The magnificent African Bush Elephant bull (male) walking tall in its native savannah homeland

.

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

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

One could find a comparable solution for controlling Robert Mugabe…

Tool of the Willing

(for just one day hire, …’our troubles there would be over very quickly’.)

~ borrowed from Colonel Walter E. Kurtz.

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

It depicts the Chengtu-Kunming railway, which was opened to traffic in 1970.

The sculpture was carved from eight elephant tusks. In elephant terms, four mature bull elephants were killed for this elaborate trinket.
One wonders whether the United Nations is still pleased with its eight bull elephant tusk trophy (shot and hacked off from a bull elephant like that above)?

 

.

---

.

Chinese, Japanese and Thais still Elephant Poaching in Africa

.

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

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

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

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

 

.

---

.

‘Shopping habits of China’s ‘suddenly wealthy’

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

.

Ivory:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

.

---

..

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

[Source: The Economist, 20080717, ^http://www.economist.com/node/11751304 ]

.

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

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

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

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

 

.

---

.

‘Data shows illegal ivory trade on rise’

[Source: World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Cambridge, UK, 20091116, ^http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?uNewsID=180702, accessed 20110829]

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

[Read More]

.

---

.

‘China Fuels East African Elephant Poaching’

[Source: Damian Robin, Epoch Times, 20100330, ^http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/32389/, accessed 20110829]

.

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

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

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

She says there is a threat of elephant extinction.

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

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

Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania has 40,000 elephants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘Ivory Stockpile Sale Rejected by U.N.’

[Source:  Peter Valk, The Epoch Times, 20100324, ^http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31944/, accessed 20110829]

.

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

The U.N.’s Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora rejected Zambia and Tanzania’s request to sell it’s stockpile of ivory.

(AFP/Getty Images)

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

 An African Elephant herd

(click photo to enlarge)

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

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

An elephant mother will protect her calf to her death.

.

.

Australia’s big ‘game hunter’, Robert Borsak in Zimbabwe (2008)

.

 

 

 

‘Macdonald’s game council thrill killer‘

by Andrew Clennell, State Political Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, 20090721, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/macdonalds-game-council-thrill-killer-20090720-dqui.html]

.

Robert Borsak (on the NSW Government’s Game Council) went to northern Zimbabwe to hunt elephants. On a two-week trip he killed several, including a bull elephant he shot in the head from a distance of six paces.”My reflexes took over as the rifle fired … he went down, as if in slow motion,” writes Mr Borsak in an article entitled Bulls in the Rain posted on the internet. “It was awesome. He did not know what had hit him.”Back in Australia, Mr Borsak has bagged another prize. The big game hunter and former vice-chairman of the Shooters Party is being paid $342 for each sitting day as chairman of the Game Council of NSW, one of 58 quangos which operate under the Primary Industries Minister, Ian Macdonald.

Mr Borsak hopes to run for the Shooters Party at the next election. If successful, he would join a party that now holds the balance of power in the upper house and is holding the Government to ransom after Mr Macdonald failed to negotiate through cabinet the right to shoot in National Parks.It is an example of the kind of interests the embattled Mr Macdonald is accused of helping to protect in some of the committees and statutory bodies he oversees.Mr Borsak is being paid $342 a sitting day for his part in regulating hunting in this state. Conservationists say the Game Council’s only purpose is to win the Shooters Party votes.Last week there were revelations the minister spent close to $150,000 on a wine industry council he set up, chaired by his friend Greg Jones; and that the minister had put other Labor identities – such as union boss Russ Collison and former Labor MPs – on quangos.The Herald learned yesterday Mr Macdonald appointed a friend of 25 years, John Gerathy, the law partner of former Labor deputy prime minister Lionel Bowen, to the wine council and the Homebush motor racing board.

Mr Macdonald is under siege. Yesterday the acting Opposition Leader, Andrew Stoner, referred him to the Independent Commission Against Corruption over claims he gave special treatment to another Labor mate, the former construction union president John Maitland, over granting an exploratory licence for a Hunter Valley mine.

The Premier, Nathan Rees, refused to comment yesterday when asked if the Left assistant secretary Luke Foley, who wants Mr Macdonald’s upper house seat, would be a better cabinet minister than Mr Macdonald.

As for Mr Borsak, he was resentful yesterday that he might be included in a story to do with Mr Macdonald.

The Game Council has received more than $11 million in government funding since 2002 and $3.5 million last year, despite promises from Mr Macdonald it would end up being self-funded.

Mr Borsak said the Game Council was set up in 2002, before Mr Macdonald was minister, and should not be lumped in with other committees as it was a statutory body. He said he was a businessman who received “a grand total of $1368 for last financial year for about 60 days’ work for the council”.

“Why would there be a conflict of interest,” Mr Borsak said, when asked whether his involvement in the Shooters Party might mean he should not be involved in the Game Council. He said of the Zimbabwe hunt: “The fact is I do it [the hunt] and I do it legally and I did it as part of licensed conservation programs. The … tusks belong to the Zimbabwean Government.”

The executive director of the Nature Conservation Council, Cate Faehrmann, said it was time the Game Council’s “activities were thoroughly scrutinised”.

Mr Maddonald’s “aggressive support of the establishment of game reserves and hunting in National Parks is all the more insidious when you realise at least one of the people behind this push likes to kill elephants in his spare time,” she said.

“By pumping millions of dollars into the Game Council, Minister Macdonald is sanctioning bloodsports.”

Mr Stoner called for Mr Macdonald to be sacked. “It seems every day there are more doubts raised about Ian Macdonald … There will be more, so Nathan Rees should do the right thing and sack this minister.”

.

---

.

‘The cruelty and corruption of the elephant hunt’

[Source:  Sydney Morning Herald, following letters to the editor, 20090722,  ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/the-cruelty-and-corruption-of-the-elephant-hunt-20090722-dtb3.html]

.

Letters to the Editor

‘I began hunting as soon as I was old enough to use a rifle. But the photo of Robert Borsak gloating over the body of an elephant he shot in Zimbabwe fills me with disgust (“Macdonald’s game council thrill killer”, July 21).Zimbabwe is one of few African countries to allow this practice. People typically pay about $US20,000-$26,000 ($25,000-$32,000) for this privilege. Bulls are more expensive, presumably because of their tusks. Where does this money go? Here is a hint.
Advertisement: Story continues belowThe BBC reported a decade ago that the government of Robert Mugabe earned US$2.5 million by selling 20 tonnes of elephant tusks, although the ivory trade had been banned. Zimbabwe lies about its elephant population to get around the ban. This practice is probably greater today.As the economy collapsed, the Zimbabwean Army, the key to Mugabe’s survival, cancelled all contracts to supply beef. The Zimbabwean Conservation Task Force reports soldiers have complained the only meat they are given is from elephants. So in addition to the immense pleasure Borsak apparently feels in the senseless destruction of a great creature, he can also take pride in doing his bit to keep Africa’s worst despot in power.’~ Don Moore, Lilyfield

.

---

.

‘I loved the juxtaposition of the stories about Robert Borsak, and Sining Wang and Edward Liew (“Don’t have a cow man – it’s got rights”, July 21). Thank heavens for the next generation of intelligent and compassionate thinkers. I hope it is only a matter of time before Wang and Liew can flex their legal muscles against thug shooters such as Borsak. The sooner they are banned from indulging in their cruel and destructive hobbies, the better.’~ Belinda Connolly, Caringbah

.

---

.

‘It has been said that people get the politicians they deserve.What does it say about the people of NSW when there is a danger of Robert Borsak standing for a seat in Parliament – a man who admits to the thrill of downing a bull elephant “from a distance of six paces”?’Jill Klopfer, Wahroonga

.

---

.

‘So Robert Borsak killed elephants in Zimbabwe “as part of licensed conservation programs”.The corrupt Zimbabwean Government and conservation are complete strangers, as anyone who has anything to do with trying to save what is left of Zimbabwe’s wildlife can tell you.’Colleen Riga, Potts Point

.

---

.

‘Robert Borsak says “the tusks belong to the Zimbabwean Government”.   No – the tusks belong to the elephant.’Jean-Marc Russ, Darlinghurst

.

---

.

‘It comes as no surprise to learn of Ian Macdonald’s patronage of hunters. The minister has shown scant regard for the welfare of animals, as those of us working in animal charities can attest. His $3.5 million for the Game Council compares with the $533,000 in funding he announced in April to be split between the RSPCA, Animal Welfare League, WIRES, Cat Protection Society and the Domestic Animal Birth Control Co-operative Society.The Government opposes Clover Moore’s bill to reduce the suffering of cats and dogs by regulating their sale, and even pleas for an inquiry into the welfare of companion animals have been rejected. A minister who gives priority to working with a hunter who describes shooting an elephant as awesome is hardly likely to care that tens of thousands of cats and dogs are killed annually on his watch.’

Kristina Vesk chief executive, Cat Protection Society of NSW, Newtown

.

– end of article –

The following ultra-short article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net 20090507 under the title: ‘Premier John Brumby – a man of principle, a ‘year of action’ logging Old Growth at Bungewarr Creek‘

.

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

29 April, 2009:

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

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

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

.

---

.

Subsequent Comments:

.

‘Sell the loggers not the logs’

On May 7th, 2009 Sheila Newman replied:

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

Sheila Newman, population sociologist

.

---

.

‘Rampant materialism and environmental destruction!’

On May 7th, 2009 Vivienne replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘Logging contracter attacks Bungewarr protesters’

On May 9th, 2009 jim barton replied:

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

.

---

.

‘State Government does not listen to decent protests!’

On May 9th, 2009 Jose replied:

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

.

---

.

‘VicForests no different to Indonesian Timber Mafia’

On May 11th, 2009 Tigerquoll replied:

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

Other examples of illegal logging are:

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

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

This includes:

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘More Lies’

On May 12th, 2009 jim barton replied:

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

.

---

.

‘Logging subsidised by tax-payer’

On May 13th, 2009 Anonymous replied:

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

.

---

.

‘Proud logger with job recycles but is realistic’

On May 13th, 2009 Jim Barton replied:

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)’

On May 14th, 2009 Tigerquoll replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

‘Logging is not sustainable’

On May 14th, 2009 Vivienne replied:

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

.

---

.

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

On May 14th, 2009 Jose replied:

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

.

---

.

‘Twisting numbers into lies’

On May 15th, 2009 jim barton replied:

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

.

---

.

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

On October 13th, 2009 Rousey replied:

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

.

---

.

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

On October 13th, 2009 ecoEngine replied:

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

.

– end of article –

Who does one believe?…

 

 

 

 

 

Greenwash Tick

.

.

---

.

Tuesday 23-Aug-2011:

‘Paper manufacturer loses green credentials’

by Liz Hobday, ABC News, 20110823, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-23/paper-manufacturer-loses-green-credentials/2851982/?site=melbourne, accessed 20110825]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

.

---

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

---

.

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

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

.

---

.

Meanwhile, the stated Charter of Nippon Paper Group includes:

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

 

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

.

 

Some of the sacred forests in Japan are-

 

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

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

Japan’s sacred Aokigahara Forest

.

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

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

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

It was logged by VicForests in November 2008 for Nippon Paper’s Reflex Paper.

.

---

.

 

 

In light of VicForests recent civil prosecution in the Victorian Supreme Court, Nippon Paper Group’s association with VicForests calls into question the reputation of Nippon Paper Group and its brand Reflex Paper:

.

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

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

.

---

.

.

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

22 November 2010:

.

‘In Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335 conservation group Environment East Gippsland (EEG) won a landmark injunction against VicForests, a state-owned timber business with responsibility for commercial timber harvesting in Victoria’s state forests.

VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest – habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.

In this case, Justice Osborn of the Supreme Court of Victoria undertook a thorough analysis of the application of the precautionary principle in the context of a detailed legislative regime aimed at balancing biodiversity protection and commercial timber harvesting.  The case embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.’

.

The lead-up to the litigation

.

‘The Brown Mountain forests in Victoria’s East Gippsland contain old growth forests and provide habitat for rare and threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spotted-tailed Quoll (mainland Australia’s largest marsupial carnivore) and the Long-footed Potoroo.  However, these areas are also amongst the most productive timber harvesting forests in Victoria and play a crucial role in Victoria’s sustainable timber industry.

In 2006, the Victorian State Government committed to increasing the conservation parks and reserves within the broader Brown Mountain area.  Nevertheless, in 2008 commercial logging in the Brown Mountain area began.

After numerous studies of the area indicated the presence of important threatened and rare species, EEG requested the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, to make an interim conservation order to conserve critical habitat of the endangered Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl and Orbost Spiny Crayfish at Brown Mountain.  The Minister did not grant a conservation order, but instead increased the conservation area surrounding Brown Mountain.

Having failed to obtain undertakings from VicForests that it would not proceed to log the Brown Mountain coupes, EEG sought interlocutory injunctive relief.  An interlocutory injunction restraining logging was granted by Justice Forrest on 14 September 2009 (see our article Environmental litigation heats up with some significant wins for public interest litigants in our 2 October 2010 edition of Environment Matters ), pending the outcome of the full proceedings before Justice Osborn in the Supreme Court of Victoria.’

.

The legislative regime

.

‘Logging of state forests in Victoria is regulated by a complex scheme of legislation, codes of practice, management plans and procedures, described by Osborn J as “labyrinthine”.  The principal legislation includes the Forests Act 1958 (Vic) (Forests Act), Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic) (SFT Act), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) and Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic).’

.

Responsibilities for timber harvesting and forestry management

.

‘VicForests is a state-owned corporation, established in 2004 to undertake the harvesting of timber in Victoria’s state forests.  The Secretary to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has overarching responsibility for managing state forests and timber harvesting within forests under the Forests Act.’

.

Legal challenge

.

‘EEG sought an injunction restraining VicForests from harvesting four coupes at Brown Mountain containing old growth forest.  It also sought declarations that timber harvesting within the coupes by VicForests in accordance with the current forestry regime would be unlawful.

EEG argued that the current conservation measures for the Brown Mountain coupes did not meet the requirements of the regulatory system, which addresses the preservation of conservation values and in particular the protection of endangered species.  EEG also argued that VicForests had failed to implement the precautionary principle.

VicForests took issue with EEG’s standing to sue.  Further, it denied the presence of a number of endangered species and argued that the logging of the Brown Mountain coupes would take place under a legislative framework that adequately protects endangered species and would, therefore, be lawful.  It also argued that it was DSE’s responsibility to stipulate any further requirements for habitat protection in accordance with the regulatory regime.’

.

EEG’s standing

.

‘Following the settled High Court authority that standing to bring such proceedings depends on the plaintiff’s “special interest” in the subject matter of the litigation (Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (2000) 200 CLR 591), Osborn J was satisfied that EEG had a relevant “special interest” because:

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

.

The precautionary principle     [Ed: once again]

.

‘The VicForests case firmly embeds in Australian environmental jurisprudence the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256 (Telstra).  Justice Osborn’s decision in VicForests is the first Supreme Court application of the Telstra principles.

The precautionary principle is integrated throughout the Victorian forestry regime’s many instruments.

Following Preston CJ’s two-fold test in Telstra, Osborn J stressed that the precautionary principle is a test of common sense.  There must be:

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

Justice Osborn stated:

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

It is a “wherever practicable” test.

In practice, this meant that once the two-fold test was satisfied by EEG, VicForests had the onus of proving that the threat posed by logging the coupes did not exist or was negligible.  Because it could not do this, the question then became:

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

Justice Osborn carefully examined the legislative regime and held that it is not intended that VicForests only apply the precautionary principle at the strategic planning stage:

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

Justice Osborn stressed, however, that the precautionary principle sits within a wider statutory regime that takes into account principles of sustainable development.

He held that unless VicForests complied with the requirements of the applicable Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Statements and with conditions stated in the relevant allocation order (under the Forests Act) and the Timber Release Plan (under the SFT Act), logging at Brown Mountain would be unlawful.

This meant that VicForests could not rely on its current approvals to log the coupes because DSE had not, for example, changed zonings in the coupes to reflect the presence of threatened species.  VicForests had an ongoing, active duty to apply the precautionary principle, which included responding to new information as it became available.

Importantly, Osborn J stressed that the precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.’

.

Outcome

.

‘Justice Osborn ordered that VicForests stop harvesting until various measures had been completed to respond to the detection of endangered species and to implement a precautionary approach with respect to their potential extinction. The required measures included:

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

to the satisfaction of the Director, Biodiversity Policy and Programs, DSE.

The difficulty for the Court in formulating its orders was that the power to act on the evidence of rare and endangered species and implement the required legislative and policy changes lies not with VicForests, against whom the injunction was sought, but with DSE.

Justice Osborn overcame this difficulty by stopping VicForests from logging until certain actions are undertaken, these actions being DSE responsibilities.  VicForests had maintained throughout proceedings that it would comply with any changes to the regulatory regime made by DSE, and this was accepted by the Court.

.

Significance of the decision

.

This case firmly embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.

Justice Osborn’s decision makes it clear that:

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

The decision has broader implications because:

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

Furthermore, a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria has strong precedent value, and is likely to be adopted by the Supreme Courts of other States, and perhaps even higher courts or courts with federal jurisdiction.

.

Action points

.

Parties under an obligation to apply the precautionary principle need to be aware that:

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

 

.

---

..

.

Further Reading:

.

[1] >Vicforests’ Ecological Genocide

.

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

.

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

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

 

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

.

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

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

.

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

.

– end of article –

The following article was initially published by The Wilderness Society (NSW) on its website 20110729. Reproduced with permission from The Wilderness Society (NSW):

A dying river near Broken Hill, NSW  (not so long ago)

is visited by Chris Daley, the Wilderness Society rivers campaigner.

Photo by Dean Sewell

.

Despite common perceptions, the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin are not confined to rural communities, and their social implications are extensive.

Adelaide, for example, relies on the Murray-Darling to provide around 55% of its drinking water. In fact, more than four million people depend on the Basin for water. But the future of the Murray-Darling and its communities are under threat from over-extraction of water, salinity and climate change.  The Basin supports diverse communities that have grown up on the river, and who consider it to be central to their way of life. Locals see the river as extremely important from a social point of view, as Barney Stephens from the Darling River Action Group pointed out.

“The lakes and the Darling River and the Anabranch are basically Broken Hill’s recreation. People think of recreation as something that’s maybe not essential, but when you look at an isolated town like Broken Hill, if you take the lakes away and the rivers away it’s like taking the beaches away from Sydney.”

Dr. James Pittock, Programme Leader of Australian and United States Climate, Energy and Water at the US Studies Centre, Australian National University, agrees that returning water to the Basin is socially and economically important.

.

Multiple Benefits

.

“The water in the Murray-Darling Basin provides lots of different benefits for people, and many of those benefits are gained from leaving water in the river, in terms of providing habitat for fish right through to the Lower Lakes and Coorong near the sea where [there are] massive fishing industries, both commercial and recreational”, said Pittock.

Both men also point to the cultural significance of the river to aboriginal people that have lived by the river for thousands of years. “Most of them [in the Broken Hill area] were Paakantji, which means ‘river people’, and the river is just essential to them,” said Stephens.

While irrigators have argued that the Basin Plan has the potential to damage rural communities, Dr. James Pittock says the social consequences of not returning health to the river will be far worse.

“If this Basin Plan isn’t implemented well, that is if the reform isn’t substantial in quickly reallocating a lot of water from agriculture to the environment, we risk another crisis in a few years time.”

.

Best chance in a generation

.

“We will be back to this public dispute over water allocation…and eventually industry will be forced to cut back to sustainable levels. Now the question for the industry is, do you want to do that now, and do it with some certainty so that rural communities can get on with planning a more sustainable future? Or alternatively, if this opportunity for reform is fudged in some political compromise, do you really want to live with the uncertainty of repeating the exercise every five to ten years when the next drought hits?”

Right now, the Government and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) have a responsibility to rectify these problems once and for all in the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. To do so, they must commit to buying back 7,600 gigalitres of water to be returned to the system. This was the scenario identified in the MDBA’s Guide to the proposed Basin Plan as carrying the least risk of irreversible damage to the river system.

The Wilderness Society is urging the Australian Government to spend the $10 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to save the Basin wisely, or give the Australian public their money back. Responsible and scientifically based action to ensure the sustainability of the Basin will help to build stronger, more diverse rural communities.

Menindee Lakes —inlet to Lake Cawndilla during drought in 2003

(MDBC Annual Report 2003-04,  Photo: L. Palmer)

.

---

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1] Jamie Pittock BSc. Hons (Monash), PhD (ANU) is ‘Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, Program Leader, Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water, US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative.  Jamie Pittock is Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance. His current work includes developing research programs that link Australian and southern African expertise to improve management of river basins, green water and agriculture. He is also Program Leader for the Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water project of the US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative.    [Read More].

[2] Darling River Action Group, ^http://www.d-r-a-g.org.au/

[3] Paakantji,  ^http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/languages/languages/aboriginal/campfire/stories/paakantji/paakantji_stories.htm

[4]   The Wilderness Society (NSW), River Protection Campaigns, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/river-protection

[5] ‘Living Murray, Dying Darling – the year our fish died and Broken Hill cried,’ speech by Joe Flynn, Managing Director, Australian Inland at the Murray Darling Association Annual Conference in Renmark, South Australia 20040902.  [Read More]

[6]   ‘Great Darling Anabranch to receive much-needed environmental flows‘, Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), 20100909, ^http://www.mdba.gov.au/media_centre/media_releases/great-darling-anabranch-to-receive-much-needed-environmental-flows, [Read More]

.

– end of article –