Archive for the ‘Listening Post’ Category

VicForests’ ecological genocide

Friday, August 19th, 2011

(The following article was initially posted on CanDoBetter.net by Tigerquoll on 20090426. It has since been modified.)

.

VicForests’ neo-colonial practice of logging old growth East Gippsland forests, justifies such culling by claiming compliance with Australia’s wood production Standard AS 4708-2007. But this standard is Mein Kampf for ecological genocide of East Gippsland Forests.
Have a read: http://www.forestrystandard.org.au/files/Standards/4708.pdf [Read the Standard]

Under this official Australian Standard that sees only the wood for the trees, it includes two criteria that serve to deliver propaganda spin respect for forest ecology. One must recognise these criteria accompanying Criterion 4—Forest management shall maintain the productive capacity of forests. Need I say more?

Forestry Propaganda Criterion #3 for instance, requires forest management to ‘protect and maintain the biological diversity of forests’. Wonderful wholesome, noble and holistic rumblings about this one – but gullibles wake! VicForests <em>Mein Kampf</em> hides the ‘ chainsaw-speak‘ in the detail:

* ‘Small-scale clearing is permitted up to a limit of 40 hectares on a single forest management unit’. ‘Conservation of threatened (including vulnerable, rare or endangered) species and ecological communities requires the forest manager to minimise adverse impacts by ensuring he/she takes into account of known information and relevant specialist advice‘. (Makes Fiji look like a democracy!)

Forestry Propaganda Criterion 5 requires forest management to maintain forest ecosystem health and vitality, yet is so vague as to allow forest ‘practices’ only to ensure that damage stays “within tolerable levels”. Does this mean one tree per hectare can be left standing or may be two?

Then there’s Clause 4.5.3:

‘Forest managers managing native forests shall use fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale.’ [p.25]

.

…that is, burn and disturb native forests at will, because we argue that doing so enhances forest ecosystem health. Whoops! The wind picked up and the forest is gone; still we complied with AS 4708-2007!

Such contemptible logic would argue that a bushfire raging through a town can to it good, because eventually the town is rebuilt and the people eventually return, look at Narbethong!

.

The Ferguson Tree – lest we forget

“The tallest tree ever properly measured was a Eucalyptus tree and was 436 feet tall. It was measured by William Ferguson on the 21st of February in 1872. Alarmingly the crown was broken off when the tree was still 1 meter thick, leading to claims that it once was up to five-hundred feet tall in one point in its lifetime.”

The length was a staggering (if true) 133 metres (436 feet) with its crown (the tree’s top) broken off!! The stump’s diameter five feet off the ground was 5.5m (18 feet) and at its broken top its diameter was still 1 metre. It is estimated that had this tree actually still been intact it would have approached 152m (500 feet) in height. The surveyor also noted numerous fallen trees in the same area over 106m (350feet) in height.

It would have been a Mountain Ash or Eucalyptus regnans. Sorry, no photo available. The legend remains only in text.

[Source: ^http://jtpredwoods12345.blogspot.com/]

.

‘VicForests accused of felling old-growth mountain ash’

[Source: Adam Morton, 20100629, The Age newspaper, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vicforests-accused-of-felling-oldgrowth-mountain-ash-20100628-zf5o.html] .

‘The Victorian government’s forestry arm will face a legal challenge over claims it illegally logged old-growth forest and increased the risk to a threatened species.

Environmental groups accuse VicForests of felling dozens of pre-1900 ash eucalypts, breaching the Central Highlands Forest Management Plan. An impending legal case will also claim the timber agency failed to protect habitats necessary for the survival of Victoria’s threatened faunal emblem, Leadbeater’s possum.

Ecologist Jacques Cop, from consultants Acacia Environmental Group, said a survey of just one coupe near Toolangi found 31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged. Five stumps were more three metres across.

”These are trees that are 200 or 300 years old,” he said.

Mr Cop said the area should also have been protected as a Leadbeater’s possum habitat as it met the threshold of having at least 12 hollowed trees within three hectares. He said neither the state Department of Sustainability and Environment nor VicForests carried out ground surveys to check if ecological requirements were being met. Sarah Rees, president of local group My Environment, said the situation was an emergency.

’31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged’

“If this doesn’t stop we’re going to lose the last viable habitat for a range of different species, but Leadbeater’s possum carries the strongest case for legal protection“, she said.

The state government said it took the allegations “extremely seriously“.

Spokesman Michael Sinclair said VicForests would investigate the alleged breaches and report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. VicForests spokesman David Walsh said the agency carried out detail planning before harvesting to ensure it acted within the law and had offered to meet local residents to better understand their concerns.

“No old-growth forest is harvested by VicForests in Victoria’s central highlands region”, he said.

The legal case, being prepared on behalf of a group called the Flora and Fauna Research Collective, comes amid community concern about the scale of logging in the central highlands after the Black Saturday bushfires.

The Wilderness Society said that evidence supporting the latest claims showed illegal logging of native forests was rife under the state government’s watch.

A separate allegation of illegal logging at Brown Mountain, in east Gippsland, is the subject of a pending Supreme Court judgment.

“Premier Brumby must act now to end VicForests’ woodchip rampage in Victoria’s magnificent native forests“, said Wilderness Society spokesman Luke Chamberlain.

Sarah Rees at the base of an ancient mountain ash spared the chainsaw but killed during a clean-up fire near Toolangi.

She says the present situation is an emergency.

Photo: John Woudstra

.

VicForests motto reads: “Victorian Timber: beautiful, natural, functional”

[SOURCE: http://www.vicforests.com.au/]

.

..in lay terms, this means kill beautiful natural specimens – they make the finest woodchips for reliable REFLEX office paper.

.

VICFORESTS: “VicForests employs over 140 staff across 10 Victorian sites located in Melbourne, Healesville and regional areas of Central Highlands and East Gippsland.

We have a variety of exciting career opportunities available – our Foresters specialise in tactical and operational planning, roading, harvesting and contract management, silviculture and native forest regeneration.

Other career paths include customer management, resource and business analysts, safety and risk, operational audit, forest scientists and product delivery.”

VICFORESTS: “We also employ staff in non-forestry roles including IT, HR, communications, finance, administration and customer service. A significant proportion of our staff and contractors are also involved with fire-fighting efforts each year.

VicForests is focused on investing in its employees through training, development, and providing career opportunities.”

VICFORESTS: “We look for dynamic people who have a strong desire to be part of an organisation that strives to achieve success through implementing excellent and innovative business and timber industry practices for our customers and stakeholders.

Contributing to the timber industry is something that VicForests and its staff are proud of.”

[Source: ^http://vicforests.logic1.com.au/employment.htm, accessed 20110819]

Vicforests’ coup at Stoney Creek

East Gippsland 2009

.

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report reveals $5.1 million loss’

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report has once again revealed that the logging agency continues to waste taxpayer millions of dollars sending our forests to the woodchip mills. The report shows that VicForests has posted a loss this year of $5.1 million. This is on top of last year posting a tiny profit after receiving a $5 million lifeline from government, and a loss the previous year.

Woodchip train makes its way to Midways, Geelong (2009) for as little as $2.50 per tonne.

Photo: Wilderness Society Collection

.

‘Whilst VicForests squanders Victorian taxpayer’s hard earned money, woodchipping and paper companies continue to post handsome profits. Whilst we don’t yet know how much they will make for 2009, South East Fibre Exports, a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese paper giant, Nippon Paper, last year made over $10 million profit. They woodchipped approximately half a million tonnes of Victoria’s native forests, and this year paid as little as $2.50 per tonne for them.

Another giant company, Australian Paper, which makes Reflex papers, is VicForests’ largest single customer and was recently purchased for around $700 million by Nippon Paper. The $5.1 million loss is on top of an extra $1.3 million handout for bushfire recovery and does not include the massive $29 million royalty that it has failed to hand over to the state government who, along with the Victorian public, own these forests.’

[Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/vicforests-2009-annual-report-reveals-5.1-million-loss]

A tombstone of the once impenetrable forest.

A Mountain Ash stump alongside an old forestry track in Balnook, Gippsland.

Note the notches cut in the trunk for standing planks to cut the tree down by axe!

.

Reflex Office Paper

‘Paperlinx’s giant Maryvale mill located in Victoria’s Central Highlands is the largest pulp and paper making complex in Australia, consuming 475,000 cubic metres of eucalyptus forest per annum (RFA, 1998).

‘In July 2006, the Maryvale Mill received Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody Certification for A4 Reflex products manufactured on its Number 3 and Number 5 Paper Machines. Paperlinx has been proudly promoting its environmental credentials ever since (as well as before).

Paperlinx is Australia’s only office paper producer. Its flagship product REFLEX copypaper is 100 per cent virgin native forest. Woodchips to make the paper are sourced from areas including rainforest, old growth forest, endangered species habitat and Melbourne’s largest water source, the Thompson Dam catchment area. Woodchips are also sourced from the Strzelecki Rainforest Reserve, an area that was promised protection by the state government due to its high conservation value.

These areas can be visited and viewed first hand, or determined by satelite image maps which show different forest types (such as rainforest as compared to woodlands) and where logging is occuring. The fact that Paperlinx gained FSC accreditation has raised concerns amoung environment groups who have been campaigning for the protection of these areas for over a decade.

Reflex Recycled Paper

Paperlinx has recently released a brand of paper wrapped in green packaging labelled Recycled. Fifty percent of REFLEX Recycled paper is made from pre-consumer waste (printers’ offcuts), but no genuine post-consumer (eg kerbside collected) recycled papers. The other fifty percent is from the same virgin native forest as stated above.

According to The Wilderness Society Paperlinx has the resources and technology to make use of alternative sources such as plantations and recycled paper, but doesn’t do so as it receives state-owned native forest logs for a significantly lower cost than plantation logs.

Due to the lack of accurate information reaching the public, an alliance of Australia’s peak environment groups including The Wilderness Society, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation released a flier in 2004 urging people to boycott REFLEX paper and listing alternatives.

THE ALTERNATIVE

There is no 100 per cent recycled office paper manufactured in Australia. Brands made overseas that are available in Australia include Evolve, Canon 100 and Fuji Xerox Recycled Supreme.’

[Source: ‘Reflex Office Paper‘, Greenwash .org ^http://www.greenwashreport.org/node/41 ]

.

‘Always rely on Reflex to woodchip old growth‘

Scott Gentle from the Victorian Forest Contractors Association

questions the logic of the Yarra Ranges council’s decision to boycott Reflex paper products.

[Source: ^http://free-press-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/paper-ban-anger/]

.

Gippsland Giants

by John Stephens

.

‘Do you know that possibly the biggest living thing in the world once lived in Gippsland and that its descendents still live here? No it’s not the blue whale, nor the giant kangaroo or the thylacine or even the black panther, it’s Eycalyptus regnans, the Victorian or Mountain Ash! These trees are the world’s tallest hardwoods and the tallest flowering plants.

The trees in the Tara Bulga Park are certainly imposing and of an impressive size, somewhere in the vicinity of sixty metres tall! You’ve seen Mountain Ash on drives or walks throughout the Strzelecki Ranges or the Baw Baw plateau. But I’m sorry to tell you, that you haven’t seen a real Mountain Ash and are most unlikely to ever see one. Of course I am talking about specimens that did exist before we “harvested” them. I don’t consider myself a “greenie” however I cannot be anything but amazed at the destructiveness of the human species.

During my “younger days” I spent many an enjoyable hour riding a motorcycle around the top end of Merriman and Traralgon Creeks. One of my greatest memories was seeing the stumps of some huge trees that had been logged, somewhere on the western side of the Merriman Creek headwaters, and imagining what they must have looked like in their original grandeur. I also came across the huge “historic” tree stumps at Mt Tassie and as many others have, I marvelled at their massive girth.

The Ada Tree near Powelltown, which is estimated to have existed for over three hundred years, is possibly the largest remaining specimen in Victoria. It has been preserved and is estimated to stand at about 76 metres, although it was significantly taller. The crown has been blown away either in a storm or struck by lightning, meaning the tree may have reached a height in the vicinity of 120 metres. Another giant, The Big Tree, in the Cumberland Tall Trees Reserve is 82 metres tall, but was 92 metres before a storm destroyed the top in 1959. What stuns me, is that if I imagine one of these trees to be the imposing Eucalyptus obliqua in the top corner of my block and it fell along the fence line, it would stretch the full 83 metres of the block!

“The Baron” height – 66m, girth 14.5m

Near Narbethong – 91m, girth 7.7m

I understand that to our pioneers the supply of forest, trees and timber seemed endless and they had a need to provide land for agriculture and development. However I do not understand their need to destroy everything that they saw as a challenge. Why did they have to destroy the Centennial Exhibition Tree that had stood in the Menzies Creek forest for hundreds of years until its demise in 1888? It was measured at over 122 metres after being felled and was reassembled for display at the exhibition in Melbourne. Surely it would have been better to take parties to visit the living tree in its natural surrounds and glory.

Part of an article written by Paul Edwards cleverly conveys what most of us feel about these giants – “When a tree gets old and tumbles, it becomes a noble thing — a fallen tree — but when it is cut down it turns into a log”. The best way to measure a tree is of course to do so when it has been cut down. This is essentially what happened to another giant at Thorpdale. It was felled in the1880s, measured by the surveyor G Cornthwaite, and found to have been 114.3 metres tall. I believe all that remains to signify the existence of this giant is a sign on the roadside indicating where it once stood, definitely far less impressive than the tree itself.

Some of these old trees must have been even more impressive. A 66 metre tall tree in Sassafras Gully in the Dandenongs and known as “The Baron” had a girth of 14.5 metres. The Bulga Stump, which was destroyed in the 1939 bushfires, famous for its huge girth of 34 metres! The Furmstons or Mueller Tree near Mt Monda was only 60 metres high when it fell in 1998 although it was estimated to be well over 100 metres when it was first discovered in the late nineteenth century. Another giant was a hollow stump in the Tarra Bulga area that had a roof and was used as a stable. The hollow Wonga Stump near Yarram was used as a church and a school until it was destroyed by fire in 1898.

The tallest known existing tree in the world is now a Californian Redwood (Sequoia semprivirens) found in the Humbolt Redwood State Park. It is 112.7 metres in height but is “small” compared to the tallest ever recorded, an American Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) which was known to be 122 metres, equal to our Centennial Tree. However do these trees really compare to our own? A tree at Mt Baw Baw measured in 1889 by surveyor G W Robinson was reported to be 143 metres in height.

In 1872 the Victorian Government surveyor, William Ferguson, reported finding a fallen tree in the Healesville area that was 133 metres long. The top had been broken off in the fall and most of the crown burnt in a fire. Where it was broken the tree was approximately one metre in diameter and was estimated therefore to have been 152 metres tall!

Were there bigger specimens or are there still giants in the Gippsland forests? Maybe there was a tree of such dimensions that if in my imagination it fell the length of my block it would also complete the side boundary of the property behind mine.

[Source: ^http://home.vicnet.net.au/~apslvg/gippslandGiants.html]

Title of this article is derived from two well known sayings:

‘Forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ Source: The Bible: ‘And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.’
[© English Standard Version, Luke (23:34) 2001)]. These are supposedly Jesus’ words from the cross, asking forgiveness for those who put him to death. More widely, of course, the plea was for all humanity. [Rare historic photos of these magnificent trees are all that allow us to remember what once was. The saying is quite apt to old-growth trees, though I have removed the ‘Father, forgive them‘ clause.]
‘Lest we forget‘ Source: Rudyard Kipling’s poem of 1897, ‘Recessional’, which he composed on the occasion of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The poem, on the one hand, expresses pride in the British Empire, but, on the other, expresses an underlying sadness that the Empire might go the way of all previous empires. [Again, quite apt to old-growth trees.]

.

‘God of our fathers, known of old—
Lord of our far-flung battle line—
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies—
The Captains and the Kings depart—
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
Amen.

– end of article –

Tags: Centennial Exhibition Tree, Dandenongs, Eucalyptus regnans, Gippsland, Gippsland Giants, Logging, Menzies Creek, Mountain Ash, Mt Baw Baw, Mueller Tree, old growth, The Baron, The Big Tree, The Bulga Stump, Thorpdale, world's largest trees
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

‘Water Buyback’ can save Murray-Darling

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

The following article was initially published by The Wilderness Society (NSW) on its website 20110809. Reproduced with permission from The Wilderness Society (NSW):

.

Economists say water buybacks can save the Murray-Darling River

A senior economist at The Australian National University (ANU) says that subsidising water infrastructure will not deliver the volumes of water needed to return the Murray-Darling River system to health.

Professor Quentin Grafton from the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the ANU says that despite the Australian Government making commitments to spending $5.8 billion on infrastructure designed to increase water efficiency, this will have little impact on increasing flows through the ailing system.

“That’s probably going to get the government about 500 gigalitres. So to put that in perspective, that’s a fraction of the sorts of numbers we need in terms of volumes for the rivers“, said Prof. Grafton.

“By contrast, if we were to purchase water entitlements from willing sellers, we can get the volumes that we need”.

.

Water Buyback a Sound Approach

The Productivity Commission has supported this view, calling for some of the money allocated to infrastructure to be redirected to other initiatives, including water buybacks from willing sellers and support for affected communities.

“A general conclusion is that purchasing water from willing sellers is a sound approach to meeting the Australian Government’s commitment to obtain additional water for the environment. Indeed, it should be the preferred method for recovering water, taking precedence over subsidising investment in water saving infrastructure“, concluded the Commission.

While big irrigation companies continue their scare campaign saying that water buybacks will have a negative economic impact on the agricultural industry, a model proposed by Prof. Grafton concluded that irrigators would be adequately compensated.

“If the $8.9 billion currently budgeted for water reform were spent in a cost effective manner on the purchase of water entitlements rights from willing sellers, and with no arbitrary restrictions on water trade, the Australian government would be able to increase environmental flows by at least 4,000 gigalitres per year, fully compensate irrigators for reduced extractions, and have funds left over.”

This is a much better alternative than committing massive financial resources to infrastructure that will not save the Murray-Darling River.

^http://annamariacom.blogspot.com/2010/10/murray-darling-basin.html

.

More Willing Sellers than Tenders

Far from being unpopular with many farmers, recent tenders for water buybacks have been oversubscribed, with the majority of sellers only parting with a portion of their entitlements and using the capital raised to improve efficiency or diversify their businesses.

The Australian Government needs to spend the $10 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to save the river system wisely and ensure the rivers flow, or give the Australian people their money back.

With the health of the rivers and the communities that rely on them at stake, we need economically responsible action that ensures that the rivers keep flowing whilst building stronger, more economically diverse and sustainable rural communities.

Prof. Grafton concluded that, “Unless we spend most of the money on the buying of the water entitlements, we won’t have sufficient flows for the rivers, and that’s a critical point. Because otherwise, we’ll end up spending billions and billions of dollars, we won’t get sufficient volumes for the rivers so we’ll have the problem we’ve gone through in the last few years come back again.”

“The communities will continue to be in a trouble because they won’t get the support that they need, and we’ll end up in a few years time with lots of concrete channels but no water”.

[Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/new-south-wales/water-buybacks-can-save-the-river]

Andrew Tatnell, dying River red gums at Chowilla, South Australia in 2004

Photo by Andrew Tatnell

[Source: ^http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/2004/04/ironbar-cracks-again.php]

.

Murray Darling & the Coorong

[Speech by Rachel Siewert MP, The Australian Greens,Thursday 19th June 2008, ^http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/murray-darling-coorong]

.

“I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the response of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, to a question relating to the Murray-Darling river system. Today we had yet another report released on the health of the Murray.

It should come as no surprise, to those of us in particular who have been watching the Murray, that it finds that only one of 23 river valleys of the Murray that were examined had good ecosystem health. Two had moderate ecosystem health. All the rest-that is 20-had poor or very poor ecosystem health. This comes on the back of the report that was released yesterday-well, it was not released; it was leak-released.

On ABC radio the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said that the report had not ‘not been released‘; it just had not been released. That report, which had not been released but was not leaked, showed that scientists have said to the government that the Coorong has six months left. They have a six-month window of opportunity, and what is the ministerial council’s response? ‘Oh, we’ll commission some more work into that.’ That just happens to then be available in November. The window of opportunity to fix the Coorong, or to go to some measure to try to remediate the Coorong, closes in October.

The report that came out today shows yet again what a parlous state our Murray-Darling river system is in. And what is the government doing about it? Yes, it is buying some water and it is investing in fixing up infrastructure, but on a very ad hoc basis. It is like fiddling while Rome burns-‘We’ll set a new cap; we’ll put in place an authority, at some stage once we get the legislation back in, that will develop a plan for two years.’ But guess what? That plan does not come into effect until 2019. And the reason for that is that the federal government refuses to require New South Wales and Victoria to bring their water sharing plans into line with the basin, into line with the sustainable cap.

That means we will have a lovely plan, we will have planned very well, while the river is dying-because, unless we can curb water use and put into place sustainable water use in the extremely near future, we are going to be watching the river die. We will have a great plan but we will have no water to put back into the river because we are not requiring the states to implement any changes to their plans until 2019. That means no action until 2019, aside from what the government might be able to buy back from willing sellers. It does not do anything about addressing, with a systematic and strategic approach, long-term land use in the Murray-Darling Basin. It does not address what we think is going to be sustainable, not only in trying to address a severely degraded system but also in the face of climate change.

The CSIRO reports that are gradually being released as the work is done in each catchment-excellent work, I should say-are showing, as Senator Wong correctly pointed out, that the catchments are facing very severe consequences from the impact of climate change. We have over-allocated all the systems in the Murray-Darling system and we need to be addressing that now, not leaving it for some time off in the future.

Some of the ways that we can start addressing the issues around the Coorong now are to start looking at releasing water from the Meningie Lakes, to start looking at accessing some of the water that is currently held in storage in northern New South Wales and to start talking to farmers about loaning water-which, I would suggest, could be repaid with some benefits to the farmers into the future. But one of the issues that I understand is complicating matters there is the control of the New South Wales government over water in the Meningie Lakes. They control the water under 460 gigalitres, and the Commonwealth then gets to have a say in anything above, I think, 660 gigalitres. Guess what? If the level is kept below 660 gigalitres, where the Commonwealth get to have a say, it is all up to New South Wales.

So New South Wales can theoretically keep allocating water from that storage to maintain a level below the amount that the Commonwealth gets to have a say in. And guess what? There is no water to release to the Murray and into the Coorong lakes. If we cannot solve this issue in the Commonwealth’s brave new world of management of the Murray-Darling Basin, there is no hope. We are absolutely in a crisis situation in the Coorong, and yet the Commonwealth is still sitting on its hands and cannot, it appears, get that water from New South Wales and actually do something to save their own icon.”

.

– end of article –

Tags: ANU, Chowilla, Coorong, ecosystem health, Meningie Lakes, Minister for Climate Change and Water, Murray-Darling, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Productivity Commission, River Red Gums, The Wilderness Society, TWS
Posted in Murray Darling (AU), Threats from Farming | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests logging of old-growth forests

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll on 20090423 on CanDoBetter.net:

.

I have to pinch myself to realise this is 2009 and not 1959!

Vicforests’ logging arson to 600 year old Eucalyptus regnans in East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, 20090423

http://www.lighterfootprints.org/2009/04/brown-mountain-destruction-complete.html

This photo just in from the old growth forests of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland – home of remnant giant Australian natives dating up to 600 years old. This photo shows the Brown Mountain Massacre yesterday (23 April 2009) of these magnificent giants by VicForests on its celebrated World Forestry Day.

In 2006, the then Premier, Steve Bracks, made a promise to “protect all significant stands of old growth currently available for logging” (hollow words by a man of renouned indecision). The immense trees that have sheltered and raised hundreds of generations of owls and gliding possums are now being hacked down by VicForests.” [Source: Environment East Gippsland’s, ‘The Potoroo Review‘, Issue 196]

VicForests’ leadership inspiration, Warren Hodgson, must feel pround leaving such a legacy of heritage denial to future Gippslanders, Victorian and Australians. “Warren Hodgson has been involved in policy development at the highest level of the Victorian public sector and has previously led the Victorian Government efforts on Public Private Partnerships. He has a background in the manufacturing industry in New Zealand and in the provision of contract services to public and private sectors throughout the Asia-Pacific region.”

.

‘VicForests’ (from its website) presents its vision and values as:

Our vision:

“To be a leader in a sustainable Victorian timber industry.”

Our purpose:

“To build a responsible business that generates the best community value from the commercial management of Victoria’s State forests.”

Our values:

“Accountable – VicForests is accountable to the Victorian Government. Its actions and those of its employees must be consistent with relevant Government policy and priorities.”

Committed – “VicForests is committed to the fulfilment of its purpose and the achievement of its vision for the Victorian timber industry.”

Safe – “VicForests and its staff will manage safe workplaces for all staff and contractors, and are committed to continuous improvement in safety systems and outcomes, in accordance with its Occupational Health and Safety Policy.”

Customer focused – “VicForests will be responsive to its customers’ requirements and seek customer satisfaction, in accordance with its commercial nature.”

Ethical – “VicForests will operate in an ethical and environmentally responsible manner in all its undertakings to ensure the integrity and sustainability of the native forest timber industry in Victoria.”

Innovative – “VicForests seeks to be innovative and adaptable in its organisational, business and forestry management operations.”

Open – “VicForests will manage the commercial harvesting and sale of timber in a framework of openness and transparency.”

Professional – “VicForests and its staff will operate in a professional manner in all undertakings to ensure the best possible outcomes for the organisation, its customers, the Victorian timber industry and its stakeholders.”

Sustainable – “VicForests will pursue the highest standards for forest management practices through the continued development of its Sustainable Forest Management System and by ensuring its triple bottom line performance against the requirements of Victoria’s Sustainability Charter for State forests.”

[SOURCE: http://www.vicforests.com.au/vision-purpose-and-values.htm]

.

I have to pinch myself to realise this is 2009 and not 1959!

.

Brown Mountain – destruction complete!

.

An urgent message from Jill Redwood of Environment East Gippsland (from 20090424). . .

“These were taken yesterday – VicForests mission accomplished.

This ancient stand of 600(plus) year old forest has now been fully annihilated and ready for conversion to a palm-oil plantation. Or it might as well be.

They’ll actually be converted to a pulpwood plantation for the Japanese paper industry.

The other four remaining stands of old growth adjoining are on the logging schedule.

Please help in whatever way you can.”

~ Jill [Environment East Gippsland]

.

[1] ^http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth_forest

[2] ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

[3] ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/?q=campaigns/brown_mountain

.

– end of article –

Tags: Brown Mountain, EEG, Environment East Gippsland, Eucalyptus regnans, government logging arson, old growth forest, tigerquoll, VicForests
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Pilliga Forests under ongoing attack

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Pilliga Forest

The early morning sun illuminates fresh forest grasses

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

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

.

The Pilliga Forests

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

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

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

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

Nuable Creek in flood, Pilliga 2004

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

.

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

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

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

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

.

‘The Pilliga’..after rain

‘Prolific rain on the northwest plains of New South Wales

quickly results in a swelling of rivers and creeks,

followed by a profusion of growth and renewal.

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

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

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

draining into gullies and creeks, and filling rivers.

Many outlying unsealed roads become impassable,

and the town is temporarily isolated.

But life goes on with relative normality,

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

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

.

Where is ‘The Pilliga’?

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

Australian Department of Environment et al.

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

.

The Pilliga Forests

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

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

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

.

The Pilliga’s history of colonial exploitation

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

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

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

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

Wooleybah Sawmill, Pillaga

(NSW Heritage Office)

.

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

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

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

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

.

The endemic ‘Pilliga Mouse’

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

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

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

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

.

The Pilliga… now threatened by Mining

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

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

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

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

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

A Silhouette of Pillage

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$What the frac$

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

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

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

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

Under the Radar report summary

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

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

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

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

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

2. The conduct of 482km of seismic surveys

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

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

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

6. The construction and operation of 1 reverse osmosis unit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..

.

‘Farmers see threat in $900m Santos buyout’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santos footprints in The Pilliga

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

‘A national treasure or an industrial wasteland?’

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

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

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

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

Photo: T Pickard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

‘Save Pilliga – NSW’s Largest Temperate Woodland’

— by Cate Faehrmann May 25, 2011

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four project components

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

Existing activities

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

Gas field development

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

The project proposal includes the following:

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

Impacts

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

The area that is being targeted includes:

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

Water resources

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

Take action to save the Pilliga Scrub

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

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

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

.

[3] Pilliga Nature Reserve

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

.

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

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

‘Pilliga forest new CSG battlefront’

By Kate Ausburn, 20110618

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wilderness Society said on June 16:

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Community Solidarity:

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

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

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

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

Follow similar community campaigns at the following links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The above websites were accessed 20110809)

-end of article –

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

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

A ‘certified sustainable’ Tasmanian future

Friday, July 29th, 2011

Trucks Logging Tasmania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Forestry Tasmania Footprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Editor’s comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Background Reading:

What is the Tasmanian Government’s strategy?

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Under the Heads of Agreement:

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Media release by The Wilderness Society (Tasmania), 20110725

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent State Service Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Workforce Renewal Incentive Program

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

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

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

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

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

Vacancy management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal agency vacancy management also encompasses other strategies such as:

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

Inter-agency vacancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

External placement of surplus employees

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

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

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

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

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

Targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements

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

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

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

The renewed arrangements will also be designed to:

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

Changes to Section 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Involuntary redundancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

– end of article –

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

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

U.N. Principles on Forest Conservation

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

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

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

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

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

.

..

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

(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)

Extract from ‘Annex III’:

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

PREAMBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

PRINCIPLES/ELEMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

The UN position in 2007:

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

The purpose of this instrument is:

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

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

– end of article –

.

Rainforest Reality, 2011:

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

[20110520, hispanicallyspeakingnews.com]

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(above references accessed 20110728)

.

– end of article –

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

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Coalpac threat to forest

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

(click to enlarge photo)

‘There is a proposal by (Queensland-based) Coalpac Pty Ltd to mine coal, using high wall and open cut mining techniques. This activity would occur within the Ben Bullen State Forest, this forest adjoins the Gardens of Stone, an amazing area containing rock formations called pagodas.

If this destructive mine is approved, at least 1088 ha of old growth forest will be destroyed, with its iconic, rare flora and fauna. We have an unenviable record of species extinctions, locally and nationally.

Lyrebirds use the sides of the pagodas to nest and raise their young. The area is home to tiger quolls, powerfull owls and more than 30 native animals, five of which are listed as endangered.

Local residents will not suffer from dust in the air, but they, and others further afield, will have their water supply contaminated.

Please write to Mrs Roza Sage (Liberal Party Member for Blue Mountains electorate) to express your concern about this irreplaceable environment at risk frominappropriatre and unnecessary mining development.’

Anne Dillon, Blackheath.

[Source: Blue Mountains Gazette, ‘Threat to forest’, 20110713, page 12, Blue Mountains, New South Wales Australia]

.

[1] ^http://fatcanyoners.org/2011/05/14/gardens-of-stone-protest/

Tags: Ben Bullen State Forest, Blue Mountains Conservation Society, Coalpac Pty Ltd, Gardens of Stone, Liberal Party Blue Mountains, Roza Sage, species extinction
Posted in Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Mining | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Welcome to Habitat Country
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

The Habitat Advocate

Archive for the ‘Listening Post’ Category

VicForests’ ecological genocide

.

Then there’s Clause 4.5.3:

‘Forest managers managing native forests shall use fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale.’ [p.25]

.

.

.

The Ferguson Tree – lest we forget

.

.

‘VicForests accused of felling old-growth mountain ash’

’31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged’

.

.

.

.

.

.

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report reveals $5.1 million loss’

.

.

.

Reflex Office Paper

Reflex Recycled Paper

THE ALTERNATIVE

.

‘Always rely on Reflex to woodchip old growth‘

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

.

They knew not what they did; lest we forget

Gippsland Giants

.

.

‘Water Buyback’ can save Murray-Darling

.

.

Water Buyback a Sound Approach

.

More Willing Sellers than Tenders

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

.

Murray Darling & the Coorong

.

.

VicForests logging of old-growth forests

.

.

.

.

‘VicForests’ (from its website) presents its vision and values as:

Our vision:

Our purpose:

Our values:

.

.

.

.

.

Brown Mountain – destruction complete!

.

.

.

.

Read More:

.

.

Pilliga Forests under ongoing attack

.

The Pilliga Forests

.