Posts Tagged ‘Babyboomer Middle-Aged Men’

Tarkine Wilderness values sanctified by court

Thursday, July 18th, 2013

Tarkine Tasmania - wild unique diverse.

Tarkine Wilderness Values

.

Tasmania’s Tarkine is a vast wilderness region of north west Tasmania covering nearly half a million hectares (the size of Kangaroo Island); a remnant of Gondwanaland and home to the last disease-free stronghold of the Tasmanian Devil.

The Tarkine covers 1,800 km² of  beautiful ancient cool temperate rainforest, as well as around 400 km² of eucalypt forest and a mosaic of other vegetation communities, including dry sclerophyll forest, woodland, buttongrass moorland, sandy littoral communities, wetlands, grassland and Sphagnum communities.  The Tarkine contains a diverse array of landscapes, from giant forests to huge sand-dunes, sweeping beaches, rugged mountains and pristine river systems.  It retains a rare high diversity including:

  • 28 terrestrial mammals
  • 111 land and freshwater birds
  • 11 reptiles
  • 8 frogs
  • 13 freshwater fish
  • 151 species of liverworts
  • 92 species of mosses.

.

The Tarkine provides habitat for over 60 rare, threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna.   Tthe Tarkine is rich in frog species, with eight of Tasmania’s eleven frog species occurring in diverse parts of the Tarkine, including in the Tarkine’s rainforests, in Melaleuca swamps and scrub, and in the coastal lagoons and dune systems. Two threatened frog species, the Green and Golden Frog, and the Striped Marsh Frog, both occur in coastal lagoons, marshes and swamps of the Arthur-Pieman plains.

The Tarkine is particularly important for freshwater crustaceans – which are of global significance (PWS, 2001). One of the largest freshwater crustaceans in the world, the Tayatea, or Giant Freshwater Crayfish, inhabits the north of Tasmania and the Arthur River catchment – with the Tarkine a stronghold. This extraordinary creature, which can live for up to 40 years of age, and grow up to a metre in length, has been adversely affected by clearing of vegetation and recreational fishing, and is now listed as vulnerable.

Tarkine's Giant Freshwater Crayfish -Astacopsis Gouldi (Photo by Ted Mead)
The Tarkine’s Tayatea, or Giant Freshwater Crayfish

.

Tarkine MapThe Tarkine, showing the Tasmanian Government’s 2012 plans for a $34M upgrade of the Murchison Highway,
marketed as ‘tourism development’ but surreptitiously to subsidise increased mining access between the Tarkine and Port Latta.
[Source:  Tasmanian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources
^http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/81461/01_Murchison_Highway_Upgrades.pdf]

.

Read More:  ^https://www.et.org.au/tarkine-wilderness

.

Tarkine threatened by exploitative greed

.

The backward Tasmanian Government continues to ignore the place, dismissing it as an “unbounded locality” in the Waratah-Wynyard council area, and repeatedly trying to mine it, log it and bulldoze roads through it.  So the name ‘Tarkine’ does not appear in maps, in order that it may be exploited section by section.  Former Environment Minister Tony Burke was hoodwincked by this tactic as he was guided by miners to the denuded sections, and so diluted his pure vision of the Tarkine’s being worthy of protection for the pristine sections.

Such has perpetuated the 19th Century/early 20th Century  ^Robber Baron mentality that has long followed American industrialisation over the past two centuries.  On the back of the Robber Barons, the post-war Baby Boomer – “the most self-righteous, self-important, incredibly arrogant generation of all time” [^Source], has bulldozed into oblivion 75% of Tasmanian Nature, 80% of Australian Nature and exterminated Tasmania’s endemic Thylacine.

Still in Tasmania, inherited Taswegian attitudes and addictive exploitation die hard.

.

Industrial Robber BaronsIndustrial Robber Barons

.

However, many of the Tarkine’s unique values are threatened by destructive activities such as new mining, logging, and illegal activities such as poaching and arson, and less than 5% of the Tarkine is protected as a National Park. The Tarkine’s future as a wild place hangs in the balance.

The Tarkine is the home to the last disease free population of the Tasmanian Devil. The Tasmanian Devil is being pushed to extinction by the fatal Devil Facial Tumour Disease. This disease has been estimated to have killed 80% of the Tasmanian Devil population in the past decade. As such the habitat of the Tarkine is critical to survival of this iconic species in the wild.  Threats such as mining, logging and roading place the future of the Devil at risk..

Tasmanian Devil Road Kill (Rhys Allen)
Tasmanian Devils heading towards extinction, following the Thylacine.
Token funding in dribs and drabs by the Tasmanian Government toward Save the Tasmanian Devil Programme
pales in the face of the Tasmanian Government encouraging ongoing destruction of  the Devil’s critical habitat.
[Source:  Photo by Rhys Allen in article ‘Tarkine mines could be last straw for Tasmanian devils’, 20130115, by Hamish McCallum, Head, Griffith School of Environment at Griffith University, ^http://theconversation.com/tarkine-mines-could-be-last-straw-for-tasmanian-devils-114839]

.

Protecting the Tarkine

.

The campaign to protect The Tarkine began in the 1960s, when a formal conservation proposal was put forward by the then Circular Head Mayor Horace (Jim) Lane for the establishment of a ‘Norfolk Range National Park’.  But Lane’s proposal was not realised.

From the late 1990s, the region came under increasing national and international scrutiny in a similar vein to the environmental protests surrounding Tasmania’s Franklin River and Queensland’s Daintree Rainforest.   The case for protecting the Tarkine was significantly advanced with the Federal Government’s Forestry Package in 2005 adding 70,000 hectares to reserves in the Tarkine.

The environmentalist organisation Tarkine National Coalition, headed by Scott Jordan, has proposed the Tarkine be officially declared a national park, and with the support of many Tasmanians, wishes to ultimately see the Tarkine properly internationally protected as a World Heritage listed area for all time.

Scott Jordan in The TarkineScott Jordan in The Tarkine

.

In December 2009, the Tarkine was listed as a National Heritage Area following an Emergency National Heritage Listing sought by the Tarkine National Coalition to stop a proposed Tarkine Road, which would have coursed through old growth forest and detrimentally affected the natural values of undisturbed areas.

In 2013, while 80% of the Tarkine is now protected from logging, only 5% is protected from mining, and the Tasmanian Government still wants its tourist road bulldozed through it to destroy its wilderness values for tourism exploitation.

In December 2010, the incoming Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke allowed the emergency listing to lapse in the face of numerous mining proposals in the Tarkine.

.

Further Reading:    ^http://tarkine.org/

.

Threats from Mining

.

The west coast region of Tasmania has a sad history of exploitative mining since the industrial Robber Baron era of the late 19th Century, when tin was discovered at Mount Bischoff, setting of a mining boom.    Cooper was mined from Mount Lyell and smelted at nearby Queenstown from the 1890s.  Zinc and lead were mined at Mt Read near Rosebery and nickel from Avebury near Zeehan, both along the southern fringe of the Tarkine.  Gold has been from the Henty mine, mixed base metals from the Hellyer mine, and later iron ore extracted in large open cut pits at Savage River in the heart of The Tarkine.

Since 1965, ‘Savage River Mines‘ has been carving up a large slice of The Tarkine from its open-cut magnetite mine.

 

Savage River Mine, Waratah (Mineral Resources Tasmania)Savage River Mine
Irrevocably carving out Tarkine wilderness, currently operated by Grange Resources Limited

.

Ironically, nearby Savage River National Park is recognised for its wilderness values:

.

<< The park protects the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia and acts as a refuge for a rich primitive flora, undisturbed river catchments, high quality wilderness, old growth forests, geodiversity and natural landscape values.

The western portion of the park includes the most extensive basalt plateaux in Tasmania that still retains a wholly intact forest ecosystem. The upper Savage River, which lends the park its name, runs through a pristine, rainforested river gorge system. The park contains habitat for a diverse rainforest fauna and is a stronghold for a number of vertebrate species which have suffered population declines elsewhere in Tasmania and mainland Australia.

The parks remoteness from human settlement and mechanised access, its undisturbed hinterland rivers and extensive rainforest, pristine blanket bog peat soils and isolated, elevated buttongrass moorlands ensure the wilderness character of the park. Like the vast World Heritage listed Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to its south, the area is one of the few remaining temperate wilderness areas left on Earth. >>   

.

[Sources:  ‘Mining’, University of Tasmania, ^http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/M/Mining.htm; ‘Tasmania’s Mines’, Mineral Resources Tasmania (Tasmanian Government, ^http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/portal/page?_pageid=35,831205&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL;  ‘Savage River National Park’, Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania, ^http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=3732]

.

Robert Carl StichtAmerican Robber Baron Robert Carl Sticht (1856-1922)
American metallurgist and General Manager of Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company
Elitist exploiter of copper mining and smelting from Mount Lyell on Tasmania’ wild west coast

.

Tasmania's once rainforest long denuded by copper mining around QueenstownSticht’s Mining Legacy to Tasmania
– a denuded moonscape above Queenstown caused by sulphuric acid associated with the copper mining and smelting.
The people of Queenstown were not left wealthy after the copper mine closed – the company profits went offshore – sound familiar?

.

In 2013, there are ten new mines proposed for the Tarkine over the next five years, and the campaign to prevent this onslaught of destruction is heating up. Nine of these mines are Pilbara style open cut mines. The first two companies to submit for permits are Venture Minerals for their three proposed tin and iron ore mines at Mt Lindsay, and Shree Minerals for their proposed Nelson Bay River iron ore mine.

.

2011:   Open Cut Mine proposed by Indian company, Shree Minerals

.

Indian-owned mining conglomerate, Shree Minerals, has proposed to develop an open pit magnetitie/hematite mine and processing plant near Nelson Bay River , approximately seven kilometres east of Temma village in northwest Tasmania.   The proposed mine will target 4 million tonnes of the resource over a 10 year period producing 150,000 tonnes of product per year.

.

[Ed:  This is in The Tarkine, but of course the term is deliberately omitted]

.

Parent company, Shree Minerals and Fuels, is headquartered at 51 M.I.G., Jain Mandir Road, Shanti Nagar, Housing Board, Katni, Madhya Pradesh, India.  It is was established by millionaire, Vishwanath Garodia, and is currently owned by Vijay Garidia.   The Shree Minerals Board of Directors is currently made up of  Chairman Mr Sanjay Loyalka, Mr. Arun Kumar Jagatramka, Mr Mahendra Pal, Mr Andy Lau and Mr Amu Shah.

[Sources:  ^http://www.shreemineralsandfuels.com/owners-profile.html; ^http://www.shreeminerals.com/scripts/page.asp?mid=11&pageid=13]

.

<< Shree Minerals has lodged a Development Application with a supporting Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) to Circular Head Council… (and) the Australian Government has declared the proposal a controlled action which will require assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  This process will occur separately from the State Government process (which has approved the mine).  >>

400,000 tonnes a year

.

[Source:  Tasmanian Government, ‘Shree Minerals Ltd Nelson Bay River Mine, (undated), ^http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/shree-minerals-ltd-nelson-bay-river-mine]

.

Male Babyboomers still selfishly exploiting the planetTasmanian Baby Boomer politicians in 2012 with Indian chairman of Shree Minerals, Sanjay Loyalka
[Source:  Tasmanian Minerals Council, ^http://www.tasmanianmining.com.au]

.

<< With Tasmanian approvals in hand for mining at Nelson Bay River (NBR), Shree Minerals awaits Commonwealth Government approval, which is expected soon. Meanwhile, drilling will commence at NBR in November.

Shree Minerals (ASX:SHH) has re-affirmed that it is awaiting Commonwealth approvals for mining to commence at its Nelson Bay River Iron Project (NBR) in Tasmania.

Tasmanian approvals were received from:

– Circular Head Council, Tasmania;
– Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Tasmania; and,
– Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) grant of Mining Lease

Shree said it expects a final decision from the Australian Commonwealth Government under EPBC Act, for which the final EIS has been published following response to submission received as a result of public exhibition of Draft EIS.  Further that it expects to receive approval and a final decision is now expected soon.

Other highlights included:

– Grant of Mining Lease from Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) for mining at NBR has been received
– Maiden Reserves published and DSO mine plan for first 2 years finalised (October 2012).
– The 2011/12 fieldwork at Mt.Sorell has identified encouraging signs for the presence of Volcanic Hosted Massive

The production schedule for the first two years comprises mining of DSO iron ore.  The DSO requires no further beneficiation to produce a marketable product. It only requires crushing and screening. Two separate DSO pits are planned in the first two years (comprising DSO South Pit and DSO North Pit, which is within the BFO resources) with following total resultant pit quantity of 815,000 tonnes at 57.5% iron (Fe):

The DSO is a first, lucrative stage of mining at NBR.  It involves minimal CAPEX and no infrastructure CAPEX.

Development stages at NBR

Development of the project involves three stages. The first stage is to develop two relatively shallow opencut mines to produce direct shipping grade hematite ore.

This direct shipping ore (DSO) only requires crushing and sizing to produce the DSO product. Each pit will produce a separate grade of DSO product.

The south pit has a higher DSO grade and will be mined first with the product transported to Port Latta for export. The north DSO pit, situated above the main magnetite orebody will follow. It has a lower DSO grade.

Stage two involves the continuation of mining of the northern DSO opencut. Here the stage one DSO hematite oxide cap is surrounded by lower grade ore considered to have the potential to be processed to produce a commercial beneficiated oxide product (BFO). Processing the BFO material is considered to be stage two of the project.

Stage three of the project involves the opencut mining of the deep magnetite orebody beneath the oxide cap. This magnetite ore will require processing to produce commercial grade magnetite products and the BFO processing plant will be modified to achieve this objective.

Earlier studies demonstrated that the magnetite ore can produce two products, a dense media magnetite (DMM) product suitable for coal washery applications or a blast furnace pellet (BFP) magnetite product.

Suppliers are few in number for the higher value DMM product and mining generally occurs on a small scale. This would suit the Nelson Bay Iron Project.

Shree is planning to commence drilling at the NBR and Rebecca Creek tenements during the second week of November.  Documentation for approval to drill ~3500 m to improve resource category and further extension of resources and geotechnical studies at the Project was submitted to the Minerals and Resources Tasmania.  >>

Heavy Metal Table
The Mine’s expected Heavy Metal products/tailings cocktail
(Copper, Lead, Chromium, Cadmium, Cobalt, Nickel and Zinc, as well as Arsenic and sulphuric acid)

.

[Source:  ‘Is Shree Minerals the next iron ore producer in Australia?’,  20121029, by Proactive Investors, ^http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/35093/is-shree-minerals-the-next-iron-ore-producer-in-australia-35093.html]

.

Shree Mining Gloat

.

<< Shree Minerals chairman Sanjay Loyalka presented to over 175 investors this week at the ‘Stars in 2013′ investor forum in Sydney – and outlined the company’s pathway to production. Shree is positioned to become Australia’s next iron ore producer when the company commences production from the Nelson Bay River Project in Tasmania in mid-2013.

Shree Minerals presented to brokers, fund managers and investors this week in Sydney at Proactive Investors “Stars in 2013” investor forum – and focused on how the company will become Australia’s next iron ore producer.  The production schedule for the first two years comprises the mining of DSO iron ore, which requires no further beneficiation to produce a marketable product.

Shree is targeting iron ore production in mid-2013 from the Nelson Bay River Project which is located in the west coast of Tasmania, in an area rich with infrastructure which includes being close to roads and port.

Shree has a memorandum of understanding with nearby miner Grange Resources for use of port Latta, and has an off-take contract MOU in-place with a large international trading house.

All approvals are in place for developing the mine including; Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Tasmania; Mineral resources Tasmania (MRT) grant of Mining Lease; and Commonwealth Government under EPBC Act.

Highlighting the prospectivity of the area, it hosts world class mines including Grange Resources’ Savage River, Vedanta’s Mt Lyell, Unity Mining’s Henty and MMG’s Roseberry and Avebury.

Shree’s Nelson Bay River Project has a goethite-hematite Inferred Resource of 1.4 million tonnes, magnetite Resources of 7.8 million tonnes at 38.3 DTR, and is capable of producing highgrade concentrates to produce Blast Furnace (BF) Pellets and Dense Media Magnetite (DMM).  Importantly there is the opportunity for resource growth, considering that the current resource is only based on limited drilling at the north end of the Aeromagnetic Anomaly as the company focus in last two years has been the on permitting process and project development.

This exploration potential provides the opportunity for a substantial increase in scale and mine life.

The Nelson Bay River Project differentiates itself from other iron ore projects as it does not require large CAPEX in infrastructure, and importantly there is a local workforce available, which cuts costs compared to other producers who use the fly-in-fly-out model.  >>

.

[Source:  ‘Shree Minerals’ Sanjay Loyalka outlines path to iron ore production in front of 175 investors’,  20130125, by Proactive Investors, ^http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/38728/shree-minerals-sanjay-loyalka-outlines-path-to-iron-ore-production-in-front-of-175-investors-38728.html]
 

.

Aug 2012:   Tasmanian EPA recklessly approves Dark Side Ecology

.

EPA Tasmania

.

<< The Tarkine National Coalition (TNC) has reacted with disbelief to the Tasmanian EPA’s approval of the Shree Minerals Nelson Bay River mine despite clearly incomplete and fraudulent information tendered by the proponent.

.

‘Shree EIS a mismatch of omissions, flawed assumptions and misrepresentations’

.

The Shree Minerals’ Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Nelson Bay River open cut iron ore mine as a mismatch of omissions, flawed assumptions and misrepresentations. Key data on endangered orchids were missing, and projections on roadkill impacts on Tasmanian devil and Spotted tailed quoll were based on fanciful data known to contradict the company’s independent Traffic Impact Assessment.

.

Scott Jordan (TNC):

.

“The EPA seems to have abandoned rational science and accepted Shree Minerals’ assertion that a 1km long 220 metre deep open cut pit extending 170 metres below the level of the adjacent Nelson Bay River wont impact on hydrology.

The EPA also has chosen to accept Shree Minerals blatant contradictions and misrepresentations in the data relating to projections of Tasmanian devil roadkill from mine related traffic by accepting projections substantially lower than Shree Minerals’ own expert produced Traffic Impact Assessment.  This increase of traffic will, on the company’s formulae, result in up to 32 devil deaths per year, not the 3 per year in presented in the data accepted by the EPA.”

.

This failure comes within days of Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke’s decision to absolve himself of responsibility for conducting environmental assessments by allowing the Tasmanian Government to conduct the EPBC assessments for mining projects in the Tarkine.

“Is this really the assessment regime that Tony Burke want to oversee the protection of the environment in the Tarkine?”, asks Jordan.  Decisions on Commonwealth environmental approvals and local council approvals have not been granted at this point. Unlike the Venture Minerals projects, the Shree Minerals also has a concurrently running Commonwealth assessment.  >>

.

Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Australian Greens:

.

“The Tasmanian Government EPA’s approval of the Shree Minerals mine confirms exactly why Tony Burke is wrong to trust this agency with the assessment of new mines in the Tarkine. Shree Minerals has no friends in the Tasmanian mining industry.  The company fudged their data on likely impacts on the Tasmanian Devil – yet here they are securing Tasmanian Government approval.

“The ball is now in Tony Burke’s court. He should reject Shree’s mine, which still has to pass federal environmental approvals tests.  He must reverse his decision to let Venture Mineral’s three mines be assessed by the Tasmanian Government.

“By not heritage listing the Tarkine, Tony Burke has washed his hands of responsible environmental protection and approval of the Tarkine rainforest and the threatened Tasmanian Devil, and now we see the consequences.”

.

The  Tasmanian Greens will write to Tasmania’s Environment Protection Authority seeking further information over a decision to approve an iron ore mine at Nelson Bay River. >>.

Alex Schaap, Tasmanian EPA DirectorAlex Schaap, Tasmanian EPA Director
Under fire over nondisclosure of a heavy metals spill from a tailings dam spill at Grange Resources Savage River mine into surrounding waterways in early 2013.
[Source:  ‘Tasmania’s Environment Protection Agency is on notice’, 20130318, by Isla Macgregor, Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/tasmanias-environment-protection-agency-is-on-notice/]

.

Greens Member for Braddon (Tasmania), Paul O’Halloran MP:

.

“Serious concerns have been raised about the reliability and accuracy of information provided to the EPA by the mine proponent, Shree Minerals.  The public should be able to have full confidence in the capacity of agencies like the EPA to independently assess these controversial mining projects and to test the accuracy and rigour of the data they are provided.

“Critical details regarding the impact on threatened species appear to be missing or inconsistent with previously released data, and the potential hydrological impacts have not been fully assessed.  “When you consider that the mine itself will be well below the level of the nearby Nelson Bay River, it’s hard to see how this will not impact on the area’s hydrology.

“If the Commonwealth uses the same questionable data for its assessment for the project, then the Tasmanian public will be rightly sceptical when their final decision is handed down.” >>

.

[Sources:  ‘EPA’s approval of Shree Minerals’ incomplete environmental reports a farce’, 20120801, by Scott Jordan, Campaign Coordinator Tarkine National Coalition, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/epas-approval-of-shree-minerals-incomplete-environmental-reports-a-farce/]; ‘ Greens seek answers over Shree Minerals Assessment’, by Paul O’Halloran MP, Greens Member for Braddon, 20120727, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/epas-approval-of-shree-minerals-incomplete-environmental-reports-a-farce/]

.

Sep 2012:   Mainland unions weigh into Tarkine v Mining debate

.

National Secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union Paul Howes discusses the union’s campaign to promote mining in Tasmania.

.

Paul Howes in TasmaniaNational Secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union Paul Howes addressing a rally in Hobart,
with Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings in the background.
[Source:  ^http://www.tasmanianmining.com.au]

.

ABC Television Transcript:

.

<< EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER:   To discuss the AWU’s campaign, I was joined earlier in our Hobart studio by the union’s national secretary, Paul Howes.

Paul Howes, welcome to Lateline.

PAUL HOWES, NATIONAL SECRETARY, AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION:   Thanks, Emma.

EMMA ALBERICI:   The Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke on the Tarkine issue has indicated he’s not predisposed to wholesale heritage listing. So what exactly are your concerns there?

PAUL HOWES:   There is a very large campaign being run at the moment by the Greens and GetUp in particular, aiming to have the entire north-western region of Tasmania, known as the Tarkine, listed for World Heritage listing.

That would potentially close two existing mines, would have the impact of not having the go-ahead for a number of new mines in the region which need to be developed.

At the moment north-west Tasmania has unemployment of around 8.4 per cent, when you compare that to the national average of 5.2 per cent, you can see how hard times are in that part of Tasmania.

And to lose a minerals industry would be devastating for the entire state, but particularly for the north-west.

The mines in question and the potential mines in question take up less than 1 per cent of the land mass of the Tarkine and whilst we accept there are many areas of the Tarkine that should be protected and should be locked up from future development, we are concerned that this large-scale campaign will pressure the Federal Government into actually granting a listing which would potentially shutdown this very important industry for north-west Tasmania.

And our members that work in the sector have been concerned for a long time, their voices haven’t been heard in the debate, and that’s why they asked us to run this campaign so that their voices can be heard on the national stage about what they believe should continue to happen in the Tarkine, which is having nature and the mining industry co-existing as it has done for 120 years.

.

EMMA ALBERICI:   On the process of heritage listing, you would be aware that current mines are not affected and current applications for mines equally are not affected?

PAUL HOWES:   Well that’s not the case.

EMMA ALBERICI:   It’s certainly the case as Tony Burke’s office explained it to us.

PAUL HOWES:   If you look at the issue, for example, of Rosebery. Rosebery isn’t subject to the … the current mining operations at Rosebery isn’t subject to the listing, but Rosebery needs a new tailings dam, that new tailings dam has to be built in an area which would be subject to the listing.

If the new tailings dam can’t be built then Rosebery would should, equally for Savage River. Savage River needs to expand and move into new parts of ore bodies that would be in areas where that listing applies.

Look, I’m very hopeful and I think that Tony Burke will make the right decision, but equally it’s important that the voice of Tasmanian miners and Tasmanian communities in the north-west of the state are heard in this debate.

As we have seen in the proposals put forward by the national Tarkine coalition, if they were successful in their proposal a whole range of potential mines and exploration zones would be locked up. So that’s why we need to ensure that when the Federal Government makes a decision, that it does the right thing for the environment, everyone agrees with that, but we don’t hurt the Tasmanian economy and create a situation where we’ve had intergenerational mining in that part of Tasmania for 120 years being wiped off the map for the sake of frankly an ideological agenda being driven by a few.

.

EMMA ALBERICI:   But Paul Howes, we do have to make the distinction here, no-one is suggesting mining’s going to be wiped off the map in Tasmania. You say yourself these are potential mines, these are not current mines, nor are they mines under current assessment.

PAUL HOWES:   Yes, they are Emma. They are currently under assessment.

EMMA ALBERICI:   Well if they are under assessment Tony Burke’s office tell us they are not affected by the heritage listing. Who is right?

PAUL HOWES:   Hopefully that will be the case but the campaign being run by the national Tarkine coalition and by the Greens would have the effect, if it were successful, in shutting down, for example, the venture minerals site. That’s the outcome.

Now we are providing the alternative voice, which is saying these areas equate to roughly 1 per cent of the land mass of the Tarkine and we believe that those areas should be excluded. In terms of the current mines, as I explained only just a few minutes ago, yes, it is true to say that the existing mine site at Savage River and the existing mine site at Rosebery isn’t covered by the proposal, but where those mines have to expand just slightly down the road is covered by the proposal.

And if those expansions can’t go ahead, then the existing mine sites won’t be viable. It’s not just a simple matter of getting out the map and looking at where the current mining operations take place and where the proposed ones have been, there is the case that if the national Tarkine coalition’s proposal goes ahead, you would see the mine life of a mine like Rosebery being cut drastically short.

I’m not in the business of running campaigns when we don’t have to, I would be more than happy to see a sensible campaign run by the environmental lobby that would actually result in carving out the minerals zones. But if you just log on to the national Tarkine coalition website, yourself, you’ll see that a large part of their campaign is about stopping the potential mines that should go ahead in the next couple of years, from actually happening.

.

EMMA ALBERICI:   Some of the current approvals being sought are possibly going to endanger… possibly going to put at risk some endangered species. You would accept surely that some of those do need protection?

PAUL HOWES:   Absolutely and once again, we are talking about an environmental footprint of less than 1 per cent of the Tarkine region. You are talking about areas which have been portrayed, particularly by GetUp, for example, as saying as being virgin or untouched rainforest, where it’s just not the case.

There has been widespread mining activity across the Tarkine for 120 years. Many of the areas that have actually featured in GetUp ads are actually areas which used to be mining facilities. In fact there was a famous ad that GetUp ran in The Sydney Morning Herald with a picture of the Environment Minister Tony Burke looking at a tree – he was standing on an old mining trail.

The point is that, yes, we need to do what we can to protect endangered species and yes we should lock up those areas of the region that deserve environmental protection, but we should also look at the facts in the cold hard light of day and recognise that there is the ability to have sustainable mining practices engaged right across that region and at the same time do the right thing by the environment.

.

EMMA ALBERICI:   If we can move on to the Greens more broadly, you’ve been attacking them for the better part of the last few months pretty consistently. Is this part of a deliberate strategy to sort of re-establish Labor as an entity in its own right, to kind of divorce itself from the Greens on the political stage?

PAUL HOWES:   In terms of the campaign that we have launched here in Hobart today, it’s a campaign that members of my union asked us to run, and I’m responding to the wishes of our members. That’s what membership based organisations do. Our union does campaign against companies, against governments and against political parties which pose direct threats to the job security of our members.

In the form of the Greens, whilst there are many policies that I do agree with the Greens on, overall their economic policies are ones which would lead to wide sections of the membership of the AWU being left out of work. That’s why we have been, for a very long period of time – it predates even my time as secretary of the union – been very strident and forthright in our criticism of a lot of the policies.

I’m pleased that we have seen over the last few months more people in the Labor movement stepping up to the plate, actually taking on the Greens, actually calling into question many of their policies which for too long have gone unquestioned. Ultimately I do think they should be held to account. I don’t think the Labor Party needs to differentiate itself because ultimately the Labor Party is a separate party.

The Labor Party and the Labor movement has very different values to the values of the Greens and whilst there might be some similarities in some areas, at the end of the day the type of Australia that the Labor movement wants to see and the type of Australia the Greens want to see are two very different types of Australia.

.

EMMA ALBERICI:   Recently you have compared the Greens to One Nation and to the DLP. Have you gone too far there? What is it about the Greens that you fear?

PAUL HOWES:   I don’t fear the Greens. Things that I fear I normally run away from. I don’t fear the Greens.

EMMA ALBERICI:   You clearly fear their impact on your party.

PAUL HOWES:   What I have said is I think it’s incumbent upon the Labor movement to actually take up the fight to the Greens, that we shouldn’t shy away from articulating the alternative vision that we see for this country.

Now as I said, there are many Greens policies which are similar to views that I hold, but ultimately on the key questions about work, the value of work, the type of economy we have, which is I think fundamental to the nature of what it is to be Australian – the Greens and the Labor movement are worlds apart.

My view has been for a long time that we should articulate that, we should take up that fight and that we should actually demonstrate that our values are different, their values are theirs.

Now of course, voters will be free to choose between the two, but we actually need to articulate those differences in our views and policies proudly and strongly.

.

EMMA ALBERICI: Is there a fear that voters won’t be able to see a difference between the two?

PAUL HOWES: I think occasionally that might be the case. I think of late, we have seen substantial differences. I was proud to be standing on the steps of Tasmanian Parliament today with the Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings, who was very strongly backing our campaign about the Tarkine.

That clearly demonstrates she disagrees strongly with her colleagues in the minority government here in Tasmania, and that’s important. It’s important to traditional Labor voters, particularly in rural and regional Tasmania and important to working-class Labor voters right across the country to know that the Labor Party – still right across the nation, stands up for the values of work and believes in the need to have a diversified economy.

Ultimately, what the Labor Party does in government, state or federal, is up to them. But as a member of the Labor movement and our union has strongly believed for a long time that this is a fight that’s worth having.

.

EMMA ALBERICI: Finally, the new government in Queensland has today slashed just shy of 3,000 jobs in its Health Department.

What intelligence are you getting from your Queensland colleagues about how much further the job cuts are likely to go?

PAUL HOWES: We are very proud to represent over 10,000 workers in the Queensland Health Department and we are disappointed that Campbell Newman today in his announcement hasn’t articulated where these job cuts are going to happen.

We fear that it will be frontline workers in the hospitals that will be cut. If that happens, we will see a decrease in patient care right across Queensland. What we are seeing here is an aggressive and scary attack on services right across Queensland, but particularly in the Health Department.

Queensland Health has had a lot of problems for a long period of time, but cutting staff, stripping back services, outsourcing essential services across Queensland hospitals, is not the way to resolve issues in Queensland Health.

In fact, it will send Queensland Health back into the dark ages and frankly, we are fearful, in fact we are very strongly fearful and we suspect that this is only the beginning of deeper and harder cuts to come from Campbell Newman, once again betraying his promises to the Queensland people that he made right before the election.

.

EMMA ALBERICI: Right Paul Howes we have to leave it there but thank you very much for your time.

PAUL HOWES: Thank you, Emma. >>

.

[Source:  ‘Paul Howes locks horns with the Greens over anti-mining campaign’,  20120907, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (television), Reporter Emma Alberici, ^http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3585805.htm]

.

Paul Howes[Source:  Kudelka’s view,
^http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/05/12/327401_tasmania-news.html]

.

Dec 2012:  Burke approves Shree Mine based on dodgy submission

.
Tony Burke selling the Tarkine for mining
Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke in The Tarkine

.

<< Environment Minister, Tony Burke, today approved Shree Mineral’s Nelson Bay River Magnetite and Hematite Mine in north-west region of Tasmania with 29 strict conditions.

.

Mr Burke:

.

“The approval conditions will ensure the mine will be built and operated in strict accordance with national environment law. By imposing these 29 approval conditions I am satisfied the project can now go ahead without any unacceptable impacts on matters of national environment significance such as nationally listed threatened and migratory species and their habitat.

In making my approval I am requiring Shree Minerals to comply with a number of key environmental conditions and actions. My decision is based on a thorough and rigorous assessment of the proposal, with extensive opportunity for public consultation.

Key aspects of the approval conditions include:

  • the development of a site-wide management plan for the protection of nationally threatened species at the mine site and for travel to and from the mine site
  • the undertaking of targeted pre-clearance surveys for the nationally listed masked-owl, spot-tailed quoll, Tasmanian devil and Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle
  • environmental awareness training for all staff, contractors and visitors to the site.

.

“In addition I am requiring Shree Minerals to take specific actions to mitigate and avoid the threat of road kill to nationally threatened species, especially the Tasmanian devil.

I am requiring that mine vehicles travel only during daylight hours and abide by appropriate speed limits within and to and from the mine site and that they provide bus transport to limit the amount of traffic on nearby roads.

I am also requiring that Shree Minerals report all deaths of nationally threatened species from road kill caused by the operation of the mine. This information will be recorded on their website and updated at least every three months.

If reported road kill is in excess of predicted levels, the conditions require that Shree Minerals pay additional compensation or provide new resources for further environment programs to support threatened species in and near the site.

“I am also requiring Shree Minerals to fund and resource a Tasmanian Devil monitoring strategy on the mine site. The strategy will need to involve at least ten infrared monitoring cameras and be consistent with the work being done by Save the Tasmanian Devil Program.”

.

Each year Shree Minerals is required to report on their compliance with the approval conditions and publish this information on their website.>>

.

[Source:  ‘Environment Minister Approves Shree Minerals Nelson Bay River Mine’ (media release), The Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 20121218, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2012/mr20121218.html]

.

Burke allows mining disturbance to colour his purist view:

  “I was expecting to see a pristine area pretty much covered in rainforest. The truth of the industrial history and current industrial activity in the Tarkine was quite different to those images”

.

Tony Burke in The TarkineTony Burke considers a plan for world heritage listing during a visit to the Tarkine
[Source:  Photo by Peter Mathew, ‘Labor accused of betraying Tarkine forests by favouring mining in heritage decision’, by Matthew Denholm, The Australian (with AAP), 20130208, ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-burke-backs-away-from-tarkine-protection/story-fn59niix-1226573268457]

.

Burke lets mining wounds open up Tarkine to circling vultures

.

<<The large expanse of land known as the Tarkine is currently host to around 60 mineral exploration licences, with 10 mines proposed for development over the next few years. The mineral rich area is also largely undisturbed, with temperate rainforests, open plains, diverse flora, and a stronghold of healthy Tasmanian Devils. The approval of the Nelson Bay River magnetite mine marks the beginning of a new chapter in the Tasmanian discourse over the benefits of exploiting natural resources over the preservation of unique natural heritage.

There are existing mines in the Tarkine region on the West Coast of Tasmania; the iron ore mine in Savage River managed by Grange Resources, the Hellyer Mine managed by Bass Metals and the Rosebery Mine managed by MMG.

A long history of mining in the area is coming face to face with a growing awareness of its unique natural and cultural significance.

Yesterday’s approval of a magnetite mine adjacent to the Nelson Bay River by Federal Environment Minister Tony Bourke is the first of several proposed new mining ventures in the area, after nearly twenty years of no new mining approvals in the state.

The interest in superior steel products is creating an increased demand for magnetite across Australia, which, after being processed, provides a consistently higher iron content in comparison to hematite ore.

The magnetite mined from the proposed open cut pit is also used to create magnetic iron oxides used in magnetic storage, for example in the magnetic layer of hard disks.

Twenty-nine conditions from Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke accompany the approval of Shree Minerals’ Nelson River Bay mangenite mine, largely directed at protecting native flora and fauna.

Included in the environmental conditions are $48,000 fines if Tasmanian Devils are killed by vehicle movement, if more than two are killed within a 12 month period.

As Tasmania takes a respite from the ongoing debate over how to restructure a floundering forestry industry, reactions to the magnetite mine approval have been swift.

Leon Compton spoke to some stakeholders in the approval on Statewide Mornings, beginning with Ian Woodward, principal environmental scientist for Tasmanian firm Pitt and Sherry, who prepared the environmental assessment report.

“In terms of the environmental significance, both the state and commonwealth assessments have been very comprehensive.”

“There are no threatened plant species on the site, there is a very low likelihood of threatened fauna, there might be one or two Tasmanian Devils that use the area.”

Shree Minerals has also committed to road transport movement during the day time, and limited speed conditions.

“Minister Burke’s concerns were confined to threatened species listed under Federal legislation, the EPA’s assessment in the Tasmanian jurisdiction was very much more comprehensive and considered all environmental matters including ground disturbance, water management, potential for acid drainage and how that would be mitigated and managed.”

The mine footprint is about 150 hectares, and will consist of two open cut pits that are designed to contain the possibility of acid generating materials being uncovered.

Exposed rock can generate acid as it oxidises, and there are examples of acidic poisoning of rivers from previous mining activities in the region.

Most famously, the King River is described as the most polluted river in Australia, a result of mining prctices at Mount Lyell on its tributary, the Queen River.

The Whyte River and Savage River, which both flow into the Pieman River, and the Arthur River at the northern end of the Tarkine, all suffer from acidity as a result of previous mining practices.

Scott Jordan, from the Tarkine National Coalition, believes that the proposed mine will have a massive effect upon the hydrology on the area around the site.

“This mine will be 225 metres deep, it will be 170 metres below the level of the adjacent Nelson Bay River, it will 60 metres below sea level.”

“In the referal that went to the Commonwealth, there were 16 Commonwealth listed threatened species identified within the five kilometre radius of the site.”

He questioned the assertions made by Pittt and Sherry regarding Tasmanian Devil numbers and the traffic impact assessment.

“They submitted to the Commonwealth that there would be an increase in road traffic affecting Tasmanian Devils of 32 percent, when in fact the Traffic Impact Assessment tells them that they would be looking at about 320 per  cent.”

Asked why we have yet to hear from state green cabinet members, Mr Jordan said, “These decisions are made by a minister, they are not made by a cabinet, and so I would expect that the Green members of cabinet are just as upset about this as I am, and I expect that we will see them voicing that concern.”

Leon Compton also spoke with Circular Head Mayor Daryl Quilliam who vouched for the benefits of the proposed mine for the region.

“It’s not only good for our area, it’s good for Tasmania becvause of the investment that is happening overseas and good for the region in that jobs will be created right along the North West Coast.”

Asked about the environmental concerns Mr Quilliam said, “Everybody is welcome to their opinion, and that is fine, but you’ve got to stop and realise that there has been five or six years of planning for this mine, and just to go through the rigorous process it goes through now, all those environmental issues have been looked at.”

“Mines are not like they used to be 40 or 50 years ago, where you just dig a hole and leave a hole.”

Mr Quilliam discounted the area as the last refuge of the Tasmanian Devil, and cited Woolnorth as being more likely as that region.

“If there are protests, well I am sorry, but our local people, and I would say 80 to 85 percent of our local people are supporting that mine, will need to protest against them as well.”

Mr Quilliam called for people to work together to protect the region, and thinks that there is no reason why all values cannot be upheld. >>

.

[Source:  ‘Tarkine focus on Nelson Bay River’, 20121219, by Tim Walker (Cross Media Reporter), ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/12/19/3657638.htm]

.

Tasmanian Devil’s extinction by a thousand cuts

.

<< Just a week before Christmas, Environment Minister Tony Burke approved Shree Minerals’ mine near Temma in the Tarkine region of north-west Tasmania. Perhaps he hoped the announcement would get lost in the Christmas and New Year “silly season”, because this approval is likely to be extraordinarily controversial: the mine is in an area currently proposed for World Heritage listing and is also in the last remaining stronghold of the Tasmanian devil.

The Tasmanian devil is threatened with extinction by an infectious cancer. Since its first discovery in north-eastern Tasmania in 1996, the cancer has inexorably spread westward, reducing Tasmanian devil populations by at least 80%.

Only the north-west remains undiseased. There are indications that the devil populations in the north-west have slightly different genetic composition from those in the remainder of Tasmania and may perhaps harbour some individuals with genotypes resistant to this lethal disease.

Tony Burke’s press release and his approval of 18 December explicitly recognise the threat that this mine will pose to Tasmanian devils: the developers are required to donate $350,000 to the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Appeal to compensate for the mine’s unavoidable impact.

Within the limited area of the mine site itself, there will certainly be impacts on wildlife, including devils. More seriously, the ore will need to be trucked out by road for about 150km. Almost all of this distance will be through habitat of undiseased Tasmanian devils.

As scavengers, devils are particularly susceptible to being killed on roads, as they feed on the carcasses of other animals, such as possums or wallabies, which have previously been run over. As anyone who has driven in Tasmania will know, roadkill of Tasmanian Devils is not new. The problem is that its impact on the viability of the species as a whole is much greater now than it has been in the past, given that roadkill is additional to mortality imposed by facial tumour disease. This and other proposed mines will substantially increase total vehicular traffic in the remote north west of Tasmania.

The approval contains several conditions intended to mitigate this threat of roadkill to devils. These include an obligation to report all incidents of roadkill, a requirement that most travel to and from the mine site must occur during daylight hours and reduced speed limits of 50 km/h or less close to the mine site. But most of the distance mine trucks will travel through devil habitat on their way to port will be outside the reduced-speed-limit area.

A penalty of $48,000 will be applied to each Tasmanian devil in excess of two per year killed on the road by mine vehicles. This sounds a strong disincentive in principle, but I wonder what will happen in practice. There will be an even stronger incentive for vehicle operators to simply throw a carcass off the road into the bush rather than admit to killing a devil and incurring this substantial financial penalty.

More generally, this example highlights a problem with Australian environmental regulation. Up to 10 mine developments are currently proposed for the Tarkine area. The impact of each one individually might perhaps be acceptable in terms of increased risk of impacts on Tasmanian devil populations. But the impact of all 10 in aggregate will certainly be much less acceptable.

If mines are evaluated individually, we risk a scenario of “death by 1000 cuts”. The appropriate way to evaluate the risk would be to take all of the proposed developments together and assess whether the joint effect of all can be handled without unacceptable risk to biodiversity conservation.

The fact that this mine development has been approved individually does not give me confidence this approach will be taken. >>

.

Thylacene TrophyDifferent animal, same attitude

.

[Source:  ‘Tarkine mines could be last straw for Tasmanian devils’, 20130115, by Hamish McCallum, Head, Griffith School of Environment at Griffith University, ^http://theconversation.com/tarkine-mines-could-be-last-straw-for-tasmanian-devils-11483]

.

Feb 2013:  Tony Burke refuses Tarkine heritage listing

.

In December 2009, with wide recognition of its National Heritage values, The Tarkine was granted Emergency National Heritage listing by former Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett, however this lapsed in December 2010 .

Despite the Australian Heritage Council (AHC) already recommending a 433,000 hectare National Heritage Area, Minister Burke has instructed the AHC to reassess the Tarkine. The reassessment deadline was extended to December 2013.

 

<<..Despite a 2010 Australian Heritage Commission recommendation for the listing of 433,000 hectares of the Tarkine, Mr Burke said on Friday he would only recognise its Aboriginal heritage.

Mr Burke said he had tried to find a boundary that would incorporate the natural values without delivering unacceptable social and economic outcomes.

”I simply haven’t been able to find a way to recognise the natural heritage values with a boundary that will find a balance,” he said.  ”For this reason I have decided to only put the indigenous values on the national heritage list.”

Mr Burke said he acknowledged that his decision was not the outcome for the Tarkine that many groups were seeking.  He said part of the Tarkine’s coastline would be entered on the National Heritage List as the Western Tasmania Aboriginal Cultural Landscape.

The decision was warmly backed by the local MHR and parliamentary secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Sid Sidebottom.  ”Minister Burke has listened carefully to my representations on behalf of our region, and to the delegations of union members – particularly from the Australian Workers Unions – and of my local mayors,” Mr Sidebottom said.
The AWU under secretary Paul Howes mounted an ”Our Tarkine – Our Future”  campaign promoting job opportunities in the region.

The move drew praise from a local MP, but sparked an angry response from Greens leader Christine Milne, who said the Minister had ”abandoned the Tarkine to the mining and timber industries”.  Ms Milne said she was ”devastated”: ”If anyone has any doubt as to who is running the environment portfolio in Australia the answer is very clear: the mining industry.
”I have been campaigning for the Tarkine for a very long time . . . Tony Burke has completely sold out the environment for logging and mining.”

She called on Mr Burke to release the heritage council’s latest recommendations, made in a report to the government last December.  >>

.

[Source:  ‘No’ to Tarkine environment listing’,  20130208, by Andrew Darby (Hobart correspondent for Fairfax Media) with Jonathan Swan, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/no-to-tarkine-environment-listing-20130208-2e2bo.html]

.

Apr 2013:  Conservationists find a qualified doctor to save the wounded Tarkine

.

<< Mining in Tasmania’s Tarkine region is being challenged as conservationists take their battle to the federal court.

The Tarkine National Coalition has lodged a case in the Federal Court seeking a review on Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke’s decision approving Shree Minerals iron ore mine.

Campaign co-ordinator Scott Jordan said Burke approved the mine without knowing the impacts it could have on the endangered Tasmanian devil.

“We will argue that Minister Burke has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and as such the approvals granted are invalid,” Jordan said.  “This mine should not have received approval, and we are asking the court to rule against it. “

Debate erupted over the application for mining developments in the region last year, with Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke rejecting a National Heritage listing for the area.

Debate continues to rages between environmental groups who want mining developments halted and companies and potential employees who say opening up the Tarkine region to mining is crucial in the future economic prosperity of Tasmania.

Earlier this year, Tasmania’s Premier Lara Giddings said three new mining projects were expected in the region following Burke’s rejection of the National Heritage listing.

Giddings said she expected Venture Minerals’ proposal for a $200 million tin mine at Mount Lindsay to be approved, creating 1000 jobs.

She said that developments like Venture’s Riley Creek mine and the approved Shree Metals mine at Nelson Bay were signs that mining investment would grow in Tasmania now that the “dark cloud” of the Tarkine national heritage nomination had been removed.

Environmentalists argue that open-cut mining will destroy the area and say that any decision to expand mining will result in irreversible contamination.  >>

.

[Source:  ‘Federal Court fight to stop Tarkine mine’, 20130404, by Vicky Validakis,  Mining Australia, ^http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/federal-court-fight-to-stop-tarkine-mine]

.

Desperate times again drive Tasmanians to burn their house to stay warm

.

<< The Deputy Premier has defended the Labor-Greens Government at a pro-development and pro mining rally in north-west Tasmania.

The Unlock Tasmania Rally in Smithton yesterday heard from eight industry speakers, including representatives from the mining industry, and the Farmers and Graziers Association.

Organiser Joan Rylah estimates more than 3,000 people attended.  Ms Rylah says the State Government has been influenced by minority fringe groups, while the majority’s concerns have been ignored.  “These people are feeling that they have not been heard,” she said.

The Deputy Premier Bryan Green also addressed the crowd.  He says times are tough, but the minority government is not to blame.

[Ed:  Yes it is]

“It is an easy target,” he said. Mr Green says he shares the crowd’s frustrations at the court injunction launched by conservationists, banning work at the Shree Minerals mine at Nelson Bay River in the Tarkine until a legal hearing next week. >>

.

[Source:  ‘North-west rally backs development’, 20130624,  ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/pro-miners-rally-for-development/4774734?section=tas]

.

Jul 2013:  Court overrules Burke’s Bias

.

Federal Court of AustraliaFederal Court of Australia
~ such an apt emblem

.

<< A conservation group (Save the Tarkine) has stopped an open cut iron ore mine in Tasmania’s Tarkine region which it says threatened the Tasmanian devil.  The Federal Court has ruled that the Federal Environment Minister’s approval of Shree Minerals’ open cut mine at Nelson Bay River was invalid.

Then minister Tony Burke approved the mine last December, imposing nearly 30 conditions to protect the devil and other threatened species.

The far north-west is considered one of the last disease-free areas for the state’s devil population.

Environmental group Save the Tarkine sought a judicial review of the decision, arguing Mr Burke did not act in accordance with the Environment Protection Act.

Save the Tarkine

The group’s Scott Jordan was in the Federal Court in Melbourne to hear the judgement.

“It’s a great day for the Tarkine and it’s a great day for the Tasmanian Devil that was placed under threat by this mining proposal,” he said.  “The Minister’s been given a clear message; that short cuts to get mines over the line in the Tarkine won’t be tolerated.”

Save the Tarkine has flagged it will continue to fight any other proposed mines in the area.

“They shouldn’t be taking short cuts to get mining projects up like the Tarkine. This is an area that shouldn’t be mined,” Mr Jordan said.

The $20 million project was expected to employ 70 workers and was the first mine approved in Tasmania in 26 years.

A spokesman for the new Federal Environment Minister, Mark Butler, says the decision is being examined.  “The Minister will carefully consider the court’s decision before proceeding further,” he said.

.

Ruling disappoints Tasmanian Premier and local Circular Head Mayor

.

Tasmania’s Premier Lara Giddings says it is disappointing.

“We would have hoped to have seen Shree Minerals go ahead,” she said.”  “We see it as economically sustainable, environmental sustainable and important investment that will help create jobs in the mining industry.  “We will now of course review the Federal Court decision and see what Government can do to assist that company.”

Circular Head mayor Daryl Quilliam has called it a sad day for the whole state.  “While I respect the court’s decision…I just think it gives any investors who want to invest in Tasmania, probably puts a query for them and whether they’re going to continue to invest in Tasmania,” the mayor said.

Circular Head mayor Daryl QuilliamCircular Head mayor Daryl Quilliam
Same Baby Boomer age group, same Baby Boomer mindset

.

Despite the ruling, he is optimistic Shree will proceed with its plans.  “I expect that they’ll have to deal with some issues that have been raised by the court and I wouldn’t expect that it’ll knock it in the head completely.”  “But it will certainly slow up the process and I just hope that they continue on and do whatever is necessary to make it valid.”

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz says most sensible Tasmanians would want the mine to go ahead.

“It is important for our state to harness our mineral wealth and our forestry wealth and the Government has been busy in destroying job opportunities in both areas and in the one area where they’ve made an exception, they’ve mucked it up,” he said.

Eric Abetz Tasmanian Eric Abetz MP
Same Baby Boomer age group, same Baby Boomer mindset

.

The Commonwealth will pay the legal bill from the court challenge. >>

.

Read Federal Court Ruling: 

.

Case Citation:   ‘Tarkine National Coalition Incorporated v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [2013] FCA 694’

^http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca0694

.

[Source:  ‘Federal Court ruling halts Shree Mineral’s $20m Tarkine mine’, 20130717, by Zoe Edwards, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/court-decides-tarkine-mine27s-fate/4825230]

.

The industrial fight persists to exploit the last of Natural Tasmania

.

<< The Federal Court’s decision to halt work on an iron ore mine in Tasmania’s remote Tarkine region has spooked the industry, but the State Government has vowed to help fight it.

In December, the then Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke approved $20 million plans by Shree Minerals to build an open cut mine in the north west, the last disease-free stronghold of the Tasmanian devil.

Justice Shane Marshall has upheld a claim by the lobby group Save the Tarkine that Mr Burke did not properly take into account conservation advice about the endangered species and ruled its approval invalid.

Terry Long of the Minerals Council says it could scare off potential investors.  “It’s been challenged on a detail in the court and knocked over. So from Tasmania’s point of view it’s a worry into the future, I mean it’s going to be difficult to get people to take on projects in the state under the circumstances.”

But Tasmania’s Resources Minister, Bryan Green, is viewing the ruling as a setback that can be resolved easily.  Mr Green says he will be asking the new Environment Minister, Mark Butler, to quickly reconsider the project, taking into account the conservation report on the Tasmanian Devil.  “This is a setback but it’s not the end of the process by any stretch of the imagination.

“Because from what I can see, based on the Federal Court’s decision, other than this administrative error the approvals process is sound,” said Mr Green.

The Premier Lara Giddings believes the mining proposal is economically and environmentally sustainable.  “We will now of course now review the Federal Court decision and see what Government can do to assist that company to be able rectify any problems that the Federal Court has identified and ensure we can get that investment back on the right track,” said Ms Giddings.

The Greens leader Nick McKim does not think the Federal Court decision paints Tasmania as a risky place to invest.  “The decision says nothing about the investment environment in Tasmania and says everything about the need for the Commonwealth Minister to follow a lawful process,” he said.

.

Jobs blow for struggling region

.

The mine was expected to employ seventy workers.  The earthmoving contractor, Rodney Collins, says he employs 10 people and was looking to recruit more.  He says the court’s decision is a kick in the guts.  “You know there’s (sic) thirty new people who can’t have a job and at the moment after today we don’t know what we’re going to do with the people working for us at the moment,” he said.

Another three Tarkine mining projects are awaiting approval.   Shree Minerals says it “followed the approval process to the letter of the law and beyond, with the best possible scientific advice.  “For the project to be set aside on appeal is disappointing in the extreme.”

The (new) Environment Minister replacing Tony Burke, Mark Butler MP, now with the title Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water; says he is carefully considering the court’s ruling before deciding his next step.  >>

.

[Source:  ‘fight-to-restore-tarkine-mine-approval, 20130717, ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/fight-to-restore-tarkine-mine-approval/4826860]

.

Tasmanian Minerals Council can’t help itself’

.

<< Calls by Tasmanian Minerals Council chief Terry Long, Tasmanian Deputy Premier Bryan Green and Braddon MP Sid Sidebottom for some kind of technical or administrative fix to yesterdays Federal Court decision to set aside approvals for the Nelson Bay River mine in the Tarkine, are both uninformed and an example of the kind of corrupted process that resulted in the Federal Court decision.

“The failure of the Minister and his department to consult the Approved Conservation Advice was not an administrative oversight.  The Approved Conservation Advice is the key source of advice on which the Minister must rely to determine how best to protect the Tasmanian devil in any assessment,” said Save the Tarkine Campaign Coordinator, Scott Jordan.

“You can’t just add it to the appendix after the event and publish the same decision. The court didn’’t say the Minister forgot to list it, it actually said the Minister failed to consult it at all,”

“The comments by Long, Green and Sidebottom show an example of trying to solve a problem by repeating the action that created it”.

“The Minister must either let the court decision stand as the final judgement, appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court, or go back to the start of the process and conduct a proper legal assessment.    Anything short of this will end up back before a court on exactly the same grounds”. >>

[Source:  ‘No quick fix for Tarkine mine’, 20130718, media release by Scott Jordan, Campaign Coordinator, Save the Tarkine]

.

Tasmanian Devil in log

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]    >Environmental-Assessment-Report-Shree-Nelson-Bay-River-Magnetite-Mine-EPA-2012.pdf  (4.8MB, 50 pages, PDF)

.

[2]   >Tasmania’s Tarkine vulnerable to reckless mining

.

[3]   >Save the Tarkine from Venture Minerals

.

[4]   >Miners eyeing off The Tarkine, just don’t get it!

.

[5]  >Shree Minerals invasion into the fragile Tarkine

.

[6]  >Tasmania’s white raptor endangered in Tarkine

.

[7]  >Tasmania’s Tarkine Wilderness ENDANGERED!

.

[8]  >Tarkine’s above ground values are for eternity

.

[9]  >Tasmania’s Tarkine threatened by tin mining

.

Threatened Species at the whim of governments

Monday, May 20th, 2013
Orange-Bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster)
Critically endangered and breeds only in Tasmania, Australia
[Source:  Photo by John Harrison, in article ‘Threat of extinction demands fast and decisive action’, 20120724, by Tara Martin, published in The Conversation,
^http://theconversation.com/threat-of-extinction-demands-fast-and-decisive-action-7985]

.

Government Ecological Hypocrisy

.

While Australia’s governments at federal and state level continue to allow and encourage logging, burning and mining of Australia’s native forest ecosystems, many conservationists are well aware of that the loss of these forests habitats, and other human harmful actions are driving the extinction of Australia’s flora and fauna.

Threatened species can only be saved from extinction if first their habitat is properly protected from harm.  Many species such as the Orange-Bellied Parrot which has now become critically endangered require more than just habitat protection, but active recovery intervention to save it from extinction.  Yet this parrot species’ native habitats restricted to southern coastal Victoria and Tasmania are actively being destroyed as if government were sadistically and callously encouraging its extinction.

In governments we trust.  Yet infamously in July 2009, the man who used to belt out “And the company takes what the company wants/And nothing’s as precious as a hole in the ground”, Midnight Oil’s Peter Garrett, as then entrusted Environment Minister, approved the Beverley Four Mile Uranium Mine in South Australia.

[Source:  ‘Why Peter Garrett lost his way’, August, 2009, by David Glanz ^http://www.solidarity.net.au/best/why-peter-garrett-lost-his-way/]

.

Beverley Four Mile Uranium Mine
550km north east of Adelaide

.

At the most senior level, the Australian Government minister who is ultimately responsible and accountable to protect Australia’s natural ecology and to prevent flora and fauna extinctions, has his environment task diluted.  Tony Burke MP is currently the Minister for (1) Sustainability (2) Environment (3) Water (4) Population (5) Communities (6) the Arts, which reflects the low value that the Australian Government places on protecting Australia’s Ecology.

Australia’s recent Environment Ministers, respectively Peter Garrett and Tony Burke
Both Babyboomer Middle-Aged Men
Invariably in business, in politics, Babyboomer Middle-Aged Men
are the demographic drivers of ecological destruction across the planet.

.

Tony Burke has recently approved open coal mining that will destroy the Leard State Forest in New South Wales, remnant home of the increasingly rare Koala [^Read More].

Tony Burke has approved mining in Tasmania’s Tarkine (the last continuous wilderness region of Gondwana Rainforest home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species including the Giant Freshwater Lobster, the Wedge Tailed Eagle, the  Tasmanian Devil and the Orange-bellied Parrot  [^Read More].

Tony Burke has recently approved logging to continue in recognised high conservation value native forests in Tasmania, previously agreed to be protected in an Intergovernmental Agreement between the federal and Tasmanian governments in Launceston on 7th August 2011  [^Read More].

Tony Burke has recently approved port development and shipping movements through the Great Barrier Reef for Rio Tintos’ bauxite mine in western Cape York, as well as a huge new coal export terminal at Abbot Point and at dredging of Gladstone Harbour despite the ongoing damage vital marine habitat supporting endangered species including turtles, dugongs and dolphins. [^Read More]

.

“For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.”

~ Noam Chomsky, Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World 

.

The 100 tonne coal ship the ‘Shen Neng 1’ which went aground on 5th April 2010, while negotiating the Great Barrier Reef
The ship destroyed 3km of the coral Douglas Shoal which it “completely flattened” and “pulverised” marine life. The marine park authority’s chief scientist, Dr David Wachenfeld, expressed concerned also about the toxic heavy metal anti-fouling paint scraping off the hull.
[Source:  ‘Three kilometres of Great Barrier Reef damage, 20 years to mend’, 20100414, by Tom Arup, The Age newspaper,
^http://www.theage.com.au/environment/three-kilometres-of-great-barrier-reef-damage-20-years-to-mend-20100413-s7p8.html]

.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee

– a toothless agency abused for ecopolitical spin

.

Then, at a lower level of government, a committee has been established since 2000 to advise Australia’s Environment Minister on issues associated with Australia’s increasing list of threatened species.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) is legally established for under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which superseded the 1992 Endangered Species Protection Act.    The committee’s function is to advise the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (currentky Tony Burke MP) on:

  • Amendments and updating of threatened species and threatened ecological communities lists
  • Key Threatening Processes
  • Preparing Species Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans
  • Scientific input into the Species Profile and Threats Database (^SPRAT)
  • Advice on the presence of hybrids in listed ecological communities
  • Hold periodic workshops dealing with issues concerning Australia’s threatened species and threatened ecosystems

.

Every year the committee publishes an annual report, except it has been six years since the Australian Government published one on its website.  Here is the latest report from 2006-07.  [>Read 2006-07 Report.pdf , 40kb) ]

.

[Source: ‘Threatened Species Scientific Committee’, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/committee.html]

.

Australia’s Threatened Fauna

.

As at the date of this article, the Australian Government lists the following statistics as our native fauna currently threatened with extinction to varying degrees, or now extinct.

Beware that government websites can change with whim and so the existence of the link below may disappear at any time.

.

Extinct:     

  • frogs (4)
  • birds (23)
  • mammals (27)
  • other animals (1)

.

Extinct in the wild:   

  • fishes (1)

.

Critically Endangered:   

  • fishes (6)
  • frogs (5)
  • reptiles (4)
  • birds (7)
  • mammals (4)
  • other animals (21)

.

Endangered:   

  • fishes (16)
  • frogs (14)
  • reptiles (16)
  • birds (44)
  • mammals (35)
  • other animals (17)

.

Vulnerable:

  • fishes (24)
  • frogs (10)
  • reptiles (36)
  • birds (60)
  • mammals (55)
  • other animals (11)

.

Conservation dependent:   

  •  fishes (4)

.

Total Threatened Fauna Species:    (445)

.

[Source:  Australia’s Threatened Flora, 2013, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl]

.

Australia’s Critically Endangered Mammals

.
The above list is out of date, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) records are also out of date, because of the lack of diligent timely monitoring efforts by the Australian Government, and tardiness by the Australian Government in updating pertinent threatened species information back to the IUCN.  Basically the Australian Government simply doesn’t care enough about Australian Ecology and dependent species about to become extinct.

It is a dire situation disgracefully detestable and sad.

According to an article in The Conversation back in December 2012, in respect to Australian mammal fauna, there are not four species deemed to be critically endangered to extinction, but now twelve, as listed below.  Some of these may well be extinct such as the Christmas Island Pipistrelle..

The plight and demise of these species is not new.  The Australian Government and its committees, reviews, reports and laws have confirmed this for many years.  More committees, reviews, reports and laws equates to unforgiveable avoidance of moral and legal responsibility by the incumbent Environment Minister, this man:

.

Tony Burke – the only grey haired Babyboomer in this photo
His demographic is responsible for the worst destruction of ecology across the Planet,
because the Nature-compromising values of males in this generation were formed when Nature was still considered plenty and its exploitation a God-given gospel. 
Tony Burke’s values are wrong, inappropriate and his powerful decisions irreversible.

.

  1. Woylie   (Bettongia penicillata)  also known as the Brush-tailed Bettong, or Brush-tailed Rat Kangaroo; a small marsupial found from south-west Western Australia across southern Australia.
  2. Mountain Pygmy Possum  (Burramys parvus)  – this tiny possum occurs as three isolated, genetically distinct populations in the alps of Victoria and NSW.
  3. Christmas Island Shrew  (Crocidura trichura) – endemic to Christmas Island and hasn’t been seen since 1985. It is possibly extinct.
  4. Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat   (Lasiorhinus krefftii)   – approximately 200 of these wombats remain; they are limited to Epping Forest National Park (Scientific), and a reintroduced population at the Richard Underwood Nature Refuge, in Queensland.
  5. Lesser Stick-nest Rat   (Leporillus apicalis) – this central-Australian rodent is probably extinct, with no reliable sightings since 1970.
  6. Bramble Cay  (Melomys Melomys rubicola)  – limited to a small cay in the Torres Strait, this rodent has one of the most restricted distributions of any mammal species.
  7. Lord Howe Long-eared Bat   (Nyctophilus howensis)  – known only from a single skull found in 1972, but Lord Howe Islanders continue to report bat sightings.
  8. Christmas Island Pipistrelle   (Pipistrellus murrayi)  – while listed as critically endangered, it’s generally accepted this little bat is now extinct.
  9. Gilbert’s Potoroo   (Potorous gilbertii)   – only 40 or so of these rabbit-sized marsupials live in south-west Western Australia, but the population seems stable.
  10. Kangaroo Island Dunnart   (Sminthopsis aitkeni)  – this little hand-sized marsupial is restricted to a very small area of Kangaroo Island.
  11. Carpentarian Rock Rat    (Zyzomys palatalis)   – a rodent found in sandstone gorges in the Northern Territory, there are thought to be less than 2000 remaining.
  12. Central Rock Rat   (Zyzomys pedunculatus)   – this rodent is found only in the western MacDonnell Ranges in the Northern Territory.

.

[Source:  ‘Australia’s critically endangered animal species’, 20121206, by Jane Rawson, The Conversation, ^http://theconversation.com/australias-critically-endangered-animal-species-11169]

.

On the brink of extinction: the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby
[Source:  Photo by Kate Geraghty, Dead and dying: our great mammal crisis’, 20121117, by Tim Flannery, The Age newspaper,
^http://www.theage.com.au/national/dead-and-dying-our-great-mammal-crisis-20121116-29hi9.html]

.

Leadership, Accountability, Timely Action

.

According to Tara Martin, Research Scientist at Ecosystem Sciences at the CSIRO:

<<When it comes to mammal extinctions, Australia’s track record over the last 200 years has been abysmal.  Since European settlement, nearly half of the world’s mammalian extinctions have occurred in Australia – 19 at last count. So, when faced with the additional threat of climate change, how do we turn this around and ensure the trend doesn’t continue?

Learning from previous extinctions is a good place to start. A comparison between two Australian species, the recently extinct Christmas Island pipistrelle and the critically endangered but surviving orange-bellied parrot, provides some insight into the answer to this question. Namely, that acting quickly and decisively in response to evidence of rapid population decline is a key factor in determining the fate of endangered species.

.

‘Government Delay condemn a species to extinction’

 

A Case of Government Delay:

.

Species Extinction on Peter Garrett’s Watch
<< The Australian Government will invest $1.5 million to begin the rescue of Christmas Island’s ecosystem, including a mission to capture the last remaining Pipistrelle bats for captive breeding.  “Volunteers and help from the Australasian Bat Society will be invaluable in this capture effort.” “My top priority now is to prevent any further extinctions and to restore the island’s environmental health,” Mr Garrett said.>>
A year later the critically endangered Christmas Island Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi) was declared extinct.
[Source:  ‘Christmas Island Pipistrelle Rescue’, 20090703, by Bat Conservation & Rescue Qld Inc., ^http://www.bats.org.au/?p=710]

.

<<Endemic to Christmas Island, the pipistrelle was a tiny (3.5 gram) insect-eating bat.  It was first described in 1900, when numbers were widespread and abundant. In the early 1990s this began to change. The decline was rapid and the exact cause uncertain.

By 2006, experts were calling for a captive breeding program to be initiated. These pleas were ignored until 2009 when it was finally given the green light. Sadly the decision came too late, and two months (the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett MP)  announced that the rescue attempt had failed.>>

.

A Case of Government Action  (so far):

.

<<Concern about the orange-bellied parrot began in 1917, but it wasn’t until 1981 that it was confirmed to be on the brink of extinction. In an attempt to save the parrot, a multi-agency, multi-government recovery team was set up and a captive breeding program began in 1983.

Like the bat, threats to the parrot remain poorly understood. In 2010, monitoring showed that the species would become extinct in the wild within three to five years unless drastic action was taken. The recovery team immediately took action to bolster the captive population as insurance against extinction. There are currently 178 birds in captivity and less than 20 in the wild.

.

<<…How we manage endangered species ultimately comes back to the decisions made, including who makes the decisions, who is held accountable, and the timing of these decisions.

Examining these cases in the context of decision-making reveals some clear differences and highlights some important recommendations for the future management of endangered species.

One of the key differences was in the governance and leadership surrounding the two cases. Experts involved in monitoring the pipistrelle provided recommendations to government bodies, but did not have the authority to make decisions nor was there an effective leader to champion the urgent need to act.  Conversely, the Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team had the authority to make decisions and act on them. Indeed, thanks to the Recovery Team’s broad representation, any failure to act would likely have resulted in public outcry – which raises the issue of accountability.

Management of endangered species requires tough decisions, yet they are decisions we must make. If we monitor declining populations without a process for deciding between different management options, we will only document extinctions. In some cases, the logical decision may be to employ a triage system where priority is given to species with a high likelihood of recovery. Assigning institutional accountability around the management of endangered species could help to ensure that tough decisions are made and that the processes involved are transparent.

Finally, the cases of the bat and the parrot also highlight the need to act quickly when a species is found to be on the brink of extinction. Delaying decisions only narrows our choices and removes opportunities to act. We may not always have all the answers, but this cannot be used as a reason to delay decision making. Based on a triage system a decision to not to act might be the best way forward, but if we delay the decision it becomes the only way forward.

..scientific analysis can be used to determine how much information we need to inform a good conservation decision. In the case of the Christmas Island pipistrelle, the decision to start a captive breeding program came many years too late.

By evaluating the costs, benefits, and feasibility of taking different management actions in the light of what we know about a species’ decline (or don’t know – i.e. the degree of uncertainty), it is possible to get the timing right.

Research into the methods used to stem species decline is also underway. For example, captive breeding and reintroduction programs are generally regarded as having good success rates. Further investigation into genetic management, habitat restoration, and effective techniques for reintroduction and risk management will help ensure the success of these programs for a variety of species.

Stemming the global loss of biodiversity through Species Recovery Planning will require brave decision-making in the face of uncertainty. Monitoring must be linked to decisions, institutions must be accountable for these decisions and decisions to act must be made before critical opportunities, and species, are lost forever.>>

.

[Source:  ‘Threat of extinction demands fast and decisive action’, 20120724, by Tara Martin, Research Scientist, Ecosystem Sciences at CSIRO, (based on a paper by Tara Martin and with input from co-authors Mark Holdsworth, Stephen Harris, Fiona Henderson, Mark Lonsdale, in The Conversation, ^http://theconversation.com/threat-of-extinction-demands-fast-and-decisive-action-7985]

.

.

Principles to Properly Protect Threatened Species

.

The Australian Government is accountable for the conservation of Australia’s natutral environment and dependent species, particularly those at risk of extinction.  It is charged with the democratic authority to do so and the Australian people entrust it to act responsibly.  The Australian Government since 1999 had in place a national law protecting threatened species under its Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and since 2000 had an expert  Threatened Species Scientific Committee advising it on priorities for threatened species and key threatening processes and recommended conservation actions.

But having a framework for conservation action is two steps short of the conservation action itself.  Without proper funding and timely onground action, government environmental conservation is but hypocritcal lip service.

.

Gilbert’s Potoroo – only 40 left

.

2008 Review of Threatened Species Protection

.

Section 522A of the EPBC Act requires it to be reviewed every 10 years from its commencement.  So on 31 October 2008, Peter Garrett MP as the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, commissioned an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation.

The Terms of Reference were:

  • the operation of the EPBC Act generally
  • the extent to which the objects of the EPBC Act have been achieved
  • the appropriateness of current matters of National Environmental Significance
  • the effectiveness of the biodiversity and wildlife conservation arrangements
  • Seek input from state and territory governments, members of the community and industry

.

The review to be guided by key Australian Government policy objectives:

  • To promote the sustainability of Australia’s economic development to enhance individual and community well-being while protecting biological diversity and maintaining essential ecological processes and systems
  • To work in partnership with the states and territories within an effective federal arrangement
  • To facilitate delivery of Australia’s international obligations
  • The Australian Government’s deregulation agenda to reduce and simplify the regulatory burden on people, businesses and organisations, while maintaining appropriate and efficient environmental standards
  • To ensure activities under the Act represent the most appropriate, efficient and effective ways of achieving the Government’s outcomes and objectives in accordance with the Expenditure Review Principles.

.

The review was undertaken by Dr Allan Hawke (government representative) supported by a panel of experts-  a retired NSW judge Paul Stein AM,  Professor Mark Burgman (Environmental Science), Professor Tim Bonyhady (Environmental Law), Rosemary Warnock (ethical standards and the environment).

Community participation in the review was encouraged and 220 written submissions were received and 140 face-to-face consultation meetings were held in capital cities around Australia.   An Interim Report on the review was released and a further 119 written comments were received.   The Final Report was delivered to the Minister on 30 October 2009 and publicly released on 21 December 2009.

On 24 August 2011, the Minister released the Australian Government response to the independent review, three years after the review process began and about a year after the ten year review deadline.

The response centred around four key themes:

  1. Abandonning targeted actions to save critically endangered threatened species, and instead to vague “strategic approaches” and more plans
  2. Simplification of the assessment and approval processes for threatened species – vague, cheaper and less research work
  3. Big picture ecosystem approach
  4. Compromise of national standards to “harmonise” conservation approaches with the States having different priorities

.

Irrespective of the 220 written submissions and 140 face-to-face consultation meetings, out of the 71 recommendations in the Final Report, the Australian Government agreed either in part, in principle, in substance, but has since done precious little to protect Australia’s threatened species.

The review process was stipluated in the EPBC Act, but all it achieved was an opportunity for the Australian Government to undermine the 1999 standards, water down national environmental protection legislation, simplify the government’s administration and save money.  Effectively the EPBC Review was a bureacratic talk fest and an expensive waste of time and taxpayer money that would have been better spent on implementing known critically endengerd species and their habitats.

The survival of Australia’s threatened species remain at the whim of federal and state governments.

What did the entire review process cost including the consultants?  The amount is secret.  Was it $10 million, more?  The estimated cost of a Species Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plan to save the critically endangered Orange-bellied Parrot is how much?

Meanwhile, as few as 250 Orange-bellied Parrots remain in existence, making the species one of the most endangered species on the planet.

Meanwhile, community volunteers with The Friends of the Orange-Bellied Parrot and Wildcare Inc. in Tasmania continue to monitor the Orange-bellied Parrots during their breeding season in far southwest Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area.  Members live for periods of 10 days at Birch Inlet and Melaleuca in Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area, making observations of the daily lives of the OBPs, including birds that have been bred in captivity and released at the beginning of the season as part of the Species Recovery Plan for the Orange-Bellied Parrot.

They don’t get money from the Australian Government and so have set up the Save the Orange-bellied parrot Fund.   Wildcare Inc volunteers receive a small reimbursement allowance from the Tasmanian Government’s watered down Department of (1) Primary Industries, (2) Parks, (3) Water and oh yeah (4) Environment to assist with their costs.

.

[Source:  Wildcare Incorporated, Tasmania, ^http://www.wildcaretas.org.au/]

.

 

>Interim Report section on Governance and Decision Making  (PDF, 900kb)

.

>Interim Report section on Enforcement, Compliance, Monitoring and Audit   (PDF, 600kb )

.

>Final Report   (PDF, 5.3MB)

.

>Australian Government’s Response   (PDF, 1MB)

.

[Source:  Australian Government, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/review/]

.

2012 Review of Threatened Species Protection

.

After the entire the EPBC Act Review process and a year after the Australian Government’s response to it, on 31 October 2012 the Australian Senate this time set up yet another review into the Effectiveness of Threatened Species and Ecological Communities’ Protection in Australia.  It commissioned a Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications for enquiry and report.

This second review process came in light of the rubber stamp realisation by The Greens Senator Larissa Waters of how the Australian Government had poorly treated the EPBC Review and in light of the Auditor General report that Victoria’s environment and primary industry departments are failing to act as proper watchdogs  [^Read More].  Further to that we’ve seen Professor Tim Flannery publish his opinion piece (from the Monthly’s Quarterly Essay) on the extinction crisis pointing some of the blame at the Commonwealth’s inaction  [^Read More].

Public submissions were to be received by 14th December 2012 and the reporting date scheduled to be 7th February 2013, but rather late again on 14th May 2013, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 20 June 2013 (one month’s time from the date of this article).

The Terms of Reference are:

(a)    Management of key threats to listed species and ecological communities

(b)    Development and implementation of Species Recovery Plans    

[Ed:  About time, and what about commensurate Threat Abatement Plans?  One is ineffective without the other.]

(c)     Management of critical habitat across all land tenures

(d)    Regulatory and funding arrangements at all levels of government

(e)     Timeliness and risk management within the listings processes

(f)     The historical record of state and territory governments on these matters

(g)     Any other related matter.

.

[Sources:   ‘The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia’, Terms of Reference, Australian Senate,^http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/threatened_species/tor.htm; ‘Threatened species in the senate spotlight’, 20121121, Councillor Samantha Dunn, Shire of Yarra Ranges, Victoria, Australia (website), ^http://crdunn.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/threatened-species-in-senate-spotlight.html]

.

Public submissions received by the Senate Committee

.

1    Mr Gabriel Lafitte (PDF 39KB)
2    Dr Todd Soderquist and Dr Deborah Ashworth (PDF 41KB) Attachment 1(PDF 395KB)
3    Mr Marcus Coghlan (PDF 91KB)
4    Australasian Native Orchid Society and the Australian Orchid Council (PDF 309KB)
5    Ms Fay Jones (PDF 4KB)
6    Monaro Acclimatisation Society Inc (PDF 267KB)
7    Mr James Samargis (PDF 56KB)
8    Mr Stephen Chara (PDF 432KB), Supplementary Submission(PDF 1213KB)
9    Mr Sab Lord, Lords Kakadu and Arnhemland Safaris (PDF 9KB)
10    Ms Kylie Jones (PDF 43KB)
11    East Gippsland Wildfire Taskforce Inc (PDF 1483KB)
12    Regent Honeyeater Project (PDF 9KB) Attachment 1(PDF 2946KB)
13    Mr Rob Brewster (PDF 2063KB)
14    Mr Tom Kingston (PDF 16KB)
15    Professor David Lindenmayer (PDF 44KB)
16    Mr Frank Manthey OAM, Save the Bilby Fund (PDF 189KB), Supplementary Submission(PDF 1154KB)
17    Friends of Tootgarook Wetland Reserves (PDF 390KB)
18    Mr Jim Walker (PDF 193KB)
19    Ms Harriett Swift (PDF 34KB),  Supplementary Submission(PDF 11KB)
20    Island Conservation (PDF 1011KB)
21    Wildflower Society of Western Australia (Inc) (PDF 161KB)
22    Mr Daniel Bell (PDF 11KB)
23    Marie-Louise Sarjeant, Chris Sarjeant, Sonia Hutchinson, John Marsh, Maxine Jacobsen, Diana Kellett, Lesley Palma (PDF 945KB)
24    Save Tootgarook Swamp Inc (PDF 1777KB)
25    Ms Joan Spittle (PDF 83KB)
26    Mr John Jeayes (PDF 431KB)
27    Zoo and Aquarium Association (PDF 57KB)
28    Ray and Marion Lewis (PDF 239KB)
29    Mr Jean Dind (PDF 32KB)
30    Associate Professor Adrian Manning (PDF 97KB) Attachment 1(PDF 370KB), Supplementary Submission(PDF 167KB)
31    Port Campbell Community Group Inc (PDF 152KB)
32    Mr Philip Collier (PDF 790KB)
33    Mr Trevor Parton (PDF 58KB)
34    Mr Ian Wheatland, Mr Kai May, Dr Katherine Phillips and Mrs Nina Kriegisch (PDF 126KB)
35    Ms Susan M Broman (PDF 890KB)
36    Sister Marian McClelland sss (PDF 29KB)
37    Finch Society of Australia Inc (PDF 65KB)
38    Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition (PDF 250KB)
39    Ms Mary White rsm (PDF 273KB)
40    Ms Marie Hilarina Fernando (PDF 103KB)
41    Dr Emma Rooksby and Dr Keith Horton (PDF 63KB)
42    Zoos Victoria (PDF 240KB)
43    The Colong Foundation for Wilderness (PDF 376KB)
44    Mr Stewart Kerr (PDF 5KB)
45    Mr Peter Berbee (PDF 24KB)
46    Dr Andrew Burbidge (PDF 69KB)
47    Name Withheld (PDF 45KB)
48    Professor John Woinarski (PDF 157KB)
49    Ms Lee Curtis (PDF 100KB)
50    Mr Thomas Weiss (PDF 36KB)
51    Dr Peter Kyne (PDF 387KB)
52    Dr Greg P Clancy (PDF 218KB)
53    Mr Trent Patten (PDF 1536KB)
54    Ms Sabine Ritz-Kerr (PDF 47KB)
55    Dr Martine Maron (PDF 196KB)
56    Ms Claire Masters (PDF 39KB)
57    The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (PDF 2022KB)
58    Mr Jonathan Meddings (PDF 817KB)
59    Mr Nigel Sharp (PDF 329KB)
60    Assoc Prof Mark Lintermans (PDF 54KB)
61    Ms Pamela J W Miskin (PDF 66KB)
62    South East Forest Rescue (PDF 646KB)
63    Clarence Environment Centre (PDF 137KB)
64    Mr Craig Thomson (PDF 116KB)
65    Ms Peta Whitford (PDF 222KB)
66    Mr Daryl Dickson, Wildcard Art, Mungarru Lodge Sanctuary (PDF 269KB)
67    Ms Sera Blair (PDF 349KB)
68    Ms Kerryn Blackshaw (PDF 5KB)
69    Yarra Ranges Council (PDF 107KB)
70    Lawyers for Forests (PDF 1159KB)
71    Name Withheld (PDF 23KB)
72    Mr Greg Miles (PDF 157KB) Attachment 1(PDF 600KB) Attachment 2(PDF 4770KB)
73    Bendigo and District Environment Council, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club and Bendigo Sustainability Group (PDF 364KB) Attachment 1(PDF 173KB) Attachment 2(PDF 1923KB)
74    Dr Jasmyn Lynch (PDF 80KB)
75    Blue Mountains Conservation Society (PDF 202KB)
76    Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (PDF 246KB)
77    CSIRO (PDF 284KB)
78    Dr Chris McGrath (PDF 245KB)
79    Mr David Blair (PDF 195KB)
80    Name Withheld (PDF 183KB)
81    WWF-Australia (PDF 553KB) Attachment 1(PDF 378KB) Attachment 2(PDF 204KB)
82    BirdLife Australia (PDF 715KB) Attachment 1(PDF 1129KB)
83    Australian Deer Association (PDF 732KB)
84    LIV Young Lawyers’ Section, Law Institute of Victoria (PDF 1209KB) Attachment 1(PDF 4436KB) Attachment 2(PDF 1303KB), Supplementary Submission(PDF 335KB)
85    Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska  (PDF 245KB)
86    Friends of Grasslands (PDF 100KB)
87    Dr Kerryn Parry-Jones (PDF 239KB) Attachment 1(PDF 2143KB)
88    Humane Society International (PDF 550KB)
89    Mr Jeremy Tager (PDF 1441KB), Supplementary Submission(PDF 185KB)
90    Ms Karena Goldfinch (PDF 141KB)
91    Mr Ray Strong (PDF 95KB)
92    Healesville Environment Watch Inc, MyEnvironment Inc and Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc (PDF 2435KB)
93    Mr Ian Whitford (PDF 226KB)
94    Greenfleet (PDF 105KB)
95    Mr Barry Rowe, Candlebark Community Nursery Inc (PDF 178KB)
96    Conondale Range Committee (PDF 156KB)
97    Dr John Clulow (PDF 61KB)
98    Ms Melinda Taylor (PDF 73KB)
99    Mr David Hudson (PDF 78KB)
100    Ms Yasmin Kelsall (PDF 340KB)
101    S. Burgess and E. Bradley (PDF 61KB)
102    Ms Glenda Pickersgill (PDF 86KB)
103    Dr Tanzi Smith (PDF 249KB)
104    The Greater Mary Association Inc. (PDF 234KB)
105    Mr Philip Rance (PDF 651KB)
106    Caldera Environment Centre (PDF 416KB)
107    Mr Bruce Boyes (PDF 1505KB)
108    Australian Wildlife Health Network (PDF 418KB)
109    Friends of Hoddles Creek (PDF 1403KB)
110    Australasian Bat Society Inc (PDF 413KB)
111    Confidential
112    Confidential
113    Canberra Ornithologists Group (PDF 229KB)
114    Urban Bushland Council WA Inc (PDF 112KB)
115    MRCCC (PDF 559KB)
116    Threatened Ecosystems Network (PDF 1606KB)
117    Wildlife Disease Association Australasia (PDF 71KB)
118    Name Withheld (PDF 237KB)
119    Mr Andrew Heaver (PDF 126KB)
120    Name Withheld (PDF 76KB)
121    Ms Kate Leahy (PDF 35KB)
122    Dr Jonathan Rhodes (PDF 68KB)
123    Professor Lee Godden and Professor Jacqueline Peel (PDF 136KB) Attachment 1(PDF 123KB) Attachment 2(PDF 327KB)
124    Earth Learning Incorporated (PDF 352KB)
125    NSW Council of Freshwater Anglers (PDF 671KB)
126    Mr Mark Selmes (PDF 141KB)
127    Professor Hugh Possingham and Associate Professor Michael McCarthy (PDF 102KB)
128    Ms Susan Bendel (PDF 99KB)
129    The Wilderness Society Inc (PDF 68KB)
130    Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection Queensland (PDF 3463KB)
131    Ms Lorraine Leach (PDF 293KB)
132    Dr John Bardsley (PDF 1070KB)
133    Mr Wayne Gumley (PDF 144KB)
134    Nature Conservation Council of NSW (PDF 783KB)
135    Middle Kinglake Primary School (PDF 2301KB)
136    The Judith Eardley Save Wildlife Centre (PDF 1595KB)
137    Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s Offices Inc (PDF 214KB) Attachment 1(PDF 1129KB)
138    Ms Jenifer Johnson (PDF 1917KB)
139    Batwatch Australia (PDF 270KB)
140    Invasive Species Council (PDF 421KB)
141    Dr Rupert Baker (PDF 50KB)
142    National Parks Australia Council (PDF 331KB) Attachment 1(PDF 734KB) Attachment 2(PDF 3164KB)
143    Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities (PDF 1098KB)
144    Director of National Parks (PDF 249KB)
145    National Parks Association of NSW (PDF 196KB)
146    Mr Don Butcher (PDF 694KB)
147    Australian Conservation Foundation (PDF 725KB) Attachment 1(PDF 1129KB)
148    Australian Fisheries Management Authority (PDF 638KB)
149    Environment East Gippsland Inc. (PDF 2834KB)
150    Nature Conservation Society of South Australia (PDF 196KB)
151    Arid Lands Environment Centre (PDF 182KB)
152    Ms Prue Acton (PDF 394KB)
153    Ms Bronwyn Baade (PDF 55KB)
154    Threatened Species Scientific Committee (PDF 255KB)
155    VETO (VETO Energex Towers Organisation) (PDF 1695KB) Attachment 1(PDF 199KB)
156    Gecko – Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council and Save Bahrs Scrub Alliance (PDF 508KB) Attachment 1(PDF 569KB)
157    Threatened Plant Action Group (TPAG), Nature Conservation Society of South Australia (PDF 332KB)
158    FrogWatch (PDF 121KB)
159    Department of Land Resource Management, Northern Territory Government (PDF 8000KB)
160    Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Gold Coast and Hinterland Branch (PDF 202KB)
161    North Coast Environment Council (PDF 594KB) Attachment 1(PDF 3788KB) Attachment 2(PDF 1914KB)
162    Australian Wildlife Conservancy (PDF 400KB) Attachment 1(PDF 637KB) Attachment 2(PDF 433KB)
163    MyEnvironment Inc (PDF 6137KB)
164    South East Region Conservation Alliance Inc (PDF 3514KB)
165    Logan and Albert Conservation Association (PDF 306KB) Attachment 1(PDF 197KB) Attachment 2(PDF 147KB)
166    PGV Environmental (PDF 916KB)
167    National Farmers’ Federation (PDF 61KB)
168    Wide Bay Burnett Enviroment Council  (PDF 1311KB)
169    Premier of Western Australia (PDF 14211KB)
170    Confidential
171    Confidential
172    The Wilderness Society Victoria Inc (PDF 1182KB), Response from VicForests, dated 29 January 2013(PDF 78KB)
173    Brisbane Region Environment Council (PDF 965KB)
174    North East Forest Alliance (PDF 2272KB), Response from Forestry Corporation, NSW(PDF 2036KB)
175    Eagle Junction State School (PDF 12260KB)
176    Hunter Bird Observers Club (PDF 387KB)
177    Ms Margaret Peachey (PDF 63KB)

Southern Corroborree Frog  (Pseudophryne corroboree)
Endemic to yet critically endangered in the Australian Alps.
Its demise has been directly caused by habitat destruction from recreational 4WD use, development of ski resorts,
introduced feral animals and human degradation of the frogs’ habitat. 
As of June 2004 it was estimated to have a population of just 64.

.

Submission #82 by BirdLife Australia

.

Australia’s leading independent conservation advocate for native birds and their habitats, BirdLife Australia, has its own Threatened Species Committee.  In its submission to the review, BirdLife Australia called on Australia’s national environment law, the EPBC Act, to:

.

  1. Be accountable

  2. Be transparent

  3. Deliver on our international commitments

  4. Specify measurable ecological outcomes

  5. Have a mandate to intervene on matters that are national in scope

  6. Be resourced and enforced

  7. Give the Australian Community a voice on national environmental matters

  8. Be based on independent advice

.

Specifically these were its recommendations in detail:

.

Be accountable

.

a. The Act should require that national environmental accounts are developed (Recommendation 67), produced annually, and include Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). Within this the IUCN Red List Index could be used to provide a measure of performance in the threatened species protection and management.

b. The Act should establish an Independent Environment Commission to provide objective, science-based advice to the Minister to improve decision-making and ensure greater transparency and accountability (Recommendation 71). The Commission should be responsible for independent monitoring, audit, compliance and enforcement activities under the Act.

c. The Act should prescribe mandatory decision-making criteria for ecological outcomes (Recommendation 43). All actions should be legally required to maintain or improve ecological outcomes, or to demonstrate a net improvement in national environmental accounts (for each relevant MNES).

d. Regional Forest Agreements require an independent review and a more rigorous approach to auditing. A process for public input and sanctions for serious non-compliance are required. The full protections of the Act should apply to forest activities where the terms of the RFAs are not being met (Recommendation 38).

.

Be transparent

.

a. Transparency in decision-making must be maintained and improved. Current proposals do not go far enough, for example statements of reasons for all decisions made by the Minister and delegates under the Act should be released at time of the decision (Recommendation 44(1)(c)).

b. The Act must provide greater access to the courts for public interest litigation. The Government’s Rejection of Recommendations 48-53 is a key failure of the Government’s response to provide suitable checks and balances for proposals to “streamline” processes.

c. A core element of Hawke’s reform package was to provide for environmental performance audits and inquiries. The Australian Government should be subject to regular environmental performance audit under a new specialist Environmental Performance Audit Unit in the Australian National Audit Office, provided for under the Auditor-General Act 1997.

.

Deliver on our international commitments

.

a. Critical habitat must be protected, with impacts on critical habitat equated to impact on species, and consideration given to the critical habitat required under climate change (Recommendation 12 (1)). However we feel that the critical habitat register should be retained and its remit expanded.

b. The Environment Minister requires powers to develop and implement management plans to protect the values of World Heritage properties, National Heritage Places and Ramsar wetlands where the collaborative processes have not produced effective plans (Recommendation 34).

.

Specify measurable ecological outcomes

.

a. The Act should specify required ecological outcomes. This could be delivered through specified reporting periods for MNES, such as on Species Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans to ensure accountability. The Government agreed the Act should include provisions that enable the auditing of environmental outcomes (performance audits) (Recommendation 61).

.

Have a mandate to intervene on matters that are national in scope

.

a. The primary object of the Act should be ‘to protect the environment’ (Recommendation 3).

b. The Act, and the way it is administered, needs to better reflect the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development (Recommendation 2).

c. The process proposed in the Government response for listing ecosystems of national significance under the Act is too restrictive and inflexible.

d. The National Reserve System should be included as a MNES.

.

Be resourced and enforced

.

a. Cost recovery mechanisms under the Act are needed to ensure that the Environment Department is adequately resourced to ensure operation of the Act and monitor performance (Recommendation 62).

b. A Reparation fund should be established (Recommendation 60).  Give the Australian Community a voice on national environmental matters

a. We strongly support the creation of a call in power for ‘plans, policies and programs’ that may have a significant impact on a MNES to better deal with cumulative impacts.

.

Be based on independent advice

a. The quality of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) information needs to be substantially improved. An industry Code of Conduct for consultants supplying information for EIA and approval under the Act should be developed and the Minister, or the Environment Commission, should audit assessment information (including protected matters) to test assertions made in EIAs (Recommendation 24).

b. The Environment Commission should also be tasked with establishing a process to free consultants from their commercial dependency on proponents.

.

[Source:  ‘Submission to the Australian Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications entitled ‘The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia’, 20130308, by Professor Stephen Garnett(Coordinator – BirdLife Australia’s Threatened Species Committee) and Samantha Vine (Head of Conservation – BirdLife Australia, ^http://birdlife.org.au/].
.
 
Margaret River burrowing crayfish (Engaewa pseudoreducta)
[© Photo by Quinton Burham]
With only two known populations, the Margaret River burrowing crayfish is highly endangered.
Even one of these may no longer exist, as there have been no sightings since 1985.
The threats are almost all attributed to human activity.
Land clearing is the biggest danger, as crayfish habitat can be eroded or contaminated by farming, mining and urban development.
Feral pigs also damage habitat.
[Source:  ^http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/australias-most-endangered-species.htm]
 

.

Submission #85 by our regular contributors

.

<<We acknowledge the Indigenous Nations of Australia as the traditional owners of its land and waters. We thank them for the ecological wisdom they did and continue to pass to us.

We have read and agree with the contents of the two submissions to the Committee from Marie-Louise Sarjeant, Chris Sarjeant, Sonia Hutchinson, John Marsh and Maxine Jacobson, and from Wendy Radford for BDEC, Stuart Fraser for BFNC and Sara Hill and wish to take this opportunity to register with the Committee our endorsement of them.

.

Introduction

.

<<When about 50 years ago we became involved in environmental issues, we never thought that we will be witnessing in our lifetime the degree of environmental degradation we are witnessing now.

The rate at which the degradation is now occurring is very alarming, as given that global warming and loss of biodiversity exacerbate each other, there is a real possibility that unless we act now, this positive feedback cycle will escalate beyond our ability to prevent it from resulting in the collapse of our life supporting natural ecosystems.

Over the last 20 years that we lived on a property in the forest near Bendigo we personally witnessed the progressive local extinction of the swamp wallaby due to road kills, loss of habitat to development, degradation of the Greater National Park due to fuel reduction burns and weed infestation, including invasive plants escaping from ornamental gardens, replacement of native trees in Bendigo’s streetscapes with exotics and escalation of a thriving population of Indian mynas – and all this, in spite of the biodiversity strategies, environmental protection legislations and scores of submissions, Panel and VCAT hearings.

Why is it then that we are failing to provide effective protection to our biodiversity?

In this submission we will list some of the reasons for this failure.

.

Evidence of the ineffectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia

.

The ineffectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection is evident from the Natural Heritage Trust’s “Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2002” report and from the successive “State of the Environment” reports which show that all the important environmental indicators are getting worse.

The reasons for this ineffectiveness is:

.

Promotion of populations growth

.

Concerns about the unsustainability of population growth and its impact on the natural environment is very well documented (Bartlett 1998, Catton 1982, Lowe 2005, p 59, Suzuki2010, pp 20 and 21) and yet population growth continues to be supported and promoted by politicians (Creighton 2012) and business, while the wide spread misconceptions about it still persist without effective challenge (Lowe 2012).

.

We submit that the Committee recommends that an ecological limit to population growth is determined and implemented into our policy and decision processes

.

Failure to recognize the role apex, or top-order, predators play in the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity

.

The failure by Euro-Australians to recognize the apex terrestrial predators function in sustaining a balance of species that is viable in the long term and in keeping the numbers down of introduced feral species, has and continues to contribute to the decline of Australia’s biodiversity and adversely affects the effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities protection.

In the case of the avian apex predator, the Wedge-tail Eagle (Aquila audax), the recognition and acceptance of its value to the environment and to farmers took number of years after CSRIO published its research results in the second half of last century.

Unfortunately, in the case of the mammalian apex predator, the dingo (Canis lupus dingo), until recent years “dingoes have rarely been studied to reach a larger understanding of our place in the Australian environment. Dingoes have mainly been studied so humans can maximize the efficacy of control efforts, capitalize on available resources and increase short-term economic gain” (Purcell 2010, p. 117), with the obvious consequent enforcement of people’s misconceptions and detrimental treatment of the dingo.

The adverse effects of the current management under the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy as detailed in Marie-Louise Sarjeant  et al Submission of 23-11-12 to this Committee and of the mainland controls, especially by aerial baiting (Bullen 2012, Purcell 2010, p. p 3, 116, 137) on the dingo population and its culture as well as on livestock, show the urgency with which the current research (De Bias 2009, Johnson et al 2007, Purcell 2010, Wallach and O’Neill 2008, Brook et al  2012, Wallach and Johnson) needs to be taken seriously, supported by funding and implemented.

We stress here that unlike domestic dogs, cats and foxes that breed twice a year, dingoes breed only once a year, like wolfs do, are self- regulating (Purcell 2010, pp 10 and 113) and do not breed during droughts (Purcell 2010, p 24); they form small packs with hierarchical structure with only the alpha pair reproducing. The alpha pair teaches its offsprings about the packs territory and what and how to hunt, especially how to hunt kangaroos. These characteristics and not its coat colour, skull shape or genetic “purity” makes the dingo so important to Australia’s ecology (Purcell 2010, pp 39, 40, 101). Our disturbing its pack structure and culture is what causes the problem (Purcell 2010, pp3, 116,137). After all, the dingoes coexisted with Aboriginal people for thousands of years without being a problem to humans or ecology. Because their diet consists mainly of kangaroos and rabbits and not as popularly believed livestock (Purcell 2010, p 50), dingoes, like wedge-tailed eagles, are also beneficial to farmers.

We therefore submit that the Committee recommends that in order to improve the effectiveness of threatened species protection, management of key threats to listed species and of Species Recovery Rlans, the dingo needs to be reclassified as protected. New research should be funded and its findings implemented into management and a Species Recovery Plan.

We also submit that, given the Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge of the dingo, its role as the apex predator, the interdependence of species and the importance of maintaining balance (Parker 2007, Rose 1987, Rose 2000, Rose 2011), the Committee recommends that the object 3(2)(9)(iii) of the EPBCA 1999 be taken seriously and Indigenous Peoples’ role in and knowledge of the dingo and its part in the conservation of biodiversity be implemented into the management of the conservation of species and ecological communities.

.

Failure to address our cultural maladaptations, especially our culture of exuberance

.

“The culture of exuberance seemed to impute almost supernatural capabilities to Homo sapiens. It prevented us from seeing that the process of “creating our own habitat” might be a trap, the technology might come to enlarge our resource appetites instead of our world’s carrying capacity” (Catton 1982, p 122).

In the new branch of the study of human ecology, cultural maladaptation is defined as those cultural delusions, i.e. ideas and assumptions that are sheer nonsense, lending to behaviours  which are equally nonsensical, which result in activities that cause a great deal of unnecessary human distress, or undesirable damage to ecosystems, or both (Boyden 2004).

Our society’s most deeply entrenched cultural maladaptation is the delusion that “humanity is apart and above natural world and in command of inexhaustible resources”. (Christie 1993)

This cultural maladaptation, or culture of exuberance, which was reinforced by our colonial expansions, technological innovations in food production, harvesting of oceans and access to minerals became the basis of our economy and as such is now fiercely defended and promoted by main stream economists, businessmen and politicians (Catton 1982) making our society more and more dependent on finite resources and responsible for the current unprecedented biodiversity crisis we now find ourselves in.

We submit that the Committee recommends that in order to make it possible to improve the effectiveness of the protection of biodiversity, this cultural maladaptation needs to be urgently addressed as “men who continue to perceive our predicament according to a pre-ecological paradigm simply will not recognize limits imposed by our world’s finiteness” (Catton 1982, p 31).

We further submit that the Committee recommends the development of a program to raise community’s awareness about both the fundamental truth, namely that “the economy is a subset of human society which, in turn, is part of the environment” (ASE 1996, p 5),  as well as about the new ecological paradigm (Catton 1998, p 238), so that the most important reason for conserving biodiversity and protecting our natural environment is understood and implemented into our decision processes.

.

The dominance of economy in our decision-making processes

.

“In the short term, of course, financial considerations dominate national decision making. But behind the financial transactions there are real physical processes whose effects accumulate over long periods, and lead to serious environmental problems”. (Cocks 1996/97)

Section 3A(a) of EPBC Act 1999, provides that “decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations.”

The fundamental truth that we, the human species, are part of and therefore dependent on the environment while economy is of our making and so is part of our society and therefore dependent on both us and the environment, implies that environment needs to be given priority in our decision-making processes or alternatively, the decision-making processes need to be made subject to environmental constrains dictated by ecological sciences in the same way as they are made subject to constraints dictated by physics.

Yet the reality is that economy still continues to play dominant part in our decision-making processes. If this were the case with physics, then our buildings, houses etc would be collapsing and aeroplanes falling from the sky.

We therefore submit that the Committee recommends that in order to ensure the effectiveness of the protection of biodiversity, the decision-making processes should be given priority to the environment over economy and that such justification as “triple bottom line” and “achievement of balance” are no longer relevant in decision-making processes as the environmental bottom line has been already breached long time ago and the achievement of balance breaches it even more each time it is applied.

.

The emphasis on threatened species and ecological communities in the protection of biodiversity

.

It is now well documented that the conservation of biodiversity including threatened species and ecological communities’ protection, depends on the extent of functioning ecosystems and the ecological connectivity such as biolinks, between them (Tepper 1893, Archer 1993, Milburn 1996, Recher 1999). Yet in spite of the fact that we have cleared and fragmented the native vegetation beyond their ability to sustain their biodiversity, we place emphasis on the protection of threatened species and ecological communities while still continue to issue permits to exploit and clear land for various non-ecological purposes and economic gains.

In Victoria, we even found a way to get around the Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy’s objective for management of biodiversity goal of ensuring that within Victoria “there is a reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a net gain with the target being no loss by the end 2001”, by inventing the habitat-hectare measure and designing an offsetting system which, in the case of medium and higher quality of native vegetation can be shown by simple mathematics to always lead when applied to net loss of the native vegetation’s extent.

We therefore submit that the Committee recommends that in order to improve the effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection, Prof Harry Recher’s recommended most urgent actions to “end the clearing of native vegetation, reduce grazing pressure, remove inappropriate fire regimes, control feral and native animals whose abundance threatens native species, and restore functional ecosystems, with emphasis on native vegetation, to a minimum of 30% of the landscape” be implemented  (Recher 1999) and the restored ecosystems be interconnected by restoring effective biolinks.

The ending of the clearing of native vegetation is very important as it is easier to restore the habitats when remnants are present than when the land is cleared. Also the remnats provide habitat for fauna while restoration is in progress.>>

.

Conclusion

.

When we are healthy, we tend to be unaware of the presence of our organs in our bodies and of the functions they perform.  Only when one of our organs fails and we have to replace its functions by artificial means do we become aware of how valuable and well performed its function was.

It seems to us that our attitude to the natural environment is the same as it is to our bodies. The air conditioner, water purifiers and desalination plants should make us aware of the value of the services our natural ecosystems provide us with (Constanza et al 1997 estimated the value of world’s ecosystem services as being more than double the global gross national product, remarking that in a sense it is infinite, as without it the economy would grind to a halt). Yet somehow we fail or refuse to see the connection. The danger is that when eventually we wake up to it, it will be too late to stop the consequences of our abuse of the environment.

It is for this reason that we have included the issue of cultural maladaptation in our submission.

Because a number of important issues, including those relating specifically to the Fraser Island’s dingo and to Bendigo region as well to the ecological reasons for rejecting COAG’s proposal for handing Federal Government’s responsibility for environmental approval to the states are covered in the two submissions to the Committee we are endorsing, we have decided not to duplicate them in our submission.

Finally we would like to draw the Committee’s attention to two books, “Legacy”(Suzuki 2010) and “Resetting the Compass”(Yencken and Wilkinson 2000, in particular chapter 13, “The four pillars of wisdom”), as they explain in a very comprehensive way the issues we have raised in our submission.>>

.

References

.

1.    Alexander, N. 2009 – “Concerns heightening for Fraser Island Dingoes”; Ecos 151, Oct.-Nov., 2009, pp 18-19
2.    ASE 1996 – “Australia, State of the Environment”, Executive Summery, 23 May.
3.    Archer, M. Prof. 1993 – in “Expert says national parks will make mammals extinct” by Tania Ewing; The Age, 5-11-1993, p 4. (note that the title is misleading, it should be “national parks are not large enough to prevent by themselves mammal extinctions”).
4.    Bartlett, A.A. 1998 – “Reflections on sustainability, Population Growth and the Environment – revisited”; www.iclahr.com/bartlett/reflections.htm
5.    Boyden, S. 2004 – “The Biology of Civilization”; Ockham’s Razor, 12 December
6.    Brook, L.A., Johnson, Ch.N. and Richie, E.G. 2012 – “Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression”; Journal of Applied Ecology, 49: 1278-1286
7.    Catton, W.R.Jr. 1982 – “Overshoot, the Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change”; University of Illinois Press
8.    Christie, M.J. Dr. 1993 – “Aboriginal Science for Ecological Sustainable Future”;  Australian Teachers Journal, March, no 68
9.    Cocks, D. Dr. 1996/97 –  in “Making tracks for the future”;  Ecos 90, Summer, p 14
10.    Constanza, R. et al 1997 – “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital”; Nature, vol. 387, 15 May, pp 253 to 260
11.    Creighton, A. 2012 – “People mean Growth: Turnbull”; The Australian, 3 November
12.    De Blas, A. 2009 – “The Dingo’s role revitalized”; Ecos 147, Feb.-March, 2009, pp12,13;
13.    Johnson, Ch. N., Isaac, J. L. and Fisher, D. O. 2007 – “Rarity of top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia”; Proceedings the Royal Society, B, Biological Science (2007) 274, 341-348;
14.    Lowe, I. 2005 – “A Big Fix; radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis”; Black Inc
15.    Lowe, I. 2012 – “Australia’s population debate”; Ockham’s Razor, 19 August
16.    Lowe, I. 2012 – “Bigger or Better – Australia’s Population Debate”; Uni. Of Queensland Press
17.    Milburn, C. 1996 – “Native daisy sowing seeds of destruction”; The Age 11 of March
18.    O’Neill, A. 2002 – “Living with the Dingo”; Envirobook ;
19.    Parker, M.A. 2007 – “Bringing the Dingo Home: Discursive Representation of the Dingo by Aboriginal, Colonial and Contemporary Australians”; PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania
20.    Parkhurst, J. 2010 “Vanishing Icon: the Fraser Island Dingo”; Grey Thrush Publishing;
21.    Purcell, B. 2010 “Dingo”; CSIRO Publishing;
22.    Rose, D.B. 1987 – “Consciousness and Responsibility in an Aboriginal Religion”; Chapter 15 in Edwards, W.H. “Traditional Aboriginal Society, a Reader”; McMillan
23.    Rose, D.B. 2000 – “Dingo Makes us Human, Life and Land in an Australian Aboriginal Culture”;  Cambridge Uni. Press
24.    Rose, D. B. 2011 “Wild Dog Dreaming, Love and Extinction”; University of Virginia Press;
25.    Suzuki, D. 2010 – “The Legacy, an Elder’s Vision for our Sustainable Future”; Allen & Unwin
26.    Wallach, A. and O’Neill, A. 2008 – “Persistence of Endangered Species: Is the Dingo the Key?”  Report for DEH Wildlife Conservation Fund;
27.    Yencken, D. & Wilkinson, D. 2000 – “Resetting the Compass: Australia’s Journey Towards Sustainability”; CSRIO Publishing.

.

~ Submitted by Stanislaw Pelczynski and Barbara Pelczynska

.

.

“There is something fundamentally wrong with treating the earth as if it were a business in liquidation.”

~ Herman Daly

.

error: Content is copyright protected !!