Does wilderness still matter?  Or is it just a nostalgic and overblown idea from the 1960s that has worn out its usefulness?

Unsurprisingly, the Colong Foundation for Wilderness vigorously asserts that wilderness is more important than ever. As the global environment plummets into crisis, ‘business as usual’ is rushing ever more recklessly in the opposite direction, chasing the almighty dollar. Our parks, reserves and natural areas are everywhere imperilled, by climate change, mining, tourism and many other threats. Wilderness remains a sanctuary and an insurance against the complete exploitation of nature.

Which is why the Colong Foundation has taken up the baton again for the Sixth National Wilderness Conference, established by Geoff Mosley and the Australian Conservation Foundation in 1977. The 5^th and most recent conference, Celebrating Wilderness, was hosted by the Colong Foundation in 2006.

.

6^th National Wilderness Conference

.

The 6^th National Wilderness Conference will be held in Sydney on 21-23 September 2012 and co-presented by the NSW National Parks Association and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

With environmental protection laws under attack in all states and nationally, this conference comes at a critical time. So if you haven’t signed up for this conference yet, now’s the time. And don’t forget the Conference dinner, $40 for three beautiful courses at Maynard’s Café, Newtown.

^Online Conference registration

^Program brochure and more information

Toxic Omelette killing all life in the Georges River

.

Ed:  The Political Climate Change Fad has negated funding of the Environment Protection Authority from critical Pollution Control.

.

The Upper Georges River

What is the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in New South Wales (NSW) doing?

It took an arbitrary bushwalk by a few bushwalkers of the local Macarthur Bushwalkers Club to by chance discover pollution of a remote section of the Georges River down from a coal mine in the Illawarra Region of NSW.

Although they dutifully reported the pollution incident to the NSW EPA, nothing was done, and that was over ten years ago, yet the mine has continued polluting the Georges River.

Labor and Liberal successive NSW Governments have known for more than a decade about this major toxic plume in the Georges River from a coalmine owned by BHP Billiton discharing into the upstream tributary Brennans Creek, but have never pressed the company to stop polluting. Why?

Metals such as zinc, copper, nickel and aluminium, as well as elevated levels of arsenic, are much higher than healthy guidelines, and the contamination has seriously damaged the ecosystem of the river for 15 kilometres downstream from the mine, documents obtained by the Herald show. Environment groups have begun a civil court case against BHP Billiton, which operates the West Cliff coalmine near Campbelltown via a subsidiary company.

.

Ed: This is Australia in 2012, not 1912!

.

The O’Farrell Government‘s Environment Minister, Robyn Parker, said yesterday:

”The EPA needs to lift their game,” Parker said. ”We’ve put them there, and given them increased powers and increased responsibility, and I need to see some action from them.” 

Yet on the same day, Parker has hypocritically announced savage staff cuts to the Environment Department.  Internal documents circulated among employees said the Department had committed to cutting costs in kangaroo harvesting programs  [Ed: poaching wildlife?] , reducing wilderness and wild river assessments, deregulating wildlife licensing where appropriate, scaling back soil and salinity research and ”reducing effort in our biodiversity programs” i.e. ‘frontline services’.

.

Ed:  The O’Farrell Government’s Environment Minister, Robyn Parker, has just announced axeing 350 jobs in Environment and Heritage including in the EPA as well as culling many programmes in national parks and animal management, all to save $101 million by 2016.  Notably in the  O’Farrell Budget 2012-13, the sum of $150,000,000 has been “appropriated to the Treasurer for the recurrent services of the Advance to the Treasurer.”  [Clause 18, p16, Budget Paper Appropriation Bill 2012, >Read Bill]

.

Jul 2012:   Miner BHP Billiton sued for river pollution by its West Cliff Colliery near Appin

.

Listed Australian Mining Conglomerate, BHP Billiton at its BHP Billiton’s Illawarra Coal subsidiary ‘Endeavour Coal‘, received a court summons yesterday, but did not respond directly to questions.  Instead, it publicised a brief PR legal statement stating: ”The company complies with environmental regulations and is reviewing the details of this matter.”

A string of correspondence between the company and the EPA goes back as far as 2002, and shows that the regulator had been aware of discharges from the mine and some of its environmental impacts for most of that time.

The discharges from the mine flow into Brennans Creek, a tributary of the Georges River, and contain pollution from coal washing, water that has been pumped out of the mine tunnels, and stormwater runoff.

But the matter became public only because bushwalkers noticed the pollution and arranged for independent tests by Ian Wright, an environmental scientist at the University of Western Sydney.

About two years ago Dr Wright took a group of students and some rudimentary laboratory equipment to the river and has since returned many times to check and recheck the results.

”I thought ‘it can’t be as bad as it looks’. But I was wrong about that. You could just see the change in the water,” Dr Wright said. ”It was grey coloured. There was a lot of turbidity and coal ash.”

”I thought ‘it can’t be as bad as it looks”

.

The scientific results showed startling differences from some of the pristine waterways nearby, on the edge of the Dharawal National Park. The aquatic invertebrates – mainly small insects – that form the basis of the food chain were either very scarce or missing altogether.

”It’s knocking around the food chain and the biology in the Georges River,” Dr Wright said.

”Upstream, we’ve got the full complement of invertebrates that you would expect to find. Downstream, there are groups missing and others at very low abundance. The invertebrate data is consistent with a very polluted or degraded waterway.”

The court case is brought by the National Parks Association of NSW and the Macarthur Bushwalkers Club.

Ed:  Natural Justice defended not by the EPA, but by the Macarthur Bushwalkers Club (commercial income zero) versus BHP Billiton (commercial income US$37.5 Billion)

.

.

2010:  ‘Coalmine discharge fouls Georges River‘

.
‘Contaminated water from a coalmine [BHP Billiton’s Endeavour Coal] is flowing into the Georges River, south of Sydney, at levels that are toxic to aquatic life, an independent water quality report has shown.

A plume of saline water stretched along the river for 15 kilometres from the discharge point of an underground mine operated by Endeavour Coal, a subsidiary of BHP Billiton’s Illawarra Coal.

Discharges from Endeavour Coal’s West Cliff Colliery near Appin are ”causing serious water pollution that is very likely to be damaging in-stream ecosystems,” says the report, which was completed on a voluntary basis by researchers from the University of Western Sydney.

But the environmental protection licence for the mine’s wastewater discharge does not limit the amount of saline water that can be flushed into the river.

”I can’t believe that we have put out something called an environment protection licence without any provision to protect the environment,” one of the authors, Dr Ian Wright, a freshwater ecologist at UWS, said.  ”Salt at these levels is huge in the context of a river … If you sprayed it on your tomatoes they would wilt.”

The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water said it was evaluating salt discharge levels that had already been measured by BHP Billiton at the site.

”There is currently no limit for salinity,” a spokesman for the department said. ”However, salinity discharges to Brennans Creek are currently regulated by a staged pollution reduction program under the current environment protection licence.”

When tested last month, the water discharged from the mine was five times more saline than the safe level recommended by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council, a standard used by governments to determine water quality for aquatic life. It was nearly 10 times more saline than water in surrounding creeks.

The researchers tested upstream and downstream from the discharge pipe and also the water flowing directly from it.

They concluded that the environmental protection licence ”provides little effective protection to the Georges River” and said it was likely to damage the river’s ecosystems, meaning small invertebrates, fish and related denizens of the local food chain.

The colliery forms part of the company’s proposal to extend a series of coalmines around the township of Appin, so as to be able to extract $2 billion worth of coal a year for 30 years..

Contamination from coal mining near the Cataract River in Australia, November 2007

.

Jan 2011:   Meanwhile Barry O’Farrell pledges to Protect Wilderness

Jun 2012:   O’Farrell now in government:  “No deal has been done” with the mining company”

.

‘Thousands of hectares of pristine wilderness near Appin, fought over by mining and environment interests for decades, will be saved and opened to the public as a national park if the NSW Coalition wins government in March.

But the announcement, to be made today by Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell, sets up a potential conflict with BHP Billiton, which still holds the right to mine the billions of dollars worth of coal in the area.

The park, based on the Dharawal State Conservation Area, would add about 6200ha of bushland to the public estate, and provide one of the final pieces to the jigsaw of protected wilderness areas around Sydney.

It is one of the last remaining areas of intact natural bushland near the city, and sits between the Royal National Park and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

Mr O’Farrell said “no deal has been done” with the mining company, which revised plans to mine under the conservation area in October but retains the right to apply again over the 30-year life of its lease.

Mr O’Farrell, who hiked in the area yesterday with environment groups, acknowledged the Coalition would need to enter into discussions about potential compensation.

“We will be having sensible discussion with the relevant stakeholder to get the best outcome for the community,” he said.

“It’s an area that has significant Aboriginal history, it has significant environmental history. It’s accessible, which means … people could go and visit and have access to our great natural environment.”

A peak environment body, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, and the National Parks Association welcomed the plan.

“We see the Dharawal National Park proposal as an important step towards better conservation in Sydney’s drinking water catchment and beyond,” the council’s director Pepe Clarke said.

Head of the Total Environment Centre Jeff Angel said: “We look forward to more enlightened environment policies from the Coalition and note the new park should be gazetted without a depth restriction in order to protect it from mining.”

A BHP Billiton subsidiary, Illawarra Coal, had planned to dig up $60 billion worth of coal over the next 30 years, much of it from under Dharawal.

The area became the centre of a bitter campaign over reconciling coal mining and clean drinking water catchments. It contains 632 Aboriginal sites, as well as 226 upland swamps filtering water into the Georges River through 46 streams. More than 200 native animal and plant species are found there, including the vulnerable powerful owl, yellow-bellied glider and eastern pygmy possum.

The mining plan was revised in October, after the NSW Planning Assessment Commission released a scathing report into the proposed mine, which was expected to crack the surface of the conservation area and drain some of its water-filtering swamps.

In a landmark review, the commission cited the threat to water catchments and concluded that society would be better off if the coal was left in the ground.

A new plan excluding coal mining under Dharawal and other vulnerable areas is being considered by the Government.

Premier Barry O’Farrell and his Environment Minister Robyn Parker opening Dharawal National Park.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

.

.

.

A proper ‘National Park” – Yellowstone National Park, USA

.

One hundred and thirty nine years ago in 1872, Yellowstone National Park was established in the United States of America, leading the world in national conservation..

Australia supposedly followed suit quickly afterwards in 1879, declaring The National Park just south of Sydney the second national park in the world.  It was renamed Royal National Park following Queen Elizabeth II’s visit  in 1954.

But it is one thing to be seen to be following America in environmental leadership.  It is publicly misleading to be disingenuous about ‘national‘ environmental protection.

A ‘vulnerable’ Royal National Park (New South Wales, Australia)…

National Parks in New South Wales are currently subject to the whims of incumbent State governments (both Labor and Liberal) and mining vested interests with such demands as to explore coal seam gas mining using fracking and chemical contamination from the likes of Apex Energy and Peabody Pacific’s joint Metropolitan Mine near Helensburgh in 2010.

National parks are typically large natural areas of land that are protected because they have unspoilt landscapes and a diverse number of native plants and animals. This means that commercial activities such as farming are prohibited and human activity is strictly monitored.  The purpose of the ‘national parks’ concept is to protect native flora and fauna and their habitat.

Victorian Alps

.

Disturbingly, the powers that be in National Parks have grown a mindset that national parks are created primarily not for altruistic genuine conservation but for tourism – human use, benefit and exploitation.  The sell is that national parks “are also there so Australians and foreign visitors can enjoy and learn about our unique environment, heritage and culture.”

Australia has over 500 national parks covering some 28 million hectares accounting for 4% of Australia’s land mass.  But similarly disturbing is that the Australia legal concept of a ‘national park’ is one typically managed not by the national government, but a custodial responsibility delegated to the States and Territories of Australia. This means that across Australia, national parks are a hollow label for ‘reserve’, or in the case of Victoria’s Alpine National Park, an endless free cow paddock!

Cattle in the Alpine National Park?

.

The state/territory custodial role for national parks is a left-over legacy from pre-Federation colonial Australia of the Nineteenth Century, in much the same way the Crown Land is a leftover legacy from when the Australian colonies were subservient to Britain.  And sure enough, the management records demonstrate that the spirit of national park protection has not been respected by the state and territory custodial governments.

National Park ‘protection’ in the United States has national clout.  But in Australia the term is politically expedient and superficial.  This has caused the conservation movement to increasingly look to UNESCO World Heritage, because state and territory governments cannoit be trusted.   ‘National park’ status has become meaningless.  Just consider the Kakadu, Kosciuszko, and the Great Barrier Reef national parks and their abuse and mismanagement legacies!

Alpine National Park

.

.

Media Release by the National Parks Association of NSW:

.

‘National Parks to be given national status’

.

National Parks Association of NSW CEO, Kevin Evans, has welcomed moves by Federal environment minister Tony Burke to add Commonwealth protection to Australia’s national parks.
“Stronger Federal protection for national parks is a groundbreaking  move that will ensure the long-term integrity of Australia’s most loved natural places and vital habitat for threatened plants and animals,” Mr. Evans said.
“It will also make sure that politically motivated interference in park protection, including proposals for inappropriate tourism infrastructure, mining, cattle grazing and hunting will be more difficult in the future.
“We need to be clear that such proposals are not in the national interest,” Mr. Evans said. “Our protected areas are part of much bigger systems working at a landscape scale as the corner stone of Australia’s biodiversity conservation strategy.”
Speaking at the Sydney Institute on Thursday evening, Mr. Burke said “that there was a principle that once an area was protected there shall be no backward steps”.

He referred to the move by the Victorian government to return cattle to the Alpine National Parks earlier this year as treating a national park like a farm.

“Importantly, if implemented, this proposal would allow Australia to honour its commitment to international treaties designed to protect the world’s natural heritage” Mr. Evans said.
“It won’t change the way national parks are managed but as the minister says, it will make sure that there will be ‘no backward steps’ in that management.
“Most people already assume that national parks have national protection, as they do in most countries of the world. But almost all of our most important natural areas are actually set up and managed under the laws of each state and territory.”
Minister Burke announced last night that he has written to all states and territories seeking their views on a plan to amend federal laws to better protect national parks.
NPA encourages the NSW government to cooperate with the Federal environment minister on his proposal.
“Under the proposed federal law, states will still be in control of setting park boundaries, and there will be no change to existing activities in parks,” said Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans said,

“What it does mean is that the protection offered by state laws will be backed up by national law.”

Our national parks will be truly part of our national heritage, securely protected by all Australians, for all Australians, for all time.

.

.

Editor’s comments:

This revelation confirms that Australians have been hoodwinked about ‘National Park Protection’ since 1879.

It one of the biggest greenwashing cons in Australian history. National Parks are but a convenient propaganda label until alternative land use demands are proposed.

The message is that the States and Territories simply cannot be trusted with Australia’s valuable natural heritage.

So if such jurisdictions are so unrepresentative of Australian values, then why do the States and Territories continue to exist?

Sunrise on Mount Feathertop, Alpine National Park, Victoria

.

.

Background:

.

‘High country ought stay a cattle no-go zone’

by Geoff Mosley, 20110308, The Age

.

‘The Baillieu government’s decision to reintroduce cattle into the Alpine National Park not only snubs 80 years of research highlighting the environmental damage they can do, it also undermines co-operative management of Australia’s alpine parks.  This move was undertaken without any consultation with the federal government and, since the Alpine National Park is on the National Heritage List, all eyes are on whether Environment Minister Tony Burke will intervene to protect the area’s nationally significant natural heritage values.

Victorian Premier, Ted Ballieu

.

In  deciding,  Burke must take into account strong opposition to the Baillieu government’s move from the Australian Academy of Science and the World Commission on Protected Areas. These organisations have pointed to the bad example it would set when more than 3000 people attend the World National Parks Congress in Melbourne in 2014.

The planned ‘‘study’’ was also criticised by Melbourne University’s School of Land and Environment, whose acting head, associate professor Gerd Bossinger, said in an email: ‘‘much of the work being proposed has already been done’’. This response elicited a threat from the Baillieu government over millions of dollars in research funding.

Burke should also consider the damage that Victoria’s action would do to the co-ordinated approach to interstate management of the alpine parks, which has operated since 1986.

The states have been in charge of public land, including national parks, which by then had been established in several states, since Federation in 1901.  Federation also introduced a possible role for the federal government in encouraging co-operative endeavours in heritage protection.

Co-operation did not come easily. The first initiative for a cross-state national park in the Alps came from the environment movement.

But, in 1943, the Victorian government rejected the proposed ‘Snowy-Indi National Park‘, embracing parts of the NSW  (17,200 ha) and Victoria’s high country (22,000 ha),  because of the ‘‘dangers to which large areas of country would be exposed by prohibiting occupation’’ – whatever that meant.

Instead the individual states established separate protected areas in their territories – Kosciusko State Park in 1944 (which became Kosciusko National Park in 1967), Gudgenby Nature Reserve  in 1979 (became Namadgi National Park in 1984), and the Alpine National Park (formed from several disparate parks) in 1989.

The case for co-operative management of these adjacent alpine parks was obvious but who would initiate it?

The potential for Commonwealth leadership in such an enterprise was  greatly increased in the 1970s with the passage of legislation to protect the national estate and with Australia’s ratification in 1974 of the World Heritage Convention. Apart from Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef and south-west Tasmania, there appeared to be no part of Australia more deserving of such a federal commitment than the Alps.

A clear case in point was the need for a uniform approach to alpine grazing. NSW ended the practice in Kosciusko National Park in 1969.  The ACT followed suit.  But the Victorian government dithered. So in 1984,  I, as then director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, took 15 Victorian MPs on a tour of Kosciusko National Park. The visitors were so impressed by the recovery of the land after the removal of grazing that they agreed on a ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding for Co-operative Management of the Australian Alps National Parks’’, signed on July 15, 1986.

After an extensive review, in 2006 the Victorian government terminated the last of several of grazing licences in the Alpine National Park, bringing the state into line with NSW and the ACT. The Baillieu government’s reintroduction of grazing puts this hard-won co-operation in jeopardy.

Tony Burke’s decision also has consequences for the fate of the world heritage-listing proposal,  in limbo since prime minister Bob Hawke announced in 1989 that the Australian Alps would be assessed.

World heritage listing of the Alps and adjacent forests – the ‘‘sea to snow concept’’ – would give the federal government enhanced power to act as Hawke did in 1983 to stop the Franklin Dam in Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area. Five reports later and nothing has happened. Meanwhile, the presence of cattle in the Alpine National Park could mean that a nomination would fail the ‘‘integrity’’ test for  listing.

Burke has an opportunity to not only protect the Alpine National Park but to advance the overall cause of  national heritage protection.  If the word ‘‘national’’ means anything, he must do the right thing by the people of Australia and send the cattle back down the hill.’

– – – – – – – – – –

.

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘Burke demands a halt to alpine cattle grazing‘, 20110318, ABC Rural, ^http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3167854.htm

[2]   ‘High country ought stay a cattle no-go zone‘,  by Geoff Mosley, 20110308, ^http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/high-country-ought-stay-a-cattle-nogo-zone-20110307-1bka1.html

.

(All references accessed 20110722)

.