Yesterday the Federal Court in Hobart ruled that logging operations in the Wielangta forest in south-east Tasmania breach an agreement between the Australian and Tasmanian governments and that the logging company does not have an exemption under relevant environment protection laws.
Senator Brown had argued in court that forestry operations endangered a rare beetle, the swift parrot and the wedge-tailed eagle.
Since the ruling Senator Brown has suggested that all logging operations in Tasmania are a threat to rare and endangered species and that the ruling should be the catalyst for an immediate review of all logging operations in Australia.
Also, according to Senator Brown’s website:
“The Judge pointed out that the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires more than avoiding harm – it requires that logging plans help the rare species populations to recover.
Here are paragraphs 281 and 282 of Judge Marshall’s 301 paragraph ruling:
281 I do not consider that the State has protected the eagle by applying relevant management prescriptions. Management prescriptions have helped to slow the eagle’s extinction but have not protected it in the sense of either maintaining existing numbers or restoring the species to pre-threatened levels.
Will the State protect the three species by applying relevant management prescriptions?
282 It is unlikely the State can, by management prescriptions, protect the eagle. As to the beetle and the parrot, the State must urge Forestry Tasmania to take a far more protective stance in respect of these species by relevant management prescriptions before it can be said it will protect them. On the evidence before the Court, given Forestry Tasmania’s satisfaction with current arrangements, I consider that protection by management prescriptions in the future is unlikely.”
Cinders, a regular contributor at this blog, sent me the following note:
“The Federal Court has found that forestry operations in the Wielangta forest area have not been carried out in accordance with the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) by reference to clause 68.
Clause 68 of the Tasmanian RFA states that: The State agrees to protect the Priority Species listed in Attachment 2 (Part A) through the CAR Reserve System or by applying relevant management prescriptions.
The state government has created a reserve system of 2.7 million hectares including 97% of high quality wilderness, 45% of the State’s Native forest and over 1 million hectares, yet the judge ruled that this reserve system was not adequate to protect three threatened species listed in attachment 2 (Part A) of the Tasmanian RFA.
He also found that management prescription introduced by the state through its experts in the Department of the Environment, funded with millions of dollars from taxpayers, and also through Forestry Tasmania’s management systems and forest practice planning systems were inadequate to protect the species.
I would argue that the “protection” failed last week when wildfire consumed the proposed harvesting coupe and much of the surrounding forest!
Despite the Court appointed expert stating “that the forestry operations in Wielangta in coupes 17E and 19D and the proposed forestry operations in Wielangta in coupes other than 17E and 19D are not likely to have a significant impact on the eagle, having regard to its endangered status and all other threats to the eagle.”
The judge perferred to use legal precedent and interpretation to determine that there would be significant impact.
The upshot of all this legal arguement in a forest that is not pristine but has been heavily harvested in the past is to now create uncertainty for timber workers and their families in the week before Christmas.
In a Media release issued yesterday, Barry Chipman, State Manager of Timber Communities Australia said:
“This is a lousy Christmas present to the families of forest workers and dependent businesses.”
“The federal court’s decision not only endangers the RFA but the jobs of over 10,000 timber workers in Tasmania.”
The full judgment can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html .
——————-
I have previously written about the Wielangta forest here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001746.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Cinders has some explaining to do hey regarding his sturdy defence and adhesion to the principles enshrined in our RFA process.
“I would argue that the “protection” failed last week when wildfire consumed the proposed harvesting coupe and much of the surrounding forest!”
And where is your evidence? Perhaps you could post up some references or links to scientific studies that support this ‘argument’.
The logical consequence of this judge significantly expanding the interpretation of “protect” to an extent not intended by either party to the RFA agreement is fairly straight forward and easy to implement, shoot the last eagle.
I have read through the summary of the judgement and can see why the Judge made the decision.
Cinders quotations from the summary are “cherry picked” from a much broader and logical consideration of the issues and the evidence.
The approach and preparations of Forestry Tasmania to this case was poor, and it cost them….particularly in respect of their “independent and expert witnesses” -you have got to be joking! The judge was no fool.
What shines through is that Forestry Tasmania is not able to take these matters “seriously” enough to modify either their management behaviour, or their approach to Court cases like this one.
It appears they really do believe they have a right to do as they wish ,and the rest of the population have no right to look over their shoulder. Their own, and other government departments evidence showed they did not take the interests of these species into account, even against the advice of their own senior zoologist -so why do they really have one? Because they have to for PR purposes, but they have no intention of really heeding the advice?
However the most blame can be sheeted home to the State government in general. It is hard for anyone it argue that everything will be all right for the eagle and the swift parrot in the future, when the recovery plans for these species were never fully implemented (why one must ask, do you construct a recovery plan that is a public document and then do not implement it???). Both plans expired some years ago -and no new plans have been drawn up? And of course the beetle never got one. These are serious problems for a government hoping to demonstrate before a court that it has taken all the measures legally required of it.
It probably needs a long hard look at the judges comments to see if he adhered to the principles enshrined in the RFA process. Perhaps also we could look at the Convention of Biological Diversity that the judge relied upon. In the targets agreed by the Convention’s Conference of Parties to Protect the components of biodiversity
are the following Goal 1. Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of ecosystems, habitats and biomes
Target 1.1: At least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved.
Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to biodiversity protected
45% of Tasmania’s are effectively conserved including areas of particular importance to biodiversity. It is a pity that the judgement appears to have ignored this outstanding achievement.
Another outstanding achievement is the increase in known Wedge Tailed Eagle numnbers.
Prior to the signing of the RFA, all available data on the 294 confirmed individual nests in Tasmania were collated in the TASPAWS database and assessed for their accuracy. Of these nests, 106 are known to be active, 10 are obsolete, and 228 have had their grid coordinates verified on the ground. There are a further 94 suspected nest sites and many areas of potential habitat containing no known nests.
Evidence before the judge by a court appointed expert was that there are now estimate that Tasmania has 457 Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle territories 365 of which are represented by the 811 recorded nests.
This again might be considered a massive plus for the Tasmanian government and its commitment to the RFA priciples. It appears the judement did not consider this outstanding achievement sufficient protection.
Russel has done us a favour and made an independent assessment of the Wielangta judgment based on the facts as presented. Here is a case where the courts become the only independent umpire on how the RFA works in practice.
What the TCA needs to do now is look at how we may find another independent umpire (we have the principles well established) with out going through the laborious process of litigation in the courts. Over and over I say we must establish an independent peer review system at every level of operations before we can tackle the big questions like getting timber from catchments etc in a sustainable fashion for every living thing involved.
Eagles aside, the days of rough enough will do in major forests are over.
Drought throughout all SE regions and more frequent impacts from extensive bushfires will see the end of these most important resources if we don’t carefully watch it from here on.
Applying the judgement elsewhere means its all over red rover for wind farms and possibly all new dams. However it must be a boost for those who advocate controlled burning.
I note the Tasmanian Premier has asked the PM to intervene on logging bogged down in Wielangta not so much by the courts IMHO but by fires.
For another (and perhaps cynical) approach to umpires on forestry – Wilson Tuckey the former territories minister in his response to the Coroners report into the 2003 ACT bushfire disaster (Canberra Times Dec 21st 2006 ) has blasted NSW Government for allowing the deadly fire to go unchecked so it built up to a level so it relieved the state of funding responsibility.
In essence he has approached Ministers Campbell and Lloyd with a proposal not to part with Commonwealth funds for disaster relief unless the Commonwealth is allowed to check state fire prevention measures.
“That’s almost an insurance scheme” he said
Have a cool Yule, y’uall,
The Mott family are about to indulge their old man with a week or more at the farm. They will spend a few days lamenting their lot and the absence of TV, Internet and a decent toilet whilst observing, bemused, as dad and husband leaps into all those activities that sensible people regard as work to be avoided at this time of year, and which are guaranteed to have him completely soaked in sweat by mid morning and moaning like an old dog by dusk.
They will also see a new house that is actually starting to look like one, and begin to envisage life in a new space (before they leave school).
And slowly, almost imperceptibly, they too will slip into the rhythms of the pax rustica and discover that the first dive into the dam is so much more sublime when it follows a good dose of honest toil. They will savour the unrivalled flavour of an “earned meal” and rediscover the coolest downloads of all, those that come from a site called, “campfire”. And they may even conclude that the very best time to contemplate the meaning of life and man’s place in it, is from high on the side of a hill by the full moon.
Along the way their dad might pass the time with one of those old stories of “the glad rags and the handbags that their poor old grandad had to sweat to buy”, that will, at first, bore and embarrass them a little, but leave a lasting fabric of attachment to a place and its people and times.
They will practice the forgotten arts of playful banter over a well rummaged table, the contentment of a snooze under a tree, and may yet discover the importance of having a bee in one’s bonnet.
And their mum and dad will get time to think of all the folks they would have liked to show a lot more appreciation for.
All the best for the season.
Ian Mott
from a reader:
“A quick glance at the summary provided by the court suggests to me that the issue is whether the Commonwealth Minister has to give approval or not. It is not whether the area is pristine, but whether the operations threaten species that fall under the various categories listed under s18 of the EPBC. If they do, then they need approval. Looks like Forestry Tasmania was claiming an exemption. So, this is another Anvil Hill. A political tactic by Brown to put the issue into the Commonwealth arena and cause embarrassment to the Federal Government. I assume that Ian Campbell will approve the operation, but it will be politically messier than if it had been quarantined to Tasmanian politics.”
The Tasmanian Times website at:
http://www.tasmaniantimes.com
Is a good source for more detailed information on how ‘forestry’ operates in Tasmania. Many contributors there, including myself, are direct neighbours of Forestry Tasmania, Forest Enterprises and Gunns Ltd forestry coupes. Use the search engine to discover the long history of corruption and contempt for ALL forms of life that is exhibited by actual actions on the ground.
This is an example of Forestry Tasmania’s operations near our house last year:
tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/this-was-a-creek-bed/
Self reference is a crime against humanity. Tasmanian Times is a repository of perverse opinion from mainly scary cut-and-paste people. It is definitely not a source of “detailed information on how forestry operates in Tasmania”! The contributor exception is a Dr Kevin Bonhan, though the crap he puts up with has to be seen to be believed.
One of the great issues of our time is the corruption of the plain meaning of words. Here are some Tassie forest industry examples:
The meaning of ‘reserve’:
“Mr Chipman (from the industry-funded ‘Timber Communities Australia’) claimed that “40% … 2.7 million hectares of Tasmania’s land mass is reserved in national parks and world heritage areas”. You then went on to compare this proportion of land ‘locked up’ with the 7% in national parks in NSW.
The correct figure for national parks and world heritage areas in Tasmania is about 25%, the figure for national parks alone even lower. Mr Chipman’s figure included public land managed for a wide variety of purposes including hunting, and different forms of recreation.
Much of it is open to mining, bee keeping, and even farming. Even residential and tourist developments are widely allowed – witness the in principle agreement by the Tasmanian Government to sell the Ralphs bay Conservation Area, an internationally renowned wetland for migratory birds, to Walker corporation for a residential canal development. These lands generate many thousands of jobs (tourism is Tasmania’s biggest employer, honey a $50 million/year industry ) and can not be said to be ‘locked up’ from economic activity.
More on Tassie’s forest ‘reserves’:
Lake Pedder (SW Tas reserve)…flooded by industry;
Table Cape (NW Tas reserve)….industrial poppy growing on cleared agriculural land;
The deep red myrtle rainforest reserve to the West of the Inglis River – which I’m told is in a forest reserve – subject to 1080 baiting on the edges of it. No fencing to protect the animals there..and I believe this is the case with all ‘reserves’;
The Oldina forest reserve …monoculture alien plantation species subject to logging;
Ralph’s Bay…the water is polluted by heavy metals and the Tas Govt is pushing for commercial development there;
The vast majority of Tasmania – subject to pesticide drift (www.geocities.com/rosserbj);
Forest streamside reserves – many (most from my perspective on the NW Coast) planted out to Eucalypt Niten after native trees clearfelled, subject to pesticide applications and bulldozed through at will;
Roadside reserves – subject to pesticide application by local Councils;
Leatherwood reserves – most unidentified and subject to clearfell..according to the Tasmanian beekeeper association.
Crayfish Creek (NW Tas reserve) – subject to clearfelling of its streamside reserve in the upper part. This stream has largely dried up.
Original RFA targets not met;
“Although a relatively large proportion of Tasmania’s ‘forest’ is reserved, it depends heavily on the definition of forest. The reserves are heavily weighted towards small non-commercial forest community types like E. nitida and short rain forest. ..”
http://www.vision.net.au/~rmartin/env/forest.htm
+
The meaning of ‘protection’:
Tasmanian State Government –
“‘it is wholly inapt to construe clause 68 as simply imposing an unqualified obligation to ensure the protection of species. The State’s obligation is satisfied, not through the actual protection of species…but through the employment of the CAR reserve system.’”
The meaning of ‘forest’:
(includes vast industrial monoculture tree plantations)
“An area incorporating all living and non-living components that is dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature, or potentially mature stand height exceeding two metres and with existing or potential ground cover of overstorey strata about equal to or greater than 20 per cent. This includes Australia’s diverse native forests and plantations, regardless of age. It is also sufficiently broad to encompass areas of trees that are sometimes described as woodlands.”
The meaning of ‘old growth forest’:
This definition (under the RFA) does not include stands of ancient native forest that were subject to selective logging a hundred years ago.
The meaning of ‘free enterprise’:
The ‘forest’ (forest destruction) industry construes this to mean big publicly-listed and private equity corporations strongly dependent on ONGOING taxpayer subsidy through Managed Investment Schemes, taxpayer-funded grants, taxpayer-funded roading and other infrastructure, taxpayer-subsidised access to public resources and so forth.
Update:
Development now okay in national parks. (So what is a ‘reserve’??)
“Allowing development within national parks and conservation areas is a similar tale to logging. The Government does secret deals with developers, promising ‘in principle’ permission to set up ‘eco-friendly’ resorts within national park areas, in the face of red hot grass roots opposition: the SE National Park near Southport being one example,
Pumphouse Point in Lake St. Clair being another.
_____
Victorian-based developer, David Marriner, wants to build a lodge, 80 cabins, a jetty and a road through the national park. The State government has given the development planning approval…
Nicole Johnston: Greg Wood says the management plans covering national parks and conservation areas can be changed by government too easily.
Greg Wood: They just need to be toughened up so that these changes can’t be made. It’s as clear as that. They’re there to protect these places and to totally contravene that is just wrong. I can’t think of a more clearer case of planning than setting aside an area as a national park. If that’s not setting it aside for nature protection, well what is? And the government could just come in and say, ‘Yes, a national park, we’re going
to develop it anyway’. If they can just come in and do that, well what’s the point of having these protected areas? It’s wrong, and it needs to be
toughened up. It has to be.
The Law Report, 15th June 2004
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2004/1129947.htm