The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) spearheaded a campaign to end broadscale tree clearing in western NSW. The resulting legislation has proven difficult for government to administer and a nightmare for landholders wanting to clear woody weeds including species of acacia and pine.
In response, the NSW government appointed a committee to “independently” review the Invasive Native Species (INS) regulations that sit under the legislation.
The NSW government appointed a director of the WWF, Dr Denis Saunders, to head the committee.
Farmers have cried foul asking how the board member of a lobby group totally opposed to land clearing can head an independent review of the legislation.*
But it gets worst.
Dr Saunders is not only a director of WWF, he was a member of The Wentworth Group. This groups is described at the Australian Museum website as not only driving the media campaign against broadscale tree clearing in NSW, but also producing the “model for landscape conservation” that was subsequently adopted by the state government.
The Wentworth Group was funded by Robert Purves, a businessman and also President of WWF Australia, through a $1.5 million donation. The campaign was coordinated by Peter Cosier, a former senior environmental policy advisor to Senator Robert Hill.
So Denis Saunders was actively involved in the campaign which resulted in the new legislation. Furthermore he was part of the team that proposed the model for the legislation that was subsequently adopted by government. Incredibly government has now made him head of a committee to “independently” review the mess his team helped create.
So “Caesar is judging Caesar”!
Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the NSW legislation and the environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled ‘The great land-clearing myth’.
——————————-
* Veg Review Compromised? By Lucy Skuthorp, The Land, pg. 11, 17th August 2006.
NSW Regional Community Survival Group has issued the following media release:
“Media Release
Thursday, 17 August 2006
Farmers outraged over woody weed recommendationsFarmers have rejected the recommendations of a NSW Government review into the management of woody weeds, claiming a conflict of interest by the Chair of the review committee, Dr Denis Saunders, who is also a Board Member of Australia’s most powerful green group.
“How can farmers have any faith in the recommendations of the so-called Invasive Native Scrub Working Group when its Chair is on the Board of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Australia, which campaigns against land clearing?” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.
The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers from western NSW who are fed up with bureaucratic, nonsensical laws that prevent farmers from controlling infestations of woody weeds that have invaded up to 20 million hectares (an area three times the size of Tasmania) of western NSW.
Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) invade native grasslands and pastures, leaving the landscape like a desert with no natural groundcover – making the countryside prone to massive wind and water erosion.
NSW Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Macdonald, gave Dr Saunders the task of ‘refining’ the rules and regulations associated with the management of woody weeds in March 2006.
“Given the WWF has an axe to grind on land clearing issues, how can farmers have any confidence in the integrity of the review recommendations? It is painfully obvious that Dr Saunders has a massive conflict of interest on this issue and I’m surprised that such a senior scientist would place himself in such a conflicted position,” Mr Menzies said.
The Regional Community Survival Group has called upon Premier Iemma to immediately remove Dr Saunders from any further direct involvement in the process of drafting new rules for controlling the spread of infestations of woody weeds in western NSW.
Mr Menzies said that not a single farmer was a member of the Working Group – a group made up of nine bureaucrats – and this was reflected in the absurdity of some of the final recommendations.
A key recommendation of the Working Group was for farmers to leave 20 per cent of the area of their farm infested with woody weeds. This leaves one-fifth of your farm being degraded by woody weeds that smother out native grasslands and pastures. Areas infested with woody weeds also harbour feral pigs and goats.
“Farmers are more than happy to preserve areas of native bushland, but leaving 20 per cent of a farm infested with woody weeds is like a surgeon only removing 80 per cent of a tumour.”
Mr Menzies said farmers who wish to rehabilitate their land are also prevented from clearing more than 20 per cent of the area of woody weeds on their property at any one time. If a farmer wants to clear woody weeds above 20 per cent, this can only be done in 20 per cent increments and only after each increment consists of more than 75 per cent of native grasses.
“Depending on weather conditions (e.g. drought), it could take years for a grassland to consist of more than 75 per cent of native species. Hence, this provision in the regulation is a ‘handbrake’ on land rehabilitation.”
“The review also recommends that farmers leave a certain number of weeds per hectare. For example, farmers have to retain some woody weed species that have a trunk diameter (at breast height) of less than 20cm.
“For western NSW alone, there are over 70 rules on retaining woody weed species at various trunk diameters, making the physical removal of weeds by tractor and chain totally impractical.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I am sorry if this is too long and not exactly relevant to this article but I hope you get the gist of it.
When the Native Vegetation Clearing Act was first being bandied about in the early 80’s I lived in Belgrave Heights. The local Sherbrooke council at this time was getting controversial with hard line rules on vegetation removal. Due to the extremely dry and hot summer, concern and often anger was being directed at the council who were sticking hard by their rule of no native vegetation clearing further than 3 meters from a house. It was absurb, even to many who had never experienced bushfire before and knew how dry and crunchy things were becoming. As I recall some seemed to have more experience with fire in the neighbourhood and were threatening to ignore the council whereupon the council threatened any resident doing so would be charged $90 per limb. There are many eucalyptus trees in this area and remnant forest patches. The forest ecology is made up of a Dry Eucalyptus Woodland forest type of stuff. In other words highly inflammable.
People were claiming that greenies had got into council and that these people just did not know what they were on about and would not listen to reason.
Feb 16, 1983 arrives and we are confronted with a bit of a fire problem. 40+ people die and hundreds of homes are destroyed (including ours) in our neighborhood alone. This fire, known as Ash Wednesday, goes onto destroy many more lives and property and immense amounts of native vegetation.
Things went a bit quite over the need for a Native Vegetation Clearing Act all of a sudden.
Obviously, to extrapolate the native vegetation clearing capacity of such a wildfire into the Great Divide forests as a whole produces catastrophic clearing capacity figures that man and his chainsaw, bulldozer, explosives, poisons, whatever just cannot compete with. How were they going to explain this Native Vegetation clearing Act when fires of this magnitude occur.
Joan Kirner was to later steal power from Premier John Cain. She became premier and introduced the NVC Act and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and national parks and with preferences from the greenies won further terms as Premier.
Oh, and of course back in 1983, when the greenies slid into council positions, the call for a NVC legislation was building momentum, residents in fire prone areas were in danger but not properly warned or informed of it (ie/ wildfire potentials), council ignored claims of irresponsible management while pushing ‘conservation’ projects. Who was opposition environmental minister? Joan Kirner.
We can now see, 23 years later, the controlling effect (power) the authorities have over private land holders with this Act. Did people designing this stuff back in the 70’s and 80’s ignore the potential for catastrophic wildfire, in favour of a smoother public campaign for this Act? Did they continue to allow residential development in highly inflammable forest types knowing the full potential of fires that may occur in those areas while maintaining a we know better than everybody attitude? Did they ignore people wanting to talk about excessive fuel loads (vegetation) and excessive local regulations concerning this vegetation so as not to ‘confuse’ the general population as to what is best for them and ‘their’ environment, that is, a NVC Act? Was the inquiry into these fires halted halfway through due to evidence mounting that showed a considerable amount of over vegetation throughout forests across Victoria (NSW, Queensland…..) and this information was simply counter-productive to campaigns that would see all trees become god like and symbols of the green movement ? Did ‘experts’ turn a blind eye to any issues concerning native vegetation that might cause negative attention or open cans of worms during future political campaigns? Is there such a thing as eco-manslaughter?
Nature is red in tooth and claw, and apparently the greenies are as well.
Failure to recognise the woody weeds around Cobar patch as land degradation and allow remedial action is just bloody stupid. Same with inability to use appropriate fire regimes or to maintain vegetation for fire safety/fallen limbs/rotten trees etc. Just wanton stupidity.
But there is a difference with these issues and knocking over the last remnant on an endangered ecosystem. Nevertheless it is ridiculous if vegetation management legislation has descended to this level of ineptitude.
Luke, More signs that politicians, bureaucrats and greenie’s have undying faith in the ability of pious hope and regulation to fix the problems now largely caused by previous doses of pious hope and regulation.
I agree with you that there is routine management of woody vegetation and there is looking after last remnants of endangered. But the “endangered” (nor the semi-endangered)should not be defined by way of something dredged up from the bottom of splitter’s ditch!
As for Lewis Carrol’s Red Queen, so for Minister’s and bureaurats. Language means what you intend it to mean.
A review committee into native vegetation regulations made up of bureacrats, and chaired by a board member of the WWF, will be independant all right. Independant of those most impacted by the regulations, landowners.
The makeup of that independant review committee does smack just a little of third world cronyism, doesnt it? Or am I using the wrong words?
Following the severe Victorian bushfires of 2002-3, a report was written by Commissioner Esplin, with help from Dr Malcolm Gill and Professor Neal Enright. According to web information, the report was severely criticised by Allan Myers QC, on behalf of the Stretton Group. He questioned the independence of Mr. Stretton, and the skills and experience of Dr Gill and Professor Enright in fire prevention and suppression. The report allocates no blame for the severity of the fires, so exonerating all parties, including the Bracks Government. In Chapter 7 it mentions prescribed burning, but makes no recommendations. In Chapter 12 it dismisses attempts to recreate an Aboriginal fire regime as ‘an experiment in land management’.
Recently the West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM), I believe on instruction from the WA Environment Minister, organised a colloquium about my grasstree evidence of frequent burning (every 2-4 years) in the dry forests and woodlands of the SW, before European settlement, and up to about the 1920s, or 1930s in some places. This evidence has been criticised as unreliable, before a Parliamentary Committee, by Dr Beth Schultz of the WA Conservation Council. This organisation has long criticised prescribed burning by CALM, and the previous Forests Department.
I was invited to present my evidence, derived from old grasstree stems. Professor Enright was invited to present evidence of his published claim that the grasstree data are unreliable.
I don’t know who made the decision, but Dr Gill was invited to chair the colloquium, and write a report. Draft reports that I have seen seem to favour Professor Enright’s evidence over mine. Professor Enright, on the basis of a theoretical seed bank model, believes that fire intervals of 2-4 years would be destructive, and that intervals of 12 years plus would be appropriate.
Interestingly, the Esplin Report emphasized the need to use local knowledge. Local knowledge (presented by me at the colloquium) from old SW settler families and some Nyoongar Elders, consistently supports the idea of frequent burning in former days, overwhelmingly at 2-4 year intervals. Dr Gill describes this as ‘equivocal’, or ‘lay opinion’.
Any comments?
Another long post. Sorry. I understand if it is given the flick. I am hopeless at editing and Dave asked for a comment, so……
I live in East Gippsland, just out of Bairnsdale, cleared foothill country on the fringe of the forest. A lot of dry sclerophyl type forest around here . Up until the late 80’s fuel reduction burning in the asset protection, which extends a couple of k’s into the bush, was fuel reduced in a timely and consistent manner. Approximately every 4-7 years. The officers in charge, going back to the 1960’s were expert and performed cool carpet burns expertly. No crowning allowed. They knew the lay of the land, the ridge and spur lines. They knew where the fire would run (most of the time). If it got away they were onto it.
Past the asset protection zone and you have bush of a similar type, in need of a clean up every 4-7 years but here the bush hasn’t seen significant fire for over 80 years plus. This fuel load nightmare continues in all directions.
When J Kirner here in Victoria introduced ecology experts into the main mix along with new TAFE generated ‘scientists’ etc., the make up of the environmental management departments changed. Greenies got into prominent positions in flora and fauna departments. Fuel reduction burning, of any consequence, came to a grinding halt around the towns’ fringe. What should be quite open forest, especially northern slopes, are now covered in shrub like dogwood, manuka and wattles, with a lot of ground debris. Many of these areas are impenetrable (and I like a challenge but ….. it’s bad bad) Having seen this type of vegetation burn as fiercely as it can, I have got to say when I look at it I get scared, anxious. Nothing would survive in this environment during a severe wildfire. Crowning over large areas is guaranteed. Anything on the ground better find a mine shaft or bad luck.
On the fringe of town are a few greenies. One in particular went from protestor to senior flora and fauna manager. His wife taught ecology at TAFE for many years and is now community liaison officer for Department of Sustainability and Environment, part of her role providing ‘advice’ on community funding applications for environmental projects and in fact there seems to be a little greenie network in town here now who want to give the town a makeover (i.e./ takeover) based on community funding.
When the 2003 fires were coming down from the north and getting close to town I did a couple of reconoitres around the edge of town. Couldn’t believe what I saw. This senior flora and fauna officer, who signs off on reports pertinent to fuel reduction burning, had highly flammable manuka, 7-10 ft high growing virtually up to his house, where prior to them moving there it was cleared land. I took photos and headed into the forest behind his property. Manuka in areas was 14ft high, thick with a tangled mess underneath. This area use to be fuel reduced and should be predominately open forest.
There are areas of scrub out here, the fast growing after a fire type scrub, which has now, since the introduction of the Ecological Vegetation Class identification system, been included as an EVC that is described as ‘shrubby dry forest’. Old growth is reported as being associated with shrubby dry forest. We know the symbolism that may accompany such a classification. This scrub is more an opportunistic ‘gap filler’ between frequent fire cycles. Fast growing, fast colonizer, tough and persistent. What’s going on?
I have spent a considerable amount of time in the mountains, saw horrific fire behaviour, up close in Ash Wednesday and have studied and discussed with experts the issue of wildfire for some years now. I am a member of the Wildfire Taskforce Inc. (though this post is my own representation). It’s hard to imagine but if you look carefully at the function of environmental legislation, the methodology of greenie protest groups, know some of the players, have seen some of the hidden network, seen many lies/deliberate environmental misrepresentations and see the ignorance of the public majority about such matters I’d reckon we would want to be concerned. Like not tomorrow, yesterday.
I reckon we are witnessing possibly one of the biggest cons in Australia’s history.
Forget the Esplin (ALP) report Dave, it’s a whitewash. Chapter seven is the proof.
If they are of any worth these days, we need a Royal Commission into environmental management on the whole. Many issues need to be qualified, quantified, clarified and crystallized. Exposed?!?!
There is a 1975 (Goughs W’s time) coffee table pictorial type book on National Parks of Australia. In it is a photo of a young Bob Brown standing on a stump in a majestic pose. The photographer was J. Thwaites. Have never checked but is this John Thwaites, Victoria’s current Environment Minister? I suppose coincidences are allowed though.
Maybe it’s Gaia or the UN’s Agenda 21 or socialism. Whatever, but are they trying to burn us out?
Then there’s the relationship between our Flora and Fauna manager and a local CFA lieutenant (another Greenie) and their search for the ‘endangered’ Sooty Owl so, as I suspect, to hasten Special Protection Zone tenures on land around town, adjacent to their property. That, like many others, is another story.
I know a bloke that has a profound knowledge of things ecological, who has been doing fuel reduction burning on his property for 35 years. His property is beautiful and a delight to see. He is ignored by the authorities. On the other side of his fence is National Park. The scrub on this land is unbelievably thick. It should be open forest.
I have a feeling we are being completely ripped off here, especially our future generations. Our kids. Oh and our poor native flora and fauna.
Fuel needs to be reduced urgently, especially within the highly volatile forests so as to at least reduce the wicking effect that will occur otherwise into less fire tolerant neighbouring forests.
Comment moved from “Ecology – ” as seems to fit better here.
Davey, Re fire and Kruger Park. Thanks for the reference. At least they took less than 20 years for “nature looks after its own” to fall over and be recognized as a fallacy.
I think you’ll find “You can fool all of the people etc” came from A. Lincoln. Others such as A. Hitler helped add the usually unwritten 4th line which goes “If you’re caught trying to fool all of the people, then everything you say will be treated as such”. Of course there is the “George Bush ammendment” that “You need to concentrate on those you can fool all of the time” – I guess they could be enough to ensure re-election.
The policy sleaze in NSW is made even more squalid by the fact that the Chief Scientist is none other than the Mr Cosier (or Crosier) who, as a paid officer of the WWF, worked as the convenor of the Wentworth Group.
There is not the slightest grain of repect for the rights, liberties or legitimate interests of the landowning community here. So how much contempt must farmers endure before they adopt the principle, “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”?
Anomaly in Jennifer’s piece above, and in Ian’s ire: Jennifer says Dr Saunders was a member of the Wentworth group … which leads on to a trail of evil doings etc etc.
But in the Ross Coulthart story that Jennifer links to, GABE HOLMES says ‘the Wentworth Group of scientists acknowledge it'(that INS must be managed).
It seems then that the wentworth group might actually distinguish between reponsible & irresponsible land clearing?
Just a comment to Pinxi – that comment from the Wentworth group recognising that woody weeds need to be managed is (I think, from memory) the only statement in the whole document about woody weeds. They offer no management strategies, just that one bald statement. Subsequent to that statement, all attempts by land managers to have appropriate management strategies introduced has been vigorously opposed by those same scientists and ‘respected independent persons’. There is such a thing as lip service and it is rife in the green arena, but our community MUST secure proper management options, at whatever cost. When the need for something is so obvious, why do we need to fight tooth and nail for it?
In the doc “BLUEPRINT FOR A LIVING CONTINENT” the Wentworth Group/WWF do say that;
“Clear distinction needs to be made between the need to stop broadscale clearing of remnant native vegetation and the need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and arid pastoral areas of Australia. This part of Australia has been managed by indigenous Australians for 45,000 years, using fire. Since European settlement these fire management practices have changed which is causing environmental damage in some areas. Landscapes such as the Mulga lands in western Queensland have changed so much because of the lack of vegetation management, such that production and conservation values are now being compromised. ”
And thats all folks!
Interesting, Rog. That last line reads like something from Nostradamus. It can be taken any way one wants. To a departmental goon, “vegetation management” means controls and compliance so they would interpret that sentence as meaning the lack of regulations and punitive measures are compromising production and conservation values.
Just bleed the chook and apply the leaches. If they don’t survive at least they’ll get planet salvation.
Well worth quoting it back to them though – the general nature can be used both ways – tell them their policy supports clearing of INS, it’s in their blueprint
Land clearing, as promoted by the greens in NSW is a myth. Both the govt departments and the greens use a disingenuous argument by quoting their figures based on the clearing applications by farmers required in the western lands district of the State. What they don’t tell you is that farmers only actually clear about 20% of the total applications. Also they don’t tell you that farmers are applying to clear the same land that was cleared 20 years previously. In other words, it is regrowth woody weeds that is cleared. But the figure of 400,000ha per year for the last 20 years is is the gospel. Meanwhile the insidious biomass explosion continues and creates havoc acroos the rangelands in Australia. And do the greens care? No because they get more political milage from falsely telling anyone who listens that land clearing is being carried out at an unsustainable rate.
The early NSW explorers had documented quite meticulously THESE DELICATE AND VERY SPECIAL SMALL MARSUPIALS .These creatures obviously endured fires by aboriginal people or they would not of been then recorded .
These same small animals are now either extinct or only survive in national parks in other small areas or on a real humans property that is hard to find , isnt that wonderful – no wonder greenies get emotional.
Unfortuneately the greenies have targeted the wrong vegetation the woody weed issue is small compaired to the larger tree vegetation that is dissapearing fast out west , it is removed or poisoned from areas that is not visible from a roadside perspective , how sads that and most people dont see it because of property rights.
Soon the roadways out here will be totally void of birds and marsupials such as fat tailed dunnart just like IT IS in the more developed areas down south (no species can sustain themselves from continious road kill when the only habitat such as a tree hollow that is becoming mostly on roadside or a roadside reserve )
COMMON SENSE from observation over time shows us this