With your support, we can continue to help community groups like Australian Coal Alliance defend the environment. Please make a donation today.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Wednesday 9 May 2018
Lock The Gate back in court asking questions about "secretive deals" between NSW Coalition Government and Shenhua mining group
NSW Environmental Defender’s Office
(EDO):
Our client Lock the Gate
is seeking access to information held by the NSW Government about secretive
deals relating to the “buy-back” of the coal exploration licence
for Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Limited’s (Shenhua) controversial Shenhua
Watermark Coal Mine in the Liverpool Plains in north central NSW, one of the
nation’s most productive agricultural regions.
Lock the Gate argues
that the public has a right to know about deals made behind closed doors in
relation to the exploration and development of the proposed Watermark coal
mine. Lock the Gate argues that accountability and transparency in this case
are essential given the significant predicted impacts of the Watermark mine on
the Liverpool Plains, the nation’s agricultural industry, local communities and
the environment.
On behalf of Lock the
Gate, we are asking the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to decide that
the release of this information is in the public interest.
Farmland on the
Liverpool Plains. Photo: Lock the Gate Alliance.
Background
In July and September
2017, respectively, Lock the Gate made applications to the NSW Department of
Planning and Environment and the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet for
information about Shenhua’s application to renew its exploration licence for
the Watermark mine. That information encompasses secretive dealings between
Shenhua and the NSW Government that resulted in the buy-back of around 51% of
the exploration licence, which covered the highly fertile “black soils” of the
Liverpool Plains, at the cost of $262 million to the public.
Whilst the NSW
Government claims that the buy-back was necessary to protect the black soils
from mining, and thereby the agricultural industry of the Liverpool Plains,
Lock the Gate contends that the buy-back will do nothing to lessen the expected
impacts of the mine. Furthermore, Lock the Gate argues that the buy-back was
completely unnecessary. The NSW Government could have used its powers under the
Mining Act to reduce the size of the exploration licence by 50% upon its renewal
without the payment of any compensation to Shenhua.The NSW Government could
also have cancelled the exploration licence outright given that Shenhua had
allegedly failed to comply with a condition of the licence that required
substantial development of the Watermark mine to have commenced by October
2016, eight years after the initial grant of the licence in 2008.
The information sought
by Lock the Gate includes Shenhua’s submissions on the licence renewal
application, its request for the abovementioned licence condition to be
suspended, Ministerial briefings and draft deeds of agreement about coal
exploration and mining titles. The NSW Government has withheld this information
on the basis that, amongst other things, it contains Cabinet information, was
provided in confidence, or that its release may be prejudicial to Shenhua’s
business interests – and therefore that there is an overriding public interest
against its disclosure.
On the contrary, Lock
the Gate argues that the overwhelming public interest in the release of the
information is clear.
Access to this
information will increase the accountability and transparency of the NSW
Government in relation to the exploration and development of coal in the
Liverpool Plains. This is particularly important in these circumstances where
the Government has done deals with a private, foreign-owned, coal mining
company behind closed doors and these have resulted in the expenditure of vast
amounts of public funds without clear justification.
Access to this information
is also vital for the public to have confidence in the decision-making
processes of the NSW Government in relation to dealings about coal mining and
exploration projects. This is essential where these dealings involve projects
that are likely to have significant economic, social and environmental impacts
and in which a number of stakeholders have expressed competing views.
The more
transparency around those deliberative processes, the more likely it is that
they will be of high quality and will serve the public interest.
The matter is listed for
hearing on 9 May 2018.
Brendan Dobbie,
solicitor for EDO NSW, has carriage of this matter for Lock the Gate and our
Principal Solicitor, Elaine Johnson, is the solicitor on record.
We are grateful to
barrister Scott Nash for his assistance in this matter.
Help defend the environment
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like Australian Coal Alliance defend the environment. Please make a donation today.
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like Australian Coal Alliance defend the environment. Please make a donation today.
Stay in touch with news on this case
by signing up to
our weekly eBulletin.
Labels:
coal,
environment,
farming,
mining,
people power,
sustainable food
Sunday 6 May 2018
Problems with the Murray-Darling Basin plan just keep mounting and the NSW Northern Rivers needs to make sure these problems don't become ours
When it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin river systems there is never any really good news - we go from reports of town water shortages, pictures of permanently dry river beds and allegations of widespread water theft to the possibility of a fundamental legal
error in the master plan circa 2012.
The
Guardian, 2
May 2018:
One of Australia’s
foremost lawyers has issued an extraordinary warning that the Murray-Darling
basin plan is likely to be unlawful because the authority overseeing it made a
fundamental legal error when it set the original 2,750-gigalitre water recovery
target in 2012.
Bret Walker QC, who
chairs the South Australian royal
commission into the Murray-Darling basin plan, issued the warning
in a
second issues paper. He also spelled out the far-reaching implications of
the plan being unlawful.
Not only does it mean
that the original water recovery target of 2,750GL was likely to have been set
too low to deliver the environmental goal of the Water Act and
could be challenged in court, but it also means that amendments to the plan now
being debated by the Senate are likely to be invalid as well.
These include a
plan to trim 70GL from the northern basin water recovery targets and a suite
of projects, known as the sustainable
diversion limit adjustment projects, which would be funded in lieu of recovering
605GL in the southern basin.
Both are being strongly
criticised by scientists and environmentalists because they believe that they
further undercut the environmental outcomes of the plan.
The Murray-Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA) says it has relied on the best available
science in recommending the changes.
The new uncertainty over
the validity of the amendments will make it difficult for crossbenchers to
support them as the Coalition government has urged.
Walker has provided a
roadmap for environmental groups or an individual affected to challenge the
plan in court.
At the heart of his
advice is his view that the Water Act directs the MDBA to ensure environmental
outcomes are achieved when it set the environmentally sustainable level of take
(ESLT) from the river system. This is the flipside of setting the water
recovery target.
But instead of
considering the environmental outcomes only, the MDBA applied a triple bottom
line approach, giving equal weight to social and economic impacts of water
recovery.
“The MDBA also appears
to have approached the word ‘compromise’ in the definition of ESLT in a manner
involving compromise between environmental, social and economic outcomes rather
than in relation to the concept of ‘endangering’ or ‘putting in danger’
environmental criteria such as key environmental assets, and key ecosystem
functions,” the SA royal commission said.
“The commissioner is inclined to take the view
that this approach to the word ‘compromise’ in s4 of the Water Act is not
maintainable, or alternatively that he is presently unable to see how it is
maintainable,” the paper says.
“There is also evidence
that recovering an amount of water for the environment of 2,750GL does not, as
a matter of fact, represent an ESLT in accordance with the definition of that
term under the Water Act.”
Walker pointed to
numerous reports, including a 2011 CSIRO report which said modelling based on a
2,800GL recovery target “does not meet several of the specified hydrological
and ecological targets”.
There is also evidence
that the MDBA received legal advice on more than one occasion, consistent with
the commissioner’s concerns.
The issue of
water sustainability in the Murray-Darling Basin affects not just those living
in the basin and the economies of the four states this large river system runs
through – it also affects the bottom line of the national economy and those
east coast regions which will be pressured to dam and divert water to the Basin
if its rivers continue to collapse.
One such
region is the Northern Rivers of New South Wales and in particular the Clarence
River catchment area and the Clarence Valley Local Government Area.
Almost every
year for the past two decades there have been calls to dam and divert the
Clarence River – either north into south-east Queensland or west over the
ranges into the NSW section of the Murray Darling Basin.
The latest
call came last month on 18 April from Toowoomba Regional Council in south-east Queensland:
The response came on 24 April via NBN News and it was a firm NO:
NO TO CLARENCE WATER DIVERSION via @nbnnews https://t.co/w6DcTaIt4M— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) May 1, 2018
However, because
communities in the Murray-Darling Basin have for generations refused to face
the fact that they are living beyond the limits of long-term water
sustainability and successive federal governments have mismanaged water policy
and policy implementation, such calls will continue.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
The Clarence
River system is the most attractive first option for those would-be water
raiders, but experience has shown the Northern Rivers region that once a formal
investigation is announced all our major rivers on the NSW North Coast become
vulnerable as the terms of reference are wide.
The next National General Assembly of Local
Government (NGA) runs from 7-20
June 2018.
If Toowoombah
Regional Council’s motion is placed on the assembly agenda it is highly likely
that a number of councils in the Murray-Darling Basin will announce their support of the proposal.
Northern Rivers
communities need to watch this NGA closely.
Monday 30 April 2018
What the Australian Government didn’t want the UN to publish
During Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce’s
disastrous sojourn as Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Agriculture and Water Resources the federal government began a successfull campaign
to have the United Nations delete
all criticism of Australia’s $13bn effort to restore the ailing Murray-Darling
river system from a published study.
It seems the Turnbull Government did not want the
world to know, or Australian voters to be reminded, that it had placed long
term water sustainability in four of its eight states and territories in jeopardy.
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United
Nations draft report in question was the following:
C.J. Perry and Pasquale
Steduto, (25 May 2017), DOES IMPROVED IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY SAVE
WATER? A review of the evidence: Discussion paper on irrigation
and sustainable water
resources management in the
Near East and North Africa
Abstract
The
Near East and North Africa (NENA) Region has the lowest per-capita fresh water
resource availability among all Regions of the world. Already naturally exposed
to chronic shortage of water, NENA will face severe intensification of water
scarcity in the coming decades due to several drivers related to demography,
food security policies, overall socio-economic development and climate change.
Irrigated agriculture in the Region, which already consumes more than 85
percent of renewable fresh water resources, will face strong challenges in
meeting augmented national food demand and supporting economic development in
rural areas. Countries of the NENA Region promote efficient and productive
irrigation as well as the protection and sustainable management of scarce and
fragile natural resources, particularly water, in their national plans. Through
the Regional Initiative on Water Scarcity, FAO is providing support and focus
to efforts in confronting the fast-widening gap between availability and demand
for fresh water resources. A key question to address is: how can countries
simultaneously reduce this gap, promote sustainable water resources management
and contribute effectively to food security and enhanced nutrition? The
traditional assumption has been that increasing irrigation efficiency through
the adoption of modern technologies, like drip irrigation, leads to substantial
water savings, releasing the saved water to the environment or to other uses.
The evidence from research and field measurements shows that this is not the
case. The benefit at the local “on-farm” scale may appear dramatic, but when
properly accounted at basin scale, total water consumption by irrigation tends
to increase instead of decreasing. The potential to increase water
productivity— more “crop per drop”—is also quite modest for the most important
crops. These findings suggest that reductions in water consumption by irrigated
agriculture will not come from the technology itself. Rather, measures like
limiting water allocation will be needed to ensure a sustainable level of water
use. The present report provides the evidence needed to open up a discussion
with all major stakeholders dealing with water resources management on the
proper and scientifically sound framework required to address jointly water
scarcity, sustainability and food security problems. A discussion that has been
disregarded for too long.
C.J.
Perry stated at Research
Gate on 25 April 2018 that:
Government representatives from the Australian Embassy in Rome disagreed
with the research findings for the Australia section summarised in the original
report. FAO, in response, welcomed the opportunity to improve the report.
Dissemination was put on hold and the report was removed from the FAO website
pending inclusion of additional material relevant to the Australian section. In a series of exchanges, no empirical evidence was presented to support
the Australian authorities’ claim that the investment program in the Murray
Darling Basin has generated substantial water savings and environmental
benefits. This left the global principles
and conclusions set out in the original report unchallenged, while the results
from Australia remained contentious. Therefore, it was decided that the best
solution to the matter was to withdraw the Australian section from the
publication and let the Discussion Paper to be available again on the web. The
original and current versions of the report both invite submissions of additional
case studies, information and analysis to WSI@fao.org. Cases documenting technical or policy interventions
where irrigation water has been released to environmental or other uses will be
particularly valuable.
The
suppressed section in the original draft of this UN report would have been
identical or very similar to this version of the text:
4.1 AUSTRALIA
Document(s)
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water)
(United Nations Statistics Division, 2012); Water Account Australia 2004–05,
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006); Droughtand the rebound effect: A
Murray–Darling basin example (Loch and Adamson, 2015); Understanding irrigation
water use efficiency at different scales for better policy reform: A case study
of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia (Qureshi et al., 2011); Water Reform and
Planning in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia (Grafton, 2017)
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Context
Australia
has led the world in the introduction of water rights in a context of extreme
resource variability.
This in turn
has provided the basis for managed trading between sectors and locations, and
valuable lessons regarding potential problems as previously under-utilized entitlements
are sold and used, and of “stranded assets” if significant volumes of water are
traded out of an area. More recently, evidence suggests that subsidy programmes
to “save” water seem to have been ineffective, poorly conceived and
un-prioritized.
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Highlights
The Murray
Darling Basin (MDB) is widely recognized for its advanced standards in water
resources management—in particular the system of tradable water rights that
allows transfer of water on short term or permanent leases subject to
evaluation of third party impacts by the regulatory authorities.
Australia
participated in the formulation of the United Nations (UN) System of
Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water. This framework accounts for water
withdrawn from “the environment” (rivers, aquifers), use of that water in
various sectors, including transfer between sectors (for example a water utility
supplying a factory or town), consumption through ET, and direct and indirect
return flows to the environment and to sinks. Trial implementation of the
framework was planned in Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics had
already in 2006 issued guidelines referencing the System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting for Water (UN- System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for
Water
(SEEAW) system), which was to be applied to the reporting of the 2004-5
national water accounts.
However, the
following statement from the introduction to Chapter 4 of the 2004-5 National
Water Accounts for Australia5 is apparently at variance with one critical
element of the SEEAW approach—namely the distinction between consumptive and
non-consumptive uses:
This chapter examines the use of water within the AGRICULTURE industry
in Australia. Water used by this industry includes livestock drinking water and
water applied through irrigation to crops and pastures. Since the AGRICULTURE
industry does not use water in-stream, or supply water to other users, total
water use is equal to water consumption.
Elsewhere in
the Accounting Standards it is stated that:
It is believed that leakage to landscape from surface water resources
such as rivers and storages occurs in the MDB region; however, reliable volumes
are not available, and currently there is no suitable quantification approach
to estimate these volumes.
Does this
assumption of zero return flows matter? Indeed it does: Australia is now
embarked on a massive (AUS$ 10bn) programme to save water for the environment,
including subsidies to farmers for hi-tech on farm investment. Savings are
estimated on the basis of typical application efficiencies (e.g. flood irrigation
50 percent, drip 90 percent), so a farmer with a water entitlement of 100 water
units, switching from flood to drip would be assumed to consume 50 units at
present, which would require a delivery of only 50/0.9 (55.5) units after
conversion. The “saving” of 44.5 units are then divided between the farmer and
the environment. Of the 22.25 units going to the farmer, he consumes (with the
new technology) approximately extra 20 units. So on-farm water consumption is
expected to increase from 50 units to 70
units (and return flows are diminished by approximately the same amount), in
apparent direct contradiction to the programme objectives. In some cases, such
return flows will be non-recoverable outflows to saline groundwater; in other
cases, where irrigation is close to rivers or where groundwater is usable, the
return flows are recoverable and cannot be counted as “savings”. However, the
current evaluation of investments includes no apparent basis for assessing whether
subsidized introduction of hi-tech systems will actually release water to
alternative uses, or simply increase consumption by the extra amount allocated
to the farmer. A more comprehensive implementation of UN-SEEAW—where return
flows to the environment are specifically accounted for—would have addressed
this problem.
Other
authors have identified the issue. Qureshi et al. (2011) point to the problem
of ignoring return flows, and the danger of focussing on local “efficiency”,
while Loch and Adamson (2015) go on to identify the “rebound effect” whereby
when water deliveries to the farm are more valuable, the demand for water
actually increases.
Most
recently, writing in a Special Issue of Water Economics and Policy that
addressed many of the complexities of managing water scarcity in the Murray
Darling basin, Grafton (2017) made the following key observations regarding the
Australian experience with providing subsidies for on-farm improvements in
irrigation technology:
* About USD 2.5 billion of taxpayers’ funds used for improving farm irrigation
has primarily benefitted private individuals;
* These investments have had no discernible impact in terms of reduced
water use on a per-hectare basis, or release of water to alternative users;
* The buyback of water rights from willing sellers was the most effective
use of taxpayer funds to release water to alternative uses;
* Investments in irrigation to raise “crop-per-drop” productivity
had failed to deliver water savings on a basin scale.
NOTE: Full draft report Does
improved irrigation technology save water.pdf
Monday 9 April 2018
Land degradation will be main cause of species loss & driver of the migration of millions of people by 2050
IPBES:
Science and Policy for People and nature, media
release, 26 March 2018:
Worsening Worldwide Land
Degradation Now ‘Critical’, Undermining Well-Being of 3.2 Billion People
Main cause of species loss & driver of the migration of millions of people by 2050 In landmark 3-year assessment report, 100+ experts outline costs, dangers & options
Worsening land degradation caused by
human activities is undermining the well-being of two fifths of humanity,
driving species extinctions and intensifying climate change. It is also a major
contributor to mass human migration and increased conflict, according to the
world’s first comprehensive evidence-based assessment of land degradation and
restoration.
The dangers of land degradation, which
cost the equivalent of about 10% of the world’s annual gross product in 2010
through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are detailed for
policymakers, together with a catalogue of corrective options, in the
three-year assessment report by more than 100 leading experts from 45
countries, launched today.
Produced by the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the
report was approved at the 6th session of the IPBES Plenary in Medellín,
Colombia. IPBES has 129 State Members.
Providing the best-available evidence
for policymakers to make better-informed decisions, the report draws on more
than 3,000 scientific, Government, indigenous and local knowledge sources.
Extensively peer-reviewed, it was improved by more than 7,300 comments,
received from over 200 external reviewers.
Serious Danger to Human
Well-being
Rapid expansion and unsustainable
management of croplands and grazing lands is the most extensive global direct
driver of land degradation, causing significant loss of biodiversity and
ecosystem services – food security, water purification, the provision of energy
and other contributions of nature essential to people. This has reached
‘critical’ levels in many parts of the world, the report says.
“With negative impacts on the
well-being of at least 3.2 billion people, the degradation of the Earth’s land
surface through human activities is pushing the planet towards a sixth mass
species extinction,” said Prof. Robert Scholes (South Africa), co-chair of the
assessment with Dr. Luca Montanarella (Italy). “Avoiding, reducing and
reversing this problem, and restoring degraded land, is an urgent priority to
protect the biodiversity and ecosystem services vital to all life on Earth and
to ensure human well-being.”
“Wetlands have been particularly hard
hit,” said Dr. Montanarella. “We have seen losses of 87% in wetland areas since
the start of the modern era – with 54% lost since 1900.”
According to the authors, land
degradation manifests in many ways: land abandonment, declining populations of
wild species, loss of soil and soil health, rangelands and fresh water, as well
as deforestation.
Underlying drivers of land
degradation, says the report, are the high-consumption lifestyles in the most
developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and
emerging economies. High and rising per capita consumption, amplified by
continued population growth in many parts of the world, can drive unsustainable
levels of agricultural expansion, natural resource and mineral extraction, and
urbanization – typically leading to greater levels of land degradation.
By 2014, more than 1.5 billion
hectares of natural ecosystems had been converted to croplands. Less than 25%
of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity –
and by 2050, the IPBES experts estimate this will have fallen to less than 10%.
Crop and grazing lands now cover more
than one third of the Earth´s land surface, with recent clearance of native
habitats, including forests, grasslands and wetlands, being concentrated in
some of the most species-rich ecosystems on the planet.
The report says increasing demand for
food and biofuels will likely lead to continued increase in nutrient and
chemical inputs and a shift towards industrialized livestock production
systems, with pesticide and fertilizer use expected to double by 2050.
Avoidance of further agricultural
expansion into native habitats can be achieved through yield increases on the
existing farmlands, shifts towards less land degrading diets, such as those
with more plant-based foods and less animal protein from unsustainable sources,
and reductions in food loss and waste.
Strong Links to Climate
Change
“Through this report, the global
community of experts has delivered a frank and urgent warning, with clear
options to address dire environmental damage,” said Sir Robert Watson, Chair of
IPBES.
“Land degradation, biodiversity loss
and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the
increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural
environment. We cannot afford to tackle any one of these three threats in
isolation – they each deserve the highest policy priority and must be addressed
together.”
The IPBES report finds that land
degradation is a major contributor to climate change, with deforestation alone
contributing about 10% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Another
major driver of the changing climate has been the release of carbon previously
stored in the soil, with land degradation between 2000 and 2009 responsible for
annual global emissions of up to 4.4 billion tonnes of CO2.
Given the importance of soil’s carbon
absorption and storage functions, the avoidance, reduction and reversal of land
degradation could provide more than a third of the most cost-effective
greenhouse gas mitigation activities needed by 2030 to keep global warming
under the 2°C threshold targeted in the Paris Agreement on climate change,
increase food and water security, and contribute to the avoidance of conflict
and migration.
Projections to 2050
“In just over three decades from now,
an estimated 4 billion people will live in drylands,” said Prof. Scholes. “By
then it is likely that land degradation, together with the closely related
problems of climate change, will have forced 50-700 million people to migrate.
Decreasing land productivity also makes societies more vulnerable to social
instability – particularly in dryland areas, where years with extremely low
rainfall have been associated with an increase of up to 45% in violent
conflict.”
Dr. Montanarella added: “By 2050, the
combination of land degradation and climate change is predicted to reduce
global crop yields by an average of 10%, and by up to 50% in some regions. In
the future, most degradation will occur in Central and South America,
sub-Saharan Africa and Asia – the areas with the most land still remaining that
is suitable for agriculture.”
The report also underlines the
challenges that land degradation poses, and the importance of restoration, for
key international development objectives, including the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. “The greatest
value of the assessment is the evidence that it provides to decision makers in
Government, business, academia and even at the level of local communities,”
said Dr. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary of IPBES. “With better
information, backed by the consensus of the world’s leading experts, we can all
make better choices for more effective action.”
Options for Land
Restoration
The report notes that successful
examples of land restoration are found in every ecosystem, and that many
well-tested practices and techniques, both traditional and modern, can avoid or
reverse degradation.
In croplands, for instance, some of
these include reducing soil loss and improving soil health, the use of salt
tolerant crops, conservation agriculture and integrated crop, livestock and
forestry systems.
In rangelands with traditional
grazing, maintenance of appropriate fire regimes, and the reinstatement or
development of local livestock management practices and institutions have
proven effective.
Successful responses in wetlands have
included control over pollution sources, managing the wetlands as part of the
landscape, and reflooding wetlands damaged by draining.
In urban areas, urban spatial
planning, replanting with native species, the development of ‘green
infrastructure’ such as parks and riverways, remediation of contaminated and
sealed soils (e.g. under asphalt), wastewater treatment and river channel restoration
are identified as key options for action.
Opportunities to accelerate action
identified in the report include:
Improving monitoring, verification
systems and baseline data;
Coordinating policy between different
ministries to simultaneously encourage more sustainable production and
consumption practices of land-based commodities;
Eliminating ‘perverse incentives’ that
promote land degradation and promoting positive incentives that reward
sustainable land management; and
Integrating the agricultural,
forestry, energy, water, infrastructure and service agendas.
Making the point that existing
multilateral environmental agreements provide a good platform for action to
avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation and promote restoration, the authors
observe, however, that greater commitment and more effective cooperation is
needed at the national and local levels to achieve the goals of zero net land
degradation, no loss of biodiversity and improved human well-being.
Knowledge Gaps
Among the areas identified by the
report as opportunities for further research are:
The consequences of land degradation
on freshwater and coastal ecosystems, physical and mental health and spiritual
well-being, and infectious disease prevalence and transmission;
The potential for land degradation to
exacerbate climate change, and land restoration to help both mitigation and
adaptation;
The linkages between land degradation
and restoration and social, economic and political processes in far-off places;
and
Interactions among land degradation,
poverty, climate change, and the risk of conflict and of involuntary migration.
Environmental and
Economic Sense
The report found that higher
employment and other benefits of land restoration often exceed by far the costs
involved. On average, the benefits of restoration are 10 times higher
than the costs (estimated across nine different biomes), and, for regions like
Asia and Africa, the cost of inaction in the face of land degradation is at
least three times higher than the cost of action.
“Fully deploying the toolbox of proven
ways to stop and reverse land degradation is not only vital to ensure food
security, reduce climate change and protect biodiversity,” said Dr.
Montanarella, “It’s also economically prudent and increasingly urgent.”
Echoing this message, Sir Robert
Watson, said: “Of the many valuable messages in the report, this ranks among
the most important: implementing the right actions to combat land degradation
can transform the lives of millions of people across the planet, but this will
become more difficult and more costly the longer we take to act.”
Unedited
advance Summary for Policymakers of the regional assessment of biodiversity and
ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific
EN
PDF
EN
Word
Unedited
advance Summary for Policymakers of the thematic assessment of land degradation
and restoration
EN
PDF
EN
Word
Wednesday 4 April 2018
Sunday 11 March 2018
A brief respite in the NSW Berejiklian Government's war on the natural world
"Clearing under the Code may threaten the viability of certain threatened species at property and local landscape scale. The risk highest in overcleared landscapes where most clearing is likely to occur under the Code." [NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, "Concurrene on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017, p. 3]
Sometime in 2017 a document was prepared for the NSW Minister for Environment & Heritage and Liberal MP for Vaucluse Gabrielle Upton to sign in order for increased clearing of native vegetation across New South Wales to occur.
This new land clearing policy came into effect in August of that year but faced a legal challenge.
The
Coffs Coast Advocate,
9 March 2018:
THE Land and Environment
Court has delivered a massive blow to the NSW Government by ruling its land
clearing laws invalid because they were made unlawfully.
The Nature Conservation
Council (NCC) launched a legal challenge to the codes last November arguing
Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair failed to obtain concurrence from
Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton before making the codes, as is required by
law.
This morning the
government conceded this was the case and NCC chief executive Kate Smolski was
was quick to pounce.
"Today's ruling is
an embarrassing admission of failure by the government and a great victory for
the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us in taking
this action,” she said.
"It is
deeply troubling that the government disregarded the important oversight role
of the Environment Minister when making environmental laws but we are even more
concerned about the harmful content of the laws themselves.
"By
the government's own assessment they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to
45 per cent and expose threatened wildlife habitat to destruction including 99
per cent of identified koala habitat on private land.
"Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”…..
The NSW Government is
yet to issue a statement on the decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature Conservation Council (NCC)
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Media Release, 2 March 2018:
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Court finds NSW
Government land-clearing laws invalid
The Land and Environment
Court today ruled the NSW Government’s land-clearing laws invalid because they
were made unlawfully.
“The government has
bungled the introduction of one of its signature pieces of legislation, and in
the process demonstrates its careless disregard for nature in NSW,” Nature
Conservation Council CEO Kate Smolski said.
“Today’s ruling is an
embarrassing admission of failure by the Berejiklian government and a great
victory for the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us
in taking this action.”
The Nature Conservation
Council, represented by public interest environmental lawyers EDO NSW, launched
legal challenge against the government’s land-clearing codes last November.
NCC had argued through
its barristers Jeremy Kirk SC and David Hume the codes were invalid because the
Primary Industries Minister failed to obtain concurrence of the Environment
Minister before making the codes, as is required by law. The government today
has conceded this was indeed the case.
“It is deeply troubling
that the government disregarded the important oversight role of the Environment
Minister when making environmental laws, but we are even more concerned about
the harmful content of the laws themselves,” Ms Smolski said.
“By the government’s own
assessment, they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to 45% and expose
threaten wildlife habitat to destruction, including 99% of identified koala
habitat on private land.
“These laws were made
against the advice of the scientific community and against the wishes of the
vast majority of the many thousands of people who made submissions.
“It would
be completely cynical for the government to immediately remake these laws
without first correcting their many flaws and including environmental
protections the community wants and the science says we need.
“Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”
Ms Smolski pledged to
continue the campaign to overturn weak land-clearing laws.
“As the state’s peak
environment organization, we will do everything we can to expose the damage of
land clearing and will not stop until we have laws that protect nature,” she
said.
“These laws are a matter
of life or death for wildlife. More than 1000 plant and animal species are at
risk of extinction in this state, including the koala and 60 per cent of all
our native mammals.
“Land clearing is the
main threat to many of these animals, and the laws this government introduced
unlawfully are pushing them closer to the brink.
“It is regrettable that
we had to take the government to court to make it abide by its own laws, but it
demonstrates the critical role organisations like ours play in our democracy.”
Environment Minister
knew 99% of koala habitat would be exposed to land clearing by contentious new
laws, FIO document shows
A document obtained
under freedom of information laws shows the Berejiklian government knew its new
land clearing laws would cause extensive harm to wildlife habitat but pressed
ahead with the changes anyway.
“This is damning
evidence that the Environment Minister approved these new laws knowing they
would expose 99% of identified koala habitat on private land to clearing,” NCC
CEO Kate Smolski said.
“The document also shows
the Minister was warned the laws could cause a 45% spike in land clearing and
that they would mostly benefit very large agribusinesses that could clear land
on a massive scale, not smaller enterprises and farming communities across the
state.
“It shows what we have
suspected all along – environment policy in NSW is being dictated by the
National Party and the powerful agribusiness interests the party represents.
“Minister Upton knew
these laws were very bad for threatened species and bushland, yet she approved
them anyway. This is a disgrace.”
The document, obtained
by EDO NSW for the Nature Conservation Council, was prepared by the Office of
Environment and Heritage for the Environment Minister and outlined the
consequences of Ms Upton agreeing to land-clearing codes proposed by Primary
Industries Minister Niall Blair.
Key warnings in the
document include:
*
“The regulatory changes will further increase agricultural clearing by between
8% and 45% annually.” (Page 3)
*
Clearing under the code risks: “Removing key habitat for threatened species,
including koala habitat (less than 1% of identified koala habitat in NSW is
protected from clearing under the Code)” and “Increasing vulnerability of
threatened ecological communities”. (Page 6)
*
If unchecked “such clearing could destroy habitats, cause soil and water
quality impacts”. (Page 5)
*
“The main benefits are likely to be private benefits for large farming
operations which broadscale clear under the Code.” (Page 6)
“These are terrible laws
that put our wildlife at risk,” Ms Smolski said. “Premier Berejiklian should
act immediately to protect the thousands of hectares of koala habitat at risk
by exempting sensitive areas from code-based clearing. “In the longer term, she
should go back to the drawing board and draft new laws that protect our
precious wildlife and bushland.”
Snapshots from NSW Office of
Environment & Heritage, "Concurrence
on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017:
UPDATE
The respite
ended before it really began………
The
Guardian, 11
March 2018:
But the government made
no delay remaking the laws, announcing
on Saturday it had been completed.
“The remade code is
identical to the previous one and is an integral part of the new land
management framework which gives landowners the tools and certainty they need,”
said David Witherdin, the CEO of Local Land Services, which oversees clearing
under the codes.
The move was condemned
by the NCC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)