Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Friday 15 February 2019

Clarence Valley 2019: keeping the Clarence River Estuary healthy for future generations


“like other heavy fabricating sectors shipbuilding involves the use of materials and manufacturing practices that can impact on the environment, can contribute to climate change” [OECD Council Working Party on Shipbuilding (WP6), November 2010]

“Shipyards are dangerous construction zones with many worker hazards. Shipbuilding, repair, cleaning, and coating use toxic chemicals and hazardous or flammable materials. These activities also can pollute water directly or through runoff. Repairs may require emptying dirty water from a ship’s ballast and bilge tanks into the surrounding waters….. Shipbuilding and ship repair use toxic chemicals that include chromium, copper, lead, and nickel. Ship cleaning activities use chemicals that include copper, hazardous or flammable materials, heavy metals, and solvents. They release lead, particulate mattervolatile organic compounds, zinc, and other air pollutants.” [NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine, Boats & Ships, retrieved 18 February 2019]

If it wasn’t bad enough that barely two years ago Lower Clarence communities still had a flimflam man and then a set of dodgy companies (mentioned in a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation in 2018) trying to push for large scale industrialisation of Clarence River estuary – now Clarence Valley Council apparently attracted by the lure of vacant crown land up for grabs appears to be joining the push to industrialise-and-be-damned if these little gems in its “Clarence Valley Regional Economic Development Strategy 2018 -2022” are any indication.

These are excerpts from that document:

Clarence Valley’s key endowments lie in its coastal, riverine and hinterland amenity; arable soils and favourable climate; access to Sydney and Brisbane via the Pacific Highway; and the ability to bring new industrial land to market cost effectively…..

Industrial Land -The Clarence Valley has seven industrial estates open for business and far more potential development sites compared with neighbouring councils…..

Sustaining a ready supply of zoned and serviced industrial land is a strategic priority for supporting growth in these specialisations, with marine precinct proposals……

•Meet emerging industrial land use opportunities in a timely way •Develop a marine precinct proposal •Develop a project portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial sites, including the marine precinct proposal…..•Develop a Port of Yamba Strategy…….

Develop a marine precinct proposal

•Develop a project portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial sites, including the marine precinct proposal

•Build on the Transport Precinct Feasibility Final Report to develop road investment priorities

•Review and complete land use planning through collaboration with neighbouring councils

•Partner with local industries and training providers to align training courses to industry’s needs

•Advocate for a marine manufacturing SkillsPoint

•Identify and cost options for better Pacific Highway connections

•Advocate for progress on strategic priorities for the Port of Yamba and Summerland Way

•Develop a Port of Yamba Strategy

•Develop Yamba Road & Harwood Road business cases…..

The Clarence River estuary covers an 800 sq. kilometres floodplain and key environmental indicators for this estuary’s health include water quality, riverbank vegetation, the number and distribution of fish species, as well as the presence of macroinvertebrates and plankton.

The estuary is already beginning to struggle under the weight of human activity, including marine activity. A fact it would seem that Clarence Valley Council ignores in its development strategy.

It is a fact that estuary communities cannot afford to ignore if they wish to preserve the aesthetic, cultural, social and environmental amenity which supports both community life and the local economy.

In 2016-2017 a study of six NSW ports was undertaken and published in PLoS One and online in December 2017 as “Water quality assessment of Australian ports using water quality evaluation indices”.

With regard to the Port of Yamba in the lower Clarence estuary the study recommended regular monitoring and management of port activities accounting for both biological and chemical toxicological profiles of the discharging activities.

It did so for the following reasons:

* The Port of Yamba has standard levels of Dissolved Oxygen according to ANZECC guidelines. However. the amount of fecal coliforms was significantly higher in the water of the port area than the corresponding background samples, which clearly indicates the impact of the fishing fleet and recreational boating on the port environment.

* Very high concentrations of iron were found in the port water, the maximum concentration of lead in the water exceeded the ANZECC (0.0022) guidelines with all the background samples had much lower concentration of lead compared to the port area and, the maximum concentration of copper in the water was much higher than ANZECC guidelines and exceeded other international guidelines at (0.04 mg/l) in Port of Yamba.

* The mean concentration of copper also exceeded the ANZECC guidelines. When it came to zinc levels were low except in the port area which contained very high concentrations of zinc, which exceeded the guidelines. Concentration of cadmium and cobalt were within the ANZECC guidelines.

* Overall the Port of Yamba portrayed high contamination for all standard guidelines when it came to water quality – the port area has water quality of medium contamination and one site has high contamination.

Clarence Valley Council itself admits that the entire estuary is already under stress in its Report Card 2013:

“Water quality was poor in the estuary throughout the study, with the region around the tidal limit with consistently the worst water quality of the Clarence River 
reflecting the freshwater and tidal inputs at these sites. Estuary tributaries, particularly Swan and Sportsmans Creeks and the Coldstream River were in very
poor overall condition receiving a grade of F. These systems had consistently poor water quality that contributed nutrient rich, low oxygen and acid water
to the Clarence River following flooding.

Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus consistently exceeded the guideline values throughout the study at all sites. Very high nitrogen concentrations were
recorded in estuarine reaches following flooding. There were no algal blooms recorded during the study. However, algal concentrations were consistently
above the guideline value in estuarine reaches.

The Broadwater and Wooloweyah coastal lagoons both had very poor water quality, with high algal and nutrient concentrations and turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen values consistently exceeding a number of water quality guidelines. The Broadwater had better riparian condition relative to Wooloweyah that improved its overall grade.

Riparian condition was generally low from a poor diversity of native vegetation, reduced vegetation structure and small isolated pockets that were poorly connected to other native vegetation. Reaches showed evidence of eroding river banks and sediment deposited in the channel. Estuarine reaches were often dominated by riverbanks with little or no vegetation present, leading to very poor condition grades.”

The tidal water exchange will not protect the lower estuary from a spreading loss of water quality and increased levels of pollution once industry begins to expand along its foreshores and clusters of marine businesses such as shipbuilding and repair are further developed. 

There will be a tipping point that once reached will be hard, perhaps even impossible, to reverse.

This is something that Lower Clarence communities need to consider before council goes too far down this path which leads away from a healthy estuary for future generations.

Thursday 7 February 2019

Loggers still breaching their environmental obligations in Northern NSW state forests



North East Forest Alliance, media release, 1 February 2019:

EPA ENCOURAGES ILLEGAL LOGGING BY REPEATEDLY LETTING FORESTRY OFF

The North East Forest Alliance is claiming there is no justice for forests after the EPA on Wednesday confirmed numerous breaches of the Forestry Corporation's Threatened Species Licence in Gibberagee State Forest (east of Whiporie) but yet again issued useless cautions and warnings rather than fines and prosecutions for these serial offenders.

"Over the past decade NEFA have exposed the Forestry Corporation committing thousands of legal breaches of their environmental obligations, with the EPA confirming hundreds more breaches in the last few months from NEFA's audits of Gibberagee and Sugarloaf State Forest", said NEFA Spokesperson Dailan Pugh.

"Yet the EPA have never taken the Forest Corporation to court, despite commitments to do so, and in January 2016 they made the political decision not to issue fines.
"With no consequences for their blatant breaches of environmental laws, is it surprising that the Forestry Corporation repeat them time and time again?

"If you or I went around illegally cutting down oldgrowth trees (hundreds of year old), clearing rainforest, and bulldozing roads through exclusions around threatened plants time and time again we would be put in jail, but the Forestry Corporation don't even get a fine.

"The EPA's regulation of the Forestry Corporation is farcical, though the biggest problem is that by their refusal to take meaningful regulatory action the EPA are fostering what Justice Pepper described in 2011 as "a reckless attitude towards compliance with its environmental obligations" Mr. Pugh said.


"On Wednesday, in response to a NEFA complaint made 2 years ago the EPA confirmed that the Forestry Corporation failed to adequately mark the boundaries of 50m logging exclusion zones around numerous individuals of Endangered heath Narrow-leaved Melichrus, and undertook logging operations and roading within their exclusion zones.

"The EPA also confirmed NEFA's complaints of reckless damage to hollow-bearing trees and recruitment trees, while also confirming that the Forestry Corporation was not following the requirements for selection of appropriate recruitment trees.

"Though we can't be sure the EPA found all the breaches we identified because the EPA won't tell us how many they found, and when the EPA invited us into Gibberagee to be show them in March 2017, the Forestry Corporation wouldn't let us show the EPA and ordered us out of the forest.

"When NEFA made its first complaint over Gibberagee in March 2017 we hoped the EPA would take action to stop the breaches, yet when NEFA did another assessment 7 months later we found the same sort of breaches were continuing unabated. We are still waiting for the EPA to respond to the last complaints.

"In October last year the EPA confirmed over 86 breaches of the logging rules identified by the North East Forest Alliance in Sugarloaf State Forest, south of Tabulam, at that time the EPA issued the Forestry Corporation with a Warning Letter for 72 and an Official Caution for 1 offence.

"The confirmed breaches included roading through a wildlife corridor, nine cases of roading in exclusion areas along streams, failure to retain the required numbers of habitat trees, and over 70 cases of serious damage to, and inappropriate selection of, marked habitat trees.

"While failure to retain the required number of habitat trees is called one offence, in practice the EPA found that they had retained 200 less hollow-bearing trees than were legally required.

"There were numerous other breaches that the Forestry got off scot free for, for example the EPA confirmed clearing within the marked boundary of the Endangered Ecological Community Lowland Rainforest but refused to take action on the grounds that because the "forest structure and species present at this location have either been totally removed or severely altered/damaged" it precluded identifying what it had been like before logging.

"The EPA chose to ignore that they and the Forestry Corporation had jointly mapped it as Lowland Rainforest some 6 months before it had been logged and cleared.

"These offences are a repeat of similar offences we reported a year earlier in the nearby Cherry Tree State Forest. Despite the EPA's assurances they were going to take legal action there for logging and roading 4.5ha of mapped Lowland Rainforest and recklessly damaging hundreds of habitat trees, they let the Forestry Corporation off scot-free.

"NEFA estimated in that operation around 1,000 habitat trees were likely to have been damaged or had excessive debris left around their bases, though the EPA justified their refusal to take any regulatory action on the grounds that while it was "likely" the damages "were as a result of harvesting operations", they were not able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt ... that the damage was [not] caused by some other means".

"There is no justice. The EPA's sham regulation is encouraging the Forestry Corporation to repeatedly break logging laws with impunity" Mr. Pugh said.

Thursday 24 January 2019

Hard right ideology has so blinded the Morrison & Berejiklian Coalition Governments that water sustainability is at risk in yet another part of New South Wales in 2019


This particular coal mining project below has a long history and each step of the way Liberal and National politicians at state and federal level have supported the interests of foreign-owned mining corporations over those of local communities and ignored the need for intergenerational equity.

The O'Farrell & Baird Coalition Governments went to bat for the coal mining industry in New South Wales in 2014 after Wyong Coal Pty Ltd neglected to gain consent from a landowner, the Darkinjung traditional owners:


Wyong Coal  are not, however, the owners of the land the subject of the DA. Rather, the DA partially covers land owned by the applicant, the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council ("Darkinjung"). Moreover, the DA partially covers land over which a land rights claim has been made by Darkinjung under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983…..

The proposed development is State Significant Development under Section 89C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) as it is 'development for the purposes of coal mining', as specified in the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the consent authority for the project. However, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) will determine the application under delegation. In addition to approval under NSW legislation, the project is also a controlled action requiring assessment and approval under the Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Commonwealth will undertake a separate assessment and determination under its legislation.

The Berejilian Coalition Government in 2018 carried the flag for an amended Wyong Coal development application which bypassed the need for Darkinjung LALC consent:


Wyong Coal Pty Ltd, which trades as Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture, and Kores Australia Pty Limited, are co respondents. KORES Australia Pty Ltd, a fully-owned subsidiary of Korea Resource Corporation, is the majority shareholder of Wyong Coal Pty Ltd.

The case is being fought on four main grounds: climate change, flooding impacts, compensatory water and risks to water supply for farmers in the region.

Wallarah 2 involves construction and operation of an underground coal mine over the next 28 years, until 2046. It would extract five million tonnes of thermal coal a year. The total greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the mine will be 264+ million tonnes of CO2.

In approving the Project, the PAC chose not to take into account emissions which come from the burning of coal mined at Wallarah 2. Our client argues that the law wasn’t followed with respect to climate change impacts. The key ground with respect to greenhouse gas emissions is that the PAC failed to consider an assessment of downstream emissions from the project. Under the EP&A Act, the PAC was required to consider the public interest. ACA argues that in 2018, considering the public interest for projects such as coal mines mandates the consideration of principles of ecologically sustainable development, particularly intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle.

In addition, our client argues that the PAC unlawfully failed to consider the risks of the flood impacts and the potential loss of water occasioned by the mining project.  
The Project, located within the Central Coast water catchment, would have significant impacts on the Central Coast water supply and residents in the surrounding areas. 
It would permanently alter the landscape, causing flooding events that will only increase over time as the impacts of climate change are realised. The PAC approval proposes dealing with these devastating flooding events by first requiring the mine to try mitigation measures like putting people’s houses on stilts, relocating homes or building levees. If those measures don’t work, then the mine would be required to pay the owners of the properties for the harm. Our client says this simply is not a lawful way to mitigate harm from flooding. There is no evidence that the mitigation measures will work or that compensation is an effective way to remedy harm caused by flooding.

The mine is also likely to impact upon the Central Coast water supply and access to water for farmers in the surrounding region.  The mine proposes to construct a pipeline to deliver compensatory water to the Central Coast Council and provide emergency and long-term compensatory water supplies to farmers if they lose access to water on their properties. If compensatory water cannot be provided, the mine can agree to buy those farmers out. The approval does not cover how the pipeline and the compensatory water is to be provided. ACA argues that the mitigation measures proposed by the PAC in the conditions of approval are not lawful, primarily because they go beyond the power of the PAC to deal with environmental impacts of the Project.

The Morrison Coalition Government by the hand of Minister for the Environment, Liberal MP for Durack and former mining industry lawyer Melissa Price, gave the stamp of approval on 18 January 2018:


This is the second time in the space of days NSW residents have learned that Liberal-Nationals politicians have allowed a new coal mine to progress towards operational capability in New South Wales.

Both of these new coal mines Shenhua Watermark and Wallarah 2 represent threats to regional water security.

Monday 7 January 2019

Australia In Decline: hearing nature's death rattle



The Guardian, 26 December 2018:

More than 50 Australian plant species are under threat of extinction within the next decade, according to a major study of the country’s threatened flora.

Just 12 of the most at-risk species were found to be listed as critically endangered under national environment laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – and 13 had no national threatened listing at all.

The scientists behind the research, published in the Australian Journal of Botany this month, say the results point to a need for re-evaluation of Australia’s national lists for threatened plants.

It is the first major assessment of the status of Australia’s threatened flora in more than two decades.

Plants account for about 70% of Australia’s national threatened species list, with 1,318 varieties listed as either critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. 

Among those on the list are acacia pharangites (wongan gully wattle), banksia vincentia, caladenia amoena (charming spider-orchid), caladenia busselliana (Bussell’s spider orchid), calochilus richiae (bald-tip beard orchid) and eremophila pinnatifida (dalwallinu eremophila).

The research team assessed species that met criteria for either a critical or endangered listing at national or state levels to track their rate of decline.

They did this by reviewing all available literature on the plants – including recovery plans, conservation advice and peer-reviewed research – and conducting interviews with 125 botanists, ecologists and land managers with expertise on particular geographic regions or species.

The study examined 1,135 species, including 81 that were unearthed through the interview process as being eligible for a critically endangered or endangered listing but did not have one.

It found 418 plants had continued declines in their population and a further 265 species had insufficient monitoring information available to determine their status.

The scientists concluded that 55 species were at high risk of extinction within the next 10 years, with fewer than 250 individual plants or only a single population remaining. They found just 12 of the most imperilled species were listed under the EPBC Act as critically endangered and 13 had no listing at all.

They said there were also 56 species of plants currently on the critically endangered list that they assessed as having no documented declines or that were stable or even increasing.

“This points to a clear need for re-evaluation and standardisation of current lists, and consistent application of IUCN listing guidelines,” the study states.

“There is also a need to collect systematic, repeatable field data for most of [the] species, to back up suspected and projected declines and provide a stronger basis for investment in recovery actions.”…..

Sunday 9 December 2018

Loss of nearly every wild oyster in the Richmond River estuary more than two years ago became a catalyst for action



Echo NetDaily, 5 December 2018:

Recently Rous County Council voted unanimously to prepare a proposal for a $150 million bid to the State’s Snowy Hyrdo Legacy Fund to ensure long term water security, natural flood mitigation and improved river health for the Northern Rivers region.

Rous County Council Chair, Cr Keith Williams, said the idea for the Northern Rivers Watershed Initiative was born with the realisation that flood risk and river health are interrelated. ‘Slowing water flow in strategically selected streams by revegetating and fencing off stream banks, can reduce downstream flood peaks, improve water quality and provide habitat,’ said Cr Williams after the vote. ‘Similarly, by better understanding ground water flows and recharge zones, we can target efforts to revegetate and increase soil moisture retention and improve infiltration rates in important ground water source areas.

‘By having a wholistic view of water within the combined Northern Rivers catchments the Initiative can deliver multiple benefits from the same dollar of investment.’

‘It would be a fitting legacy of the Snowy River Scheme to restore some of the natural function of the Northern Rivers of NSW and ensure a sustainable water supply for the region.’

Cr Williams says that the Initiative will need the support of the Northern Rivers Joint Organisation to progress and the first step of this process is to formalise the proposal and engage with all Councils in the region. ‘I think most people are aware of the dire state of the Richmond River. The loss of nearly every wild oyster in the estuary more than two years ago has been a catalyst for action.’

Tuesday 18 September 2018

When a prime minster fails to grasp the basics of climate change policy.....


The Australian Prime Minister for Fossil Fuels and Liberal MP for Cook, Scott Morrison, has been repeatedly insisting since he came to office on 24 August 2018 that Australia is on target to meet its Paris Agreement greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Apparently he is telling journalists that “the business-as-usual model gets us there in a canter”.

Business-as-usual of course includes those cuts to climate change mitigation programs Morrison made as federal treasurer - including no further funding for the Abbott Government's Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) which has so far failed to purchase enough abatement to outpace Australia's emissions growth.

Those agencies outside of Morrison's ‘magic circle’ are quite frankly contradicting his prediction of success.......

The COAG Energy Security Council’s Energy Security Board expects that Morrison’s refusal to revive National Energy Guarantee legislation will see the electricity sector “fall short of the emissions reduction target of 26% below 2005 levels”.



Annual emissions for the year to December 2017 are estimated to be 533.7 Mt CO2 -e. This represents a 1.5% increase in emissions when compared with the previous year. Over the year to December 2017, there were increases in emissions from the stationary energy (excluding electricity), transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes and product use, waste and agriculture sectors. These increases were partially offset by a decline in emissions from the electricity sector. The annual increases in stationary energy (excluding electricity) and fugitive emissions were largely driven by an increase in LNG exports. [my yellow highlighting]

The independent Climate Works Australia reported on 6 September 2018:

Australia is not yet on track to meet its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement but there are many opportunities to still get there, according to new research released today.

The ClimateWorks Australia report, Tracking Progress to net zero emissions, found Australia needed to double its emissions reduction progress to achieve the federal government’s target of 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and triple progress to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

The report found Australia’s emissions were 11 per cent below 2005 levels in 2017 but have been steadily increasing since 2013. If Australia sustained the rate of improvement in emissions intensity it had achieved between 2005 and 2013, it could meet the government's 2030 target. But progress has stalled in most sectors and reversed overall. [my yellow highlighting]

Climate Works’ latest report, Tracking progress to net zero emissions: National progress on reducing emissions across the Australian economy and outlook to 2030, was released in September 2018 and although cautiously optimistic it doesn’t suggest that a Morrison Government would be able to just canter towards the commitments given in Paris:

This report uses findings from the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project (DDPP) and compares these with the Australian Government's emissions data and projections to examine whether Australia is on track for a net zero pathway and for its first commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. It assesses recent progress since 2005 and the outlook to 2030.

In common with 179 other countries who ratified the Paris Agreement, Australia has committed to keeping global warming well below 2 degrees, aiming to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and to reach net zero emissions. For developed countries like Australia, a 2 degree limit is generally accepted to mean reaching net zero emissions by 2050 – the majority of states and territories have agreed to this goal. Limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees would require an earlier date.

Australia’s current emissions reduction target is 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This is less ambitious than the Climate Change Authority’s recommended target range of 45 to 65 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 for Australia’s contribution to a 2 degree goal (CCA 2015). To make sure the world is on track, all countries in the Paris Agreement have been asked to consider whether their current target is ambitious enough.

We already know Australia can reach net zero emissions by 2050. The Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation in 2050 (DDPP) report (ClimateWorks et al 2014) identified the emissions reductions potential to put Australia on a pathway to net zero in 2050 while the economy continues to grow…

In 2017 Australia’s emissions were around 11 per cent below 2005 levels. This is an increase from their lowest point in 2013. Overall progress was due to strong reductions in the land sector, while emissions rose in most other sectors. Although there were improvements at the whole of economy level and in some sectors, improvements on average were not equivalent to the pathway to net zero emissions by 2050.

Emissions are higher in buildings, industry and transport than they were in 2005. Emissions are lower in the land sector, with the reduction being larger than increases in other sectors. Electricity emissions fell slightly…

There were times of reasonable emissions intensity improvements in industry and buildings but, as with the electricity sector, these improvements then slowed or reversed. This occurred alongside the repeal of the carbon price and related policies. Energy intensity improved in these sectors, suggesting better energy efficiency, but not at the rate needed for net zero. And in industry, some of this improvement was driven by declines in energy-intensive manufacturing….

Without further policies, Australia will not be on track for the net zero pathway or the Government's 2030 target. ClimateWorks’ research previously identified potential emissions reductions on the net zero pathway and this report shows where this potential is not yet being unlocked. The national process of developing Australia’s long term emissions reduction strategy provides an opportunity to unlock this remaining potential and get on track to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, as do similar processes in many state and territory governments. [my yellow highlighting]

Sunday 12 August 2018

Anthropomorphic Global Warming in Australia 2018


Australians have been told repeatedly that global warming leading to climate change is real.

The continent is becomng dryer, record air and ground temperatures are no longer novel, heavy rain events are predicted to become more destructive, mass flora and fauna extinctions are expected and the coastline is beginning to erode faster than at the historical rate.

It's not just happenng in Australia, other continents are also experience climate change and, the one factor most have in common is generations of ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions produced by both households and industries in metropolitan, regional and rural areas.

Everyone bears some responsibility for where the world finds itself......


In the first quarter of 2018 Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions will be over MT 7.3 CO2-e  higher than the national Paris ERT commitment made on our behalf by the Australian Government.

Over one quarter of Australia’s CO2-e budget for 2013 to 2050 has already been spent in the last 4.75 years.

AUSTRALIA’S ANNUAL EMISSIONS, CALENDAR YEAR TO SEPTEMBER 2017*


* This graph includes both published Government NGGI data and Ndevr Environmental projections for Q4/FY2017 and Q1/FY2018

BY  SECTOR 2005-2017
~~~~~~~~~~~

World-wide, land used for non-animal and animal-based agriculture in 2017 was estimated to produce 24% of all global greenhouse gas emissions.


66.3% from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock (eructation and flatulence)

15.5% from agricultural soils

10.8% from prescribed burning of savannas

3.9% from manure management

2.4% from liming and urea application

and the remainder from rice cultivation and field burning of agricultural residues.

Total greenhouse gas emissions from world-wide food systems in 2012 contributed between 19% to 29% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. By 2030 the combined greenhouse gas emissions from global food production is expected to double.

~~~~~~~~~~~

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting, Australia’s highest 10 greenhouse gas emitters 2016–17

Wednesday 8 August 2018

Great Barrier Reef Foundation: waiting for the inevitable crash


Mainstream media reports that Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull (former director Goldman Sachs), Minister for Environment and Energy & Liberal MP for Kooyong Josh Frydenberg (former director Deutsche Bank Australia) and Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation & Member of the Business Council of Australia John Schubert (former chair Commonwealth Bank) met on 9 April 2018 to discuss the allocation of a grant valued at in excess of AU$487.6 million to the foundation.

It was also reported that no officials from the Department of the Environment and Energy were present at that meeting when the grant offer was made and apparently accepted.

Less than ten weeks later the grant was formally approved without meeting all relevant provisions in the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017.

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation with a staff of only six full-time employees now has no more than 6 financial years to spend this large sum, which represents est. 69.66 per cent of funds held in the federal government operated Reef Trust since 2014 and 97.52 per cent of additional funds received by the trust on 29 April 2018.

Leaving the Reef Trust with an unspecified amount to fulfil other commitments over the next six years.

Due to obvious time constraints, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s board and corporate 'advisers' need to have a detailed financial and project action plan for 2018-19 immediately - if not sooner.

I suspect that I am not alone in waiting for waste of resources, duplication of effort, poorly targeted projects, lack of verifiable outcomes and other instances of  mismanagement to emerge over time, given the slapdash way this grant was put together.

Australian Government, GrantConnect:


GA ID: GA9190
Agency: Department of the Environment and Energy
Approval Date: 20-Jun-2018
Publish Date: 12-Jul-2018
Category: Natural Resources - Conservation and Protection
Grant Term: 27-Jun-2018 to 30-Jun-2024
Value (AUD): $487,633,300.00 (GST inclusive where applicable)

Ad hoc/One-off: Yes
Aggregate Grant Award: No

PBS Program Name: DoTE 17/18 Program 1.1: Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and the Environment
Grant Program: Reef Trust
Grant Activity: Reef Trust grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation
Purpose: The project will deliver activities which are consistent with the purposes of the Reef Trust Special Account Determination to achieve the Reef Trust Objectives and assist to protect the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Internal Reference ID: 100000001841

Confidentiality - Contract: Yes
Confidentiality Reason(s) - Contract: Other:  Aspects of the Co-Financing Plan and the Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Plan 
Confidentiality - Outputs: No

Grant Recipient Details
Recipient Name: Great Barrier Reef Foundation
Recipient ABN: 82 090 616 443

Grant Recipient Location
Suburb: Brisbane
Town/City: Brisbane
Postcode: 4000
State/Territory: QLD
Country: AUSTRALIA

Grant Delivery Location
State/Territory: QLD
Country: AUSTRALIA



Third Sector, 7 June 2018:

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF) has confirmed one of its board directors will step down as he faces criminal charges for cartel conduct.

Stephen Roberts, an investment banker and GBRF board director, has been charged by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for allegedly playing a part of a criminal cartel during a $2.5 billion deal.

ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, said: “These serious charges are the result of an ACCC investigation that has been running for more than two years.”

The charges, which included other banking chief executives and senior staff, were laid by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and will be determined in court.

Criminal charges relating to an alleged cartel by Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and the ANZ have been formally laid in relation to alleged cartel arrangements relating to trading in ANZ shares following a $2.5 billion institutional share placement in August 2015.