Federal Court of Australia dismisses historic logging case, January 2024

 

On 10 January 2024 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] FCA 5.

In part the judgment read:

10 CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1 On 31 March 2000, the first respondent, the Commonwealth, and the second respondent, the State of New South Wales (NSW or the State), entered into an intergovernmental agreement being the Regional Forest Agreement for North East New South Wales (Upper North East and Lower North East) (the NE RFA). The purpose of the NE RFA included establishing “the framework for the management of the forests of the Upper North East and Lower North East regions”: recital 1A of the NE RFA. The NE RFA provided that it was to remain in force for 20 years from 31 March 2000, unless terminated earlier or extended in accordance with its provisions: clause 6 of the NE RFA. Subsequently, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 (Cth) (RFA Act). A primary purpose of the RFA Act is to reinforce the certainty which the NE RFA and other RFAs between the Commonwealth and States were intended to provide for regional forestry management by “giv[ing] effect to certain obligations of the Commonwealth under Regional Forest Agreements”: s 3(a) of the RFA Act.

2 Shortly before the expiry of the 20 year period for the NE RFA, on 28 November 2019 the respondents executed the “Deed of variation in relation to the Regional Forest Agreement for the North East Region” (the Variation Deed). The Variation Deed stated that it “amend[ed] the Regional Forest Agreement on the terms and conditions contained in this deed”: Variation Deed, Preamble B. As described in further detail below, one effect of the Variation Deed was to extend the NE RFA at least by a further 20 years.

3 The applicant, North East Forest Alliance Incorporated, seeks a declaration pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that the NE RFA as amended by the Variation Deed (the Varied NE RFA) is not a “regional forest agreement” within the meaning of s 4 of the RFA Act. The consequence of so holding would not be that the Varied NE RFA is invalid, as the applicant accepts. Rather, the consequence relevantly would be that neither s 38 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) nor s 6(4) of the RFA Act would apply so as to exempt forestry operations undertaken in accordance with the Varied NE RFA from the approval processes under Part 3 of the EPBC Act.

4 In essence, the applicant contends that the Varied NE RFA is not an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act because, in amending the NE RFA, regard was not had to an “assessment” of “environmental values” and “principles of ecologically sustainable management” as required by paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA in s 4 of the RFA Act. This is because, in the applicant’s submission, of the failure in the materials before the Prime Minister, who executed the Variation Deed on behalf of the Commonwealth, to sufficiently evaluate those matters and to do so on the basis of reasonably contemporaneous information.

5 Those submissions are rejected for the reasons which I develop below. First, properly construed, there is no requirement that regard must be had to an assessment before an RFA is amended, including by extending its term, in order that the intergovernmental agreement continue to meet the definition of an RFA. That requirement applies only where the parties enter into an RFA. Secondly and in any event, there is no implicit requirement that an assessment must be sufficiently evaluative and reasonably contemporaneous in order to satisfy the condition in paragraph (a) of the RFA definition. Rather, the question is whether, objectively speaking, regard was had to assessments of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. Thirdly, applying that test, the evidence establishes that the materials before the Prime Minister, and in particular the “Assessment of matters pertaining to renewal of Regional Forest Agreements” (Assessment Report), addressed each of the values and principles referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of an RFA. That being so and there being no issue that the Prime Minister had regard to the materials attached to the Prime Minister’s brief, the applicant has not established that the Varied NE RFA is no longer an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act, even if an assessment was required before the RFA was amended. It follows that the application for relief must be dismissed.

6 Finally, it is important to stress that the effect of an RFA is not to leave a regulatory void with respect to the forest regions covered by the NE RFA. Rather, as I explain below, an RFA provides an alternative mechanism by which the objects of the EPBC Act can be achieved by way of an intergovernmental agreement allocating responsibility to a State for regulation of environmental matters of national environmental significance within an agreed framework. As such, the question of whether or not to enter into or vary an intergovernmental agreement of this nature is essentially a political one, the merits of which are matters for the government parties, and not the Courts, to determine.

In essence the judgment was stating that legislation, rules and regulations governing New South Wales forestry agreements allow for the Commonwealth and the NSW governments to vary agreements as they see fit, regardless of contemporary environmental realities existing within public and private native forests which potentially place natural biodiversity and vulnerable/threatened wildlife species at risk through depletion of flora and fauna habitat or complete loss of habitat.

The judgment also noted that there are clauses within the North East Forest Agreement (NSRFA) which did not create legally binding obligations on either the state government or NSW Forestry Corporation. That there was no requirement that an RFA must impose legally enforceable obligations in order to constitute an RFA for the purposes of the RFA Act. Indeed, that Commonwealth has the ability to pass legislation or subordinate legislation, which are inconsistent with the NE RFA.

These failures of policy and law meant there was no requirement for new comprehensive regional assessments to be undertaken before a variation deed was executed in relation to the NE RFA which covers the NSW North Coast region from South West Rocks to the NSW-Qld border.

The judgement in North East Forest Alliance Inc v Commonwealth of Australia clearly made no finding in relation to the environmental sustainability of logging operations. A fact that the Environmental Defenders Office noted in its response as solicitor for the appellants, North East Forest Alliance Inc.

This did not stop lobby group Forestry Australia quickly sending out a media release misleadingly trumpeting:

"Our Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) time and time again have proven to be a successful way of sustainably managing Australia’s forests for all their values, and the Federal Court has confirmed this today."

Native forest logging contracts extended across north east New South Wales by Perrottet Coalition Government

ABC News, 9 June 2022:

The NSW Agriculture Minister has signalled the government has no plans to phase out logging of native hardwood in state forests.

Key points:

• All North Coast Wood Supply Agreements have been extended until 2028

• The Agriculture Minister says selective harvesting of native forests is a renewable industry and does not plan to phase out the practice

• Critics say the contracts are 'reckless' and unsustainable post-bushfires and further threaten the habitats of endangered animals

• The state government announced a five-year extension of North Coast Wood Supply Agreements last week.

Minister Dugald Saunders said all agreements due to end next year had been renewed in order to provide "certainty" for the industry to "invest in their businesses".

The agreements cover the area spanning from the Mid North Coast to the Queensland border, and include state forests in Dorrigo, Wauchope, Kempsey, Grafton, Coffs Harbour, Taree, Wingham, Gloucester, Glenn Innes and Casino.

Mr Saunders confirmed the main terms were unchanged, meaning Forestry Corporation would continue to supply existing quantities and species to timber companies in exchange for payment…..

North East Forest Alliance, media release, 9 April 2022:

The NSW Government’s Koala Strategy released today will do little to turn around their extinction trajectory as it is not stopping logging and clearing of Koala habitat which, along with climate heating, are the main drivers of their demise.

“The Strategy proposes nothing to redress the logging of Koala habitat on public lands where at best 5-10 small potential Koala feed trees per hectare need to be protected in core Koala habitat, with the only other requirement being to wait for a Koala to leave before cutting down its tree” NEFA spokesperson Dailan Pugh said.

“We know that Koalas preferentially choose larger individuals of a limited variety of tree species for feeding, and losses of these trees will reduce populations. So protecting and restoring feed and roost trees is a prerequisite for allowing populations to grow on public lands.

“The most important and extensive Koala habitat we know of in NSW is in the proposed Great Koala National Park, encompassing 175,000 hectares of State Forests south of Grafton and west of Coffs Harbour.

“Similarly on the Richmond River lowlands the most important and extensive area known is the proposed Sandy Creek Koala Park, encompassing 7,000 ha of State Forests south of Casino.

“These are public lands that we know are important Koala habitat that need to be protected from further degradation if we want to recover Koala populations. There are many other areas of important Koala habitat on State forests in need of identification and protection from logging.

“The centrepiece of the NSW Koala Strategy is to spend $71 million on private lands, buying properties and implementing conservation agreements over up to 22,000 hectares.

“This will not compensate for the Liberal’s promises to the Nationals, as peace terms in the 2020 Koala Wars, to remove the requirement to obtain permission before clearing core Koala habitat, to end the prohibition on logging core Koala habitat, to open up all environmental zones for logging, and to stop core Koala habitat being added to environmental zones.

“Throwing money at piecemeal protection of private land, while allowing some of the best Koala habitat to be cleared and logged will not save Koalas

“Similarly their strategy to spend $31.5 million to restore and plant new Koala habitat could help, but only if they first stopped clearing and logging existing Koala habitat.

“Rather than the proposed piecemeal approach, what we need for private lands is for the Government to fund Councils to prepare Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management that identify where the core Koala habitat and important linkages are, and then to direct funding to best protecting those lands.

“The NSW Koala Strategy is set to fail because it does not fulfill the most fundamental requirement of stopping existing Koala habitat from being cleared and degraded, and lacks a strategic approach to identify the highest priority lands for protection and revegetation” Mr. Pugh said.

Koala strategy: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/programs-legislation-and-framework/nsw-koala-strategy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBlLkEcG0Ew

NSW FORESTRY CORPORATION is salvage logging KOALA HABITAT in CLOUDS CREEK and ELLIS STATE FOREST AGAIN IN 2022. 

These wet sclerophyll public native forest compartments are within the proposed GREAT KOALA NATIONAL PARK and were extensively burnt during the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires in November 2019. 

This short video clip is a time series of satellite images taken from 16 September 2018 through to 9 June 2022, showing the impacts of logging and bushfire on the local landscape. 

The forests here on the Dorrigo Plateau adjoin the NYMBOI-BINDERAY NATIONAL PARK and surround the Clouds Creek Pine Plantations in the southern end of Clarence Valley in northern NSW. 

They are managed by the Grafton office of NSW Forestry Corporation, Hardwood Division. 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) has mapped the forests here as preferred koala habitat and the Clouds Creek state forest is recognised as a priority Koala Hub in need of protection to prevent NSW Koalas becoming extinct by 2050. 

The Chaelundi Bioregion is a higher elevation, biodiversity hotspot which lies within the north western bounds of the Great Koala National Park proposal and provides forest connectivity across the eastern ranges critical to providing climate adaptivity for a multitude of threatened species living in these old growth, subtropical and warm temperate rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest areas above 600 metres asl. 

Sign the Great Koala National Park Petition: https://www.koalapark.org.au/petition 

Save Our Oldgrowth Trees 

PLEASE WRITE TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT TO DEMAND THEY STOP CLEARING AND LOGGING ANIMAL'S HOMES AND START THE LONG PROCESS OF RESTORING THEM. 

https://www.nefa.org.au/hollow_housing_crisis

IF YOU ARE A NSW RESIDENT - SIGN THE NSW e-Petition: End Public Native Forest Logging

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/Pages/ePetition-details.aspx?q=quge-8rdRlyn4PTcuMj_PA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VALE: Stan Mussared, educator, campaigner for ecological sustainability and environmental warrior

The Environmental Legacy of Stan Mussared

Stan Mussared with "The Earth Charter In Action"
Reweavers Dinner 2017
IMAGE: Lyn Hoskings

Stan Mussared, a Clarence Valley resident for 58 years and a highly respected teacher at Grafton High School for 31 years, died in December 2021. For the last three and a half decades of his life he also played a significant role in the conservation movement in the Clarence Valley.

Stan’s concern for a healthy natural environment developed from the values of his mother who instilled in him compassion and a respect for all life. This became a guiding principle in both his personal and community life.

Magda & Stan in their garden 2017
IMAGE: Lyn Hoskings

His commitment to ecological sustainability led to the long-term re-vegetation project on the Waterview Heights block he and his wife Magda moved to in 1973. At that time there were only two trees – a forest redgum and an ironbark - on the degraded four acre block. Transformed gradually through their determination and hard work, their block is now covered by a wonderful native forest which provides healthy habitat for a variety of wildlife - including koalas which have been visiting regularly since 2008.

Stan’s involvement in public environmental campaigning began when he joined a small group of dedicated people who formed the Clarence Valley Branch of the National Parks Association to save the Washpool rainforest from logging. From all accounts it was a very tense battle from mid-1980 with conservationists on one side and sawmillers and timber workers on the other. The conservationists’ determined campaign eventually led to the NSW Government’s decision to create the Washpool National Park which ensured this magnificent natural area was saved.

1988 brought another threat to the local environment – the Harris Daishowa proposal for a massive chemical pulp mill in the Clarence Valley. Despite government and local council support for the mill, community opposition grew quickly with the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition (CVCC) being formed to fight the proposal. Members of the new group included Stan, the Washpool campaigners and many others. One of the campaign highlights - the March 1989 public meeting at South Grafton High School - was attended by 1,000 people. Stan was a major speaker presenting the economic and social costs of the proposal at this meeting and others around the area. Months later the strong community campaign paid off with Daishowa withdrawing its proposal. People power had beaten Daishowa.

Stan retired from teaching in 1993 – which gave him more time for other activities including environmental campaigning. Over the next 25 years he used his teaching expertise and organisational and communication skills to explain the importance of protecting the natural environment for the benefit of the community of life.

Stan was also was involved in opposing the plan to divert water from the Nymboida River to provide the constantly growing Coffs Harbour with a long-term secure water supply. From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s this resulted in more campaigning, more meetings to attend and more speeches from Stan and others about the danger to the Clarence River system of this inter-catchment transfer of water when better alternatives were available. Despite strong campaigning from the CVCC, the Clarence Environment Centre and Valley Watch this proposal went ahead with the construction of the Shannon Creek Dam and a pipeline to Coffs Harbour.

Campaigns on a variety of environmental issues continued and Stan’s leadership role was vital. He was Vice President of the Conservation Coalition for many years and served as its President for 9 years from 2010.

One of his most significant achievements was the founding of the annual Re-Weavers of the Tapestry awards in 2006. These awards honour and publicise the environmental work of individuals and groups who have re-woven green threads of sustainability into the Earth’s Tapestry to repair its wholeness. Local conservationists recognised include John and Pat Edwards (Shannondale), Peter Wrightson (Ashby), Kay Jeffrey (Iluka), Barbara Fahey (Grafton) and Russell Jago (Ulmarra). Others from further afield who have been honoured include Ashley Love (Coffs Harbour), Carmel Flint (Armidale), Jim Tedder (Grassy Head), Dailan Pugh (Byron Bay) Celia Smith (Armidale), and the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital.

Over the years since he became an environmental campaigner Stan spoke strongly for the Earth Community through letters and articles in the local media, through membership of a range of local organisations as well as participation in Council and Government committees.

As a committed environmentalist Stan Mussared achieved a great deal in his 88 years. He was a wonderful advocate for the natural world and an inspiration to many people.

– Leonie Blain

Honorary Secretary, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition.

Stan Mussared beside the Clarence River
IMAGE: supplied

It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) and successive NSW Liberal-Nationals governments have allowed it to become a trojan horse for unsustainable development and financial rorting

It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) which was established under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. 

 Under this scheme, applications for development or clearing approvals must set out how impacts on biodiversity will be avoided and minimised. The remaining residual impacts can be offset by the purchase and/or retirement of biodiversity credits or payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Fund. 

 Landholders can enter into Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements to create offset sites on their land to generate biodiversity credits. These credits are then available to the market for purchase by developers, landholders or the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to offset the impacts of development or clearing. 

However it was a scheme loathed by the mining industry from the start as an impediment on its commercial interests and by the industry's supporters, such as National Party political robber baron and then Deputy Prime Minister John Barilaro. It was also a scheme heartily disliked by local government areas fighting to retain biodiversity, maintain healthy water sources and protect remaining forest.

Clarence Valley Independent, 15 December 2021:

A report tabled at the August 24 Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting warns that the NSW Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) has had the opposite effect to its intention: instead of protecting the valley’s natural environment, it has “ensured a net loss to biodiversity, often of our most threatened flora and fauna”.... 

Staff advised councillors of four key issues: “a net loss of biodiversity across the LGA, a lack of stewardship sites in the Clarence (currently, there are only two stewardship sites in the Clarence), a lack of transparency in the BOS, and inconsistencies in offset prices. 

 “There is little confidence in this legislation for biodiversity conservation as offsets can be facilitated outside of the CVC local government area,” staff wrote. 

 “…credit suppliers are located all over the state, hence, if a developer can source credits, they are unlikely to be sourced within the Clarence, creating a ‘net loss’ of biodiversity.” 

On the lack of transparency, staff wrote: “Many plant community types on the floodplain, which comprises a large percentage of land being developed in the Clarence, are threatened ecological communities (TEC), which are to be offset for the same TEC, forcing developers to pay into the fund as the sole way to offset credits, as there are no locally available credits. 

“There is no way to determine if this money deposited in the trust is then used to facilitate recovery or protection of TECs in the Clarence – creating biodiversity loss.”....

Clarence Valley Council was not alone in expressing Northern NSW concerns as the Inquiry's submissions list confirmed. 

The NSW Parliament Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Environment and Planning's Inquiry into the Integrity of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme will not report until 1 March 2022, so the jury is still out on the Perrottet Coalition Government's response to its yet to be completed investigation.

However, one issue is being addressed.......

Environment reporter Lisa Fox (left)writing in The Guardian, 10 December 2021:

Officials working on conservation matters in the New South Wales environment department have been barred from holding financial interests in the state’s biodiversity offset scheme.

This follows an investigation of the department’s management of potential conflicts of interest.

Senior officials told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that staff who work on the offset scheme or in the department’s biodiversity, conservation and science sections had been told they could not work in those roles and hold personal interests in properties and companies that were involved in the financial trade of offset credits.

It follows two external investigations that were commissioned by the department after Guardian Australia uncovered a series of failures in offset programs.

Offsets exist to allow developers to compensate for environmental damage in one area by delivering an equivalent environmental benefit in another.

But there have been problems with the system, including in one case a 20-year delay in delivering environmental protection and so-called “double-dipping” by developers in areas of urban sprawl.

Guardian Australia also revealed the state and federal governments bought tens of millions of dollars in offset credits from properties linked to consultants whose company advised the government on development in western Sydney.

The reporting triggered a string of reviews, including one by the legal firm Maddocks and one by the consultancy Centium examining how the environment department had managed potential conflicts of interest associated with staff holding financial interests in offset sites….

Dean Knudsen, the deputy secretary for biodiversity, conservation and science, told Friday’s hearing of the offset inquiry there had been fewer than five officials with such financial interests.

After the reviews, the department has introduced a new conflict of interest protocol that deems some investments “high risk” and presenting an “unacceptable risk to the integrity” of the scheme.

Knudsen said as a result, staff in certain sections could no longer participate in the scheme and those with historic interests had 12 months to divest.

“For departmental staff we’ve effectively said you’re not supposed to be participating in the scheme,” he said.

“If you have historically, we’ve told them what you have to do to effectively distance them from that.”

The Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, who is chairing the inquiry, said the changes were welcome.

“This should have happened at the start of the scheme to help prevent the types of windfall gains by a few individuals with detailed knowledge of the offset industry,” she said.

“However, we also need to see a tightening of conflicts of interest [rules] within the industry itself, including within ecological consultancies.”

Officials were also asked about delays in securing permanent protection of offset sites to compensate for habitat destruction caused by coalmines in NSW.

Responses to questions on notice in the parliament from the independent MLC Justin Field state that of the 41 coalmines approved in New South Wales in the past decade, one did not require offsets, 14 had not yet triggered the requirement to deliver their offsets, nine had land set aside but permanent protections were not yet in place, and 17 had “substantially finalised” their offsets.

….but certain aspects – such as finalisation of some of the legal arrangements protecting the site – were outstanding.

Officials agreed the process for securing offsets for mines had not been “as timely as [they] should be”.

Field said it was not good enough that “not one single coalmine approved in the last decade has secured their required offsets through finalised in-perpetuity arrangements”.

“The government needs to improve the transparency around what the hold-up is, put a deadline on finalising these arrangements and hold these mine operators to that deadline,” he said. 

Read the full article here.

Australian forest timber is already being exported as biomass to Japan and elsewhere, where it is burnt in order to generate electricity

 

Clarence Valley Independent, 13 April 2021:

VOICES FRO THE EARTH

In our quest to combat climate change, it seems that political philosophy and denial, spurred on by vested interests, are our greatest impediment to successfully avoiding an unmanageable outcome.

Recently the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, warned that the planet is on track to be 3 to 5 degrees warmer within 80 years. That’s more than double the warming that scientists believe we can safely endure.

In fact, it is now predicted that the manageable 1.5 degree maximum warming could be reached as early as 2024, after which, continued inaction will likely have catastrophic consequences.

With this dire warning front and foremost, one would think there would be some degree of urgency to address the situation, but no, instead, some Australia politicians are advocating for Clean Energy Finance Corporation money to be used to fund new coal-fired power stations, arguably the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other side of the equation, forests across the globe, one of nature’s most efficient carbon depositories, are being cleared at increasing rates for agriculture, and more recently to be burned to generate electricity. Apparently, the term “renewable” is being manipulated to imply it is somehow “clean” and acceptable, and that’s given denialists the opportunity to promote the use of ‘biomass’ here in Australia.

The escalation of biomass use is so great, that a group of over 500 international scientists have written to the Presidents of the US, the European Council, the European Commission, and South Korea, as well as the Prime Minister of Japan, asking them to intervene to end the practice of industrial scale wood-burning for energy production. They rightly argue that the practice is seriously undermining efforts, not only to address climate change, but to protect biodiversity as well.

Native forest timbers are already being burned to produce electricity here in Australia, although not yet at the industrial scale occurring overseas. However, Australian forest timber is already being exported as biomass, referred to as ‘biopellets’, to Japan and elsewhere, for burning to generate electricity.

The insanity continues!

John Edwards

According to the Australian Government Dept. of Agriculture, Water and the Environment “there is potential to expand Australia’s bioenergy sector to increase the use of wood residues from forest operations for electricity and heat generation and transport biofuel production”.

So called “forest waste” is seen as a 23 million tonne per year biomass resource.

The now idle Redbank coal-fired power station at Warkworth, NSW, near Singleton, announced it expects to covert to biomass sometime this year and, in April 2021 is marketing this move as clean, green energy.

Since 2020 Hunter Energy has been seeking expressions of interest for timber from across north-east NSW to fuel this recommissioned power station.

In March 2021 SA port operator T-Ports has announced it had reached an agreement with Mitsui Bussan Woodchip Oceania, Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers (KIPT) and HarvestCo to export timber biomass.

Biomass Magazine, 20 January 2021:

Australia-based Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers has been awarded a $5.5 million bushfire recovery grant from the Australian government to support the development of a biomass pellet plant and small-scale biomass power plant.

The facilities will be located on at KIPT’s timber processing hub at Timber Creek on Kangaroo Island, a region that experienced a devastating bushfire in December 2019. The island is located off Australia’s southern coast approximately 550 miles northwest of Melbourne.

Once operational, the pellet plant will be capable of accepting fire-damaged logs and any other logs that cannot be sold into export markets. Pellets produced at the plant are expected to be exported using the chip-handling facility at the proposed Kangaroo Island Seaport at Smith Bay.

The project will also include a small-scale power plant to support the pellet mill. That facility will be capable of dispatching base-load power to the electricity grid.

KIPT said due diligence work is underway on the pellet proposal with project partners. The company said it expects to achieve internal approval for the project during the first half of this year, subject to regulatory consent.

In Albany Western Australia, the Plantation Energy Australia (PEA) is running a wood pellet production plant which exports up to 125,000 tonnes of wood pellets every year, mainly to Belgium for use as energy.

Another reason why Australia's remaining native forests should be saved from the loggers - rare bees

 

An Australian native bee believed extinct is found after a 97 year absence from the records.

Pharohylaeus lactiferus 
IMAGE: James Dorey Photography

The Journal of Hymenoptera Research 81:165-180, 25 February 2021:

Missing for almost 100 years: the rare and potentially threatened bee, Pharohylaeus lactiferus (Hymenoptera, Colletidae)

James B. Dorey

Abstract

The Australian endemic bee, Pharohylaeus lactiferus (Colletidae: Hylaeinae) is a rare species that requires conservation assessment. Prior to this study, the last published record of this bee species was from 1923 in Queensland, and nothing was known of its biology. Hence, I aimed to locate extant populations, provide biological information and undertake exploratory analyses relevant to its assessment. Pharohylaeus lactiferus was recently rediscovered as a result of extensive sampling of 225 general and 20 targeted sampling sites across New South Wales and Queensland. Collections indicate possible floral and habitat specialisation with specimens only found near Tropical or Sub-Tropical Rainforest and only visiting Stenocarpus sinuatus (Proteaceae) and Brachychiton acerifolius (Malvaceae), to the exclusion of other available floral resources. Three populations were found by sampling bees visiting these plant species along much of the Australian east coast, suggesting population isolation. GIS analyses used to explore habitat destruction in the Wet Tropics and Central Mackay Coast bioregions indicate susceptibility of Queensland rainforests and P. lactiferus populations to bushfires, particularly in the context of a fragmented landscape. Highly fragmented habitat and potential host specialisation might explain the rarity of P. lactiferus. Targeted sampling and demographic analyses are likely required to thoroughly assess the status of this species and others like it.

Keywords

Conservation, extinction risk, fragmentation, Hylaeinae, invertebrate conservation, Queensland, wildfire, rainforest

Introduction

The greatest threats to ecosystems and species worldwide are habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation (Vie et al. 2009). Australia has already cleared over 40% of its forests and woodlands since European colonisation, leaving much of the remainder fragmented and degraded (Bradshaw 2012). The vast majority of clearing has occurred on freehold and leasehold land and for animal agriculture (Evans 2016). In particular, Queensland is a contemporary land-clearing hotspot and is responsible for more than half of all land-clearing in Australia over the past four decades (Evans 2016). It is a failing of state and federal government policy and regulation that land clearing in Queensland continues at rates that should be of concern both nationally and internationally (Reside et al. 2017).

Despite the ecological importance of Australian native bees, we know very little about their biology (Batley and Hogendoorn 2009) or conservation status. North Queensland hosts high species richness and endemism (Crisp et al. 2001; Orme et al. 2005; Hurlbert and Jetz 2007) and several bee genera that are found nowhere else in Australia (Houston 2018; Smith 2018). These restricted bee genera include: Ctenoplectra Kirby (Apidae: Apinae), Nomada Scopoli (Apidae: Nomadinae), Mellitidia Guérin-Méneville (Halictidae: Nomiinae), Reepenia Friese (Halictidae: Nomiinae), Patellapis Friese (Halictidae: Halictinae) and Pharohylaeus Michener (Colletidae: Hylaeinae).

Pharohylaeus has only two described species: P. papuaensis Hirashima & Roberts in Papua New Guinea and P. lactiferus (Cockerell) in Australia (Houston 1975; Hirashima and Roberts 1986). Both species are relatively large (9–11 mm), robust, mostly black with distinctive white facial and body markings, and have the first three tergal segments enlarged and enclosing the others. The former is known only from two females which were collected on Syzygium aqueum (Burm.f.) Alston (Myrtaceae) in 1982 (Hirashima and Roberts 1986). No published records of P. lactiferus have been made since the third of January 1923, when three males were collected in the Atherton Tablelands; in May of 1900 a male and a female were collected in Mackay while another female was collected in Kuranda prior to 1910 (Cockerell 1910; Houston 1975). However, the collection localities of these specimens are imprecise and no biological data were recorded.

Due to the dearth of biological information on P. lactiferus prior to this study, I aimed to locate extant populations and contribute biological information as part of a broader bee survey. Because of this, much of what follows are exploratory analyses of the potential risks for P. lactiferus and suggestions for future research. Hence, I undertook a series of post-hoc analyses in order to provide insights into the biology, ecology and potential extinction risks associated with P. lactiferus. I provide insights into the circumstances of the rediscovery of P. lactiferus and what is now known of its floral and habitat associations. I also explore spatial data relating to P. lactiferus (vegetation association, potential fire risks and occurrences) and my sampling methods (for potential biases). The possible floral and habitat specialisation along with the rarity of P. lactiferus raises concerns about its conservation status. I further highlight the need for preservation of remnant vegetation and better arthropod-diversity monitoring, particularly for at-risk and phylogenetically important species.

Methodology can be found here.

One of the looming threats to NSW forests in 2021

Hunter Energy Limited, formerly Hunter Energy Pty Ltd, was registered on 6 March 2018.

Its current spokespersons appear to believe that cutting down native forest to supply a power plant with biomass is a “closed loop” with no cilmate or environmental consequences.

However, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration; “although the CO2 released from biofuel or bioenergy combustion is assumed to be fully accounted for by the uptake of carbon during the growth of the feedstock used to produce the biofuels or bioenergy…..analysts have debated whether the increased use of biomass energy may result in a loss of terrestrial carbon stocks and foregone future sequestration by natural vegetation. The initial loss of carbon stocks in natural vegetation cleared to grow biomass feedstocks and the foregone future removal of CO2 are not captured in energy sector emissions.”

Dependent on species, it would probably take 25 years for a single tree to store est. 400 to 544 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Eucalypts reaching 8 meters in height might store up to 1 tonne of carbon

So when one is cut down after 25 years and burnt that’s basically how much initial greenhouse gas emissions are released back into the atmosphere from the tree itself – where emissions will remain until 25 years later when hopefully another tree has survived long enough to store a similar amount of carbon.

Multiple that first tree by the up to 1.8 to 3 billion 25 year-old trees estimated to be annually required to feed Hunter Energy’s proposed Redbank Power Station fuelled by biomass and, one begins to see that biomass-generated power is not a closed system at all – it is simply one predicated on at best naked hope and at worst a complete denial of climate change realities regarding Australian native forest tree growth.

Nevertheless, the Berejiklian Coalition Government under blackmail threat by Deputy-Premier and Nationals MLA for Monaro John Barilaro, will push ahead with legislation which allows biomass logging in north east New South Wales.

Logging which would lead inevitably to the destruction of our remaining closed-cover mature native forests.

In this Barilaro will be aided and abetted by NSW Nationals MLA Chris Gulaptis and Nationals Federal MP for Page Kevin Hogan.

BACKGROUND

According to Wikipedia:

On 5 October 2013, Redbank Energy’s wholly owned subsidiary Redbank Project Pty Ltd (Redbank Project) was notified by its secured lenders of the appointment of receivers to Redbank Project, Redbank Construction Pty Ltd and the shares in Redbank Project held by Redbank Project Holdco Pty Ltd,[5] with debts of $192 million.[6]

In Oct 2014, receivers KordaMentha announced immediate closure of the Plant with its remaining assets including the turbine, generator and plant and equipment to be sold.[7]

On 17 September 2015 Redbank Energy (REL) announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Biogreen Energy Pty Limited (Biogreen), had purchased the land, plant and equipment and water rights owned by Redbank Project for $5 million, but that it intended "to commence the work to raise the funds necessary to recommence the operation of the Redbank Power Station".[8][9]

On 25 August 2016 Redbank Energy issued the following statement to shareholders via the ASX. "In response to shareholder enquiries, Redbank Energy Limited (ASX: AEJ) (REL) wishes to provide the following market update. Unfortunately, REL will be removed from the ASX official list on 29 August 2016. The immediate catalyst for delisting will be the non-payment of the 2016/17 ASX annual listing fee, which falls due on 27 August 2016. The reason for REL not paying the 2016/17 ASX listing fee is because REL will automatically be suspended on 9 October 2016 due to continual suspension." Redbank was subsequently delisted from the close of trading on Monday, 29 August 2016 pursuant to Listing rule 17.15.[10]

On 10 April 2018, Fairfax Media announced that the power plant could be restarted in Q1 2019 to provide cheap off-the-grid power for blockchain mining applications.[11]

Financial Review, 26 May 2020:

The Redbank Power Station in NSW, formerly owned by ASX-listed Redbank Energy and its predecessors Alinta Energy and Babcock & Brown Power, is set for a comeback to the ASX-boards.

This time Redbank will be housed in a new company called Hunter Energy, which was set up by a bunch of former Australian Power & Gas execs, and acquired Redbank in 2018. (It is run by Richard Poole, a former investment banker and Cascade Coal director).

Hunter Energy has turned the dormant Redbank into a "green energy power plant", according to marketing materials in front of potential investors, able to produce enough energy to power 200,000 to 250,000 homes using waste biomass for fuel.

Hunter Energy wants to switch the plant on by the end of this year to provide what it says would be around the clock and reliable baseload power with zero net emissions….

Financial Review, 26 May 2020:

The Redbank Power Station in NSW, formerly owned by ASX-listed Redbank Energy and its predecessors Alinta Energy and Babcock & Brown Power, is set for a comeback to the ASX-boards.

This time Redbank will be housed in a new company called Hunter Energy, which was set up by a bunch of former Australian Power & Gas execs, and acquired Redbank in 2018. (It is run by Richard Poole, a former investment banker and Cascade Coal director).

Hunter Energy has turned the dormant Redbank into a "green energy power plant", according to marketing materials in front of potential investors, able to produce enough energy to power 200,000 to 250,000 homes using waste biomass for fuel.

Hunter Energy wants to switch the plant on by the end of this year to provide what it says would be around the clock and reliable baseload power with zero net emissions….

Echo NetDaily, 26 November 2020:

As glaciers, ice sheets, and the poles continue to melt due to the human impacts on the environment it is bordering on criminal for the Australian and NSW governments to be supporting the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone clearing and burning trees for biomass energy production.

According to studies being done on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet reported in phys.org it is becoming clear ‘that increasingly warming climate, as expected for the near future, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be less stable than previously thought’.

‘The future melting of polar ice sheets and the associated rise in global sea level as a consequence of climate change will have a substantial impact on low-elevation coastal areas.’

Yet the Federal government is promoting a gas led COVID-19 recovery, the NSW government has facilitated the approval of the Narrabri Gas Project, and the biomass Redbank Power Station near Singleton appears to be planning a reboot.

‘The imminent rebooting of the mothballed Redbank Power Station (near Singleton) with north-east NSW’s forests will make it Australia’s most polluting power station and an existential threat to the future of our children and wildlife,’ according to the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA).

According to NEFA Hunter Energy is currently seeking expressions of interest for timber from across north-east NSW to fuel their Redbank Power Station, with plans to restart the facility in mid-2021 fed by native forests to make it one of world’s ten biggest biomass power plants.

‘The claims are that it will power 200,000 homes, which was identified in 2017 North Coast Residues Report as requiring one million tonnes of biomass to be taken from north-east NSW’s forests and plantations each year, with 60 per cent of this coming from private forests,’ said NEFA spokesperson Dailan Pugh.

‘This is sheer madness as burning this volume will release some 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year to fuel climate heating, increased droughts, heatwaves, and more intense bushfires, while increasing forest degradation and hastening species extinctions.

‘The community needs to urgently speak up to stop the NSW and Commonwealth Governments from allowing this environmental disaster,’ Mr Pugh said.

NEFA have said that biomass is even more polluting than coal and releases up to 50 per cent more CO2 to generate the equivalent amounts of energy.

‘Then there’s all the CO2 released by machines during logging and in hauling the wood from across north-east NSW to Singleton,’ said Susie Russel from NEFA.

‘It will be a nightmare for rural communities with thousands of extra trucks plying narrow rural roads, crossing small deteriorating bridges, passing through peaceful villages and then roaring down the Pacific Highway to Redbank.

‘This will be subsidized by taxpayers under the pretense that burning trees is renewable energy as the trees will regrow and decades or centuries later take up the carbon released by burning them.

‘We are in a climate emergency and cannot afford to spew millions of tonnes of additional carbon into the atmosphere at a time when we need to be urgently reducing atmospheric carbon, and we need to leave our trees alive to do it as they are the only viable means of carbon capture and storage,’ Ms Russell said.

Mr Pugh continued, ‘Our suffering forest wildlife will be impacted most severely as forest degradation skyrockets with all those previously uneconomic trees taken……

NEFA have said that biomass is even more polluting than coal and releases up to 50 per cent more CO2 to generate the equivalent amounts of energy. [my yellow highlighting]

Hunter Energy, retrieved 28 December 2020:

Upon re-start, Redbank will be one of the largest green baseload renewable energy providers in NSW and the ONLY existing facility capable of providing urgently required green 24/7 baseload power, adding to grid stability.