UNESCO REPORT - "Assessment: World Heritage coral reefs likely to disappear by 2100 unless CO2 emissions drastically reduce"

Excerpts from United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs: A First Global Scientific Assessment, 23 June 2017:

Seventy two percent of World Heritage reef properties (21 of 29) have been exposed to severe and/or repeated heat stress during the past three years. Within the three years of the current global bleaching event (mid 2014-mid 2017), 18 World Heritage reefs (62%) were in the highest impact category (dark red) at either one or both stress levels (Table 1c,d). A further three properties were exposed to recurrent bleaching stress (red) or a single severe stress event (orange). This illustrates the dramatic impact on coral reefs during this period, which has seen three consecutive years of record global temperature (2014, 2015 and 2016), and reflects an increase in bleaching frequency from that seen in the prior decades. Only four properties (14%) escaped bleaching-level heat stress during this three-year bleaching event: Brazilian Atlantic Islands (Brazil), iSimangaliso Wetland Park (South Africa), Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park (Sudan) and Socotra Archipelago (Yemen)…..

Coral mortality during the third global bleaching event has been among the worst ever observed, including at World Heritage reefs; e.g., Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Papahānaumokuākea (USA) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles)…..

Papahānaumokuākea (USA) and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), among the most spatially vast of all World Heritage properties…..

Coral communities typically take at least 15 to 25 years to recover from mass mortality events such as destructive cyclones and mass bleaching events. If the frequency of mass mortality events increases to a point where the return time of mortality events is less than the time it takes to recover, the abundance of corals on reefs will decline. Consequently, the frequency of stress events that reached or exceeded the 4°C and 8°C-week DHW thresholds was calculated for each World Heritage reef-containing property (Table 1) to detect if the bleaching frequency exceeded the best-case rates of recovery.

This analysis showed that World Heritage properties containing coral reefs have been increasingly exposed to heat stress during recent years. Nearly half (13) of the 29 World Heritage Listed reef properties were exposed to levels of heat stress that cause coral bleaching, on average, more than twice per decade during the 1985- 2013 period

Download full report here.

CCRAP and the Adani Group

Adani Mining Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of India's largest coal trader the Adani Group, intends to dig an enormous hole in the ground costing over $16 billion and the odd billion or two it can extract from gullible federal and state governments in Australia.

This hole known as the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project will comprise six open-cut pits and five underground mines; supported by five mine infrastructure areas, a coal handling and processing plant, a heavy industrial area, water-supply infrastructure, 189-kilometres of rail line (Adani has applied for a $1 billion loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to build the rail link), as well as off-site infrastructure including a workers' accommodation village and airport.

All of this running roughly parallel with the Great Barrier Reef and the Abbott Point port required to ship all this coal overseas at considerable risk to fresh water security, coral sustainability and marine biodiversity.

http://envlaw.com.au/carmichael-coal-mine-case/

To facilitate its aim of environmental vandalism for corporate profit the Adani Group has registered the following companies which are all currently operating out of an office tower in Eagle Street, Brisbane:

Abbot Point Operations Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Company Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Holding Trust

Adani Abbot Point Terminal Holdings Pty Ltd

Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Finance Company Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Holdings Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Coal Terminal Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Company Pty Ltd

Adani Australia Holding Trust

Adani Minerals Pty Ltd

Adani Mining Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Finance Company Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Holdings Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Holdings Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Holdings Trust

Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Network Trust

Carmichael Rail Pty Ltd

Carmichael Rail Pty Ltd

Galilee Transmission Holdings Pty Ltd

Galilee Transmission Holdings Trust

Galilee Transmission Pty Ltd

Mundra Port Holding Trust

Mundra Port Holdings Pty Ltd

Mundra Port Pty Ltd

Juice Media put this mocking video together to let the Adani family and the world know what many people in this country think of this mining scheme.

https://youtu.be/n_C8S4Bz91M

Thanks to Simon Chance for this link

Published on Dec 4, 2016

The Australian Government just released this advert about the proposed Carmichael Coal Mine and it's surprisingly honest and informative. 

6 WAYS YOU CAN HELP STOP CCRAP:

1. Tell PM Malcolm Turnbull you don't want your tax dollars to be used to subsidise CCRAP: https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/gr...
2. Join GetUp!'s Fight for the Reef: https://fightforthereef.getup.org.au
3. Donate to the Wangan & Jagalingou defense fund: http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/donate
4. Follow the Wangan & Jagalingou on Facebook to keep up to date with the campaign to stop CCRAP on their lands: https://www.facebook.com/WanganandJag...
5. Find out more about the Wangain & Jagalingou traditional owners: http://wanganjagalingou.com.au
6. Share this video.☛ CREDITS: Written & created by Giordano. Performed by Matylda. Voice by Lucy. Thanks to Adso, Kajute, Miriam, Anthony, Adam, Benna, Damian, Dave and Dbot for helping out! Photos and Footage of Wangan & Jagalingou people used with permission from Wangan & Jagalingou Traditional Owners Family Council. ☛ Please SUPPORT the Juice Media to help us make more videos: https://www.patreon.com/TheJuiceMedia

BACKGROUND

Financial Review, 6 December 2016:

Challenges:

Finance – There is a reason the Galilee Basin has been left undeveloped for the past 50 years. For a start, it's close to 500 kilometres from ports on the coast, meaning whoever is going to build the project has to outlay billions of dollars to get the project built. And the quality of the coal is not as good as others in the closer Bowen and Surat Basin.

India's Adani Group also has to find $10 billion to finance the project. There are also questions raised about whether the project is economically viable after a plunge in the coal price following the end of the coal boom. But even though the price of thermal coal has recovered to above $100 a tonne in recent months, it is less relevant because Adani is using the coal for its own power stations rather than selling to other customers. The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis director Tim Buckley – a vocal critic of the project – says Adani's parent company is struggling with current market capitalisation of equity at $US1.1 billion, against which it has net debts of $US2.4 billion.

Environmentalists – Adani's Carmichael project has become the lightning rod for anti-fossil fuel activists and environmentalists who want to stop the building of any new coal mines in Australia. It also fits into the narrative about Australia's changing energy mix – from one dominated by coal and gas to renewable energy such as wind and solar. Environmentalists claim the extra coal exports will damage the World Heritage-protected Great Barrier Reef, although it has received environmental approval from both state and federal governments. As the Turnbull government releases its 2017 climate review this week, the argument over the Adani mega-mine also ties in with the debate about whether Australia,- which has one of the largest emissions per capita,- should be building another large coal mine that will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Well-funded and media-savvy environmental groups have also been very effective in targeting banks about lending to the Carmichael mine. Some banks, under pressure to make sure they look like good corporate citizens, have promised not to lend to any future coal mines.

Legal activism – One of the reasons the project has been progressing at a snail's place the past seven years is because environmental and Indigenous groups have used the legal system to their advantage and challenged virtually every aspect of the project. The mining lease, environmental authority, and native title have been challenged by a range of parties, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, little-known group Coast & Country as well as Indigenous group, the Wangan and Jagalingou. They have successfully held up the project, resulting in the former Abbott government threatening to change the laws to make it harder to challenge big mining projects.

Last month, two legal challenges were thrown out of court, leaving three appeals – two before the full bench of the Federal Court over the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act and native title, and there is also a judicial review of Adani's port expansion at Abbot Point which has been brought by local residents in the Whitsundays – before the project can be given the green light.

Scandal  – The Adani Group has been plagued by allegations of corruption surrounding its projects in India. Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani is one of India's richest men, whose personal wealth was valued at $7.1 billion in 2014 by Forbes magazine. There have been allegations of environmental vandalism in relation to the development of the Port of Mundra, which is owned by Adani, as well as claims of tax evasion. Adani's Australian chief executive Jeyakumar Janakaraj has also been dragged into the scandal by failing to disclose his history running a mining company in Africa that pleaded guilty to serious economic harm. So far, none of these allegations have failed to bring down any of Adani's executives, but it adds to the controversy over the project.

UPDATE

ABC News, 21 December 2016:

Giant Indian conglomerate Adani, which plans to build one of the world's largest coal mines in Queensland's Galilee Basin, has set up a complex network of companies and trusts in Australia which are owned in one of the world's major tax havens, the Cayman Islands.

The Adani Group is also attempting to shift ownership of the existing Abbot Point coal port — which it bought for $1.8 billion — to a Singaporean company ultimately owned in the Cayman Islands.

An exhaustive search of company filings and documents across the globe has cast light on this opaque structure of ownership and control.

It has alarmed environmental activists and legal experts, who fear it could make it harder to gain compensation from Adani in the event of an environmental disaster from Adani's planned mine and port expansion on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

"I've been a businessman for most of my life, as well as an environmental activist, and the risks are great," said Geoff Cousins, former Optus CEO and chairman of the George Paterson advertising agency, now a board member of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

"With these kinds of approvals of big mining operations or port operations, you always get a set of conditions that the Government puts on.

"But those conditions aren't worth anything if, when something goes wrong, you try to find the company responsible and either it has no money or if it has money it's in a tax haven and you can't reach it."

It is a view echoed by David Chaikin, a professor of business law at the University of Sydney.

"The advantage of having the money in tax havens is that you are able to conceal the source of money, the use of money, and also to minimise tax," he said…..

Adani has created four companies and two trusts in Australia for the rail project.

The parent company for all these entities is Carmichael Rail and Port Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent.

This Singapore parent company is in turn owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a private company controlled by the Adani family and based in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands……

Adani has created four companies and two trusts in Australia for the rail project.

The parent company for all these entities is Carmichael Rail and Port Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore where the corporate tax rate is 15 per cent.

This Singapore parent company is in turn owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a private company controlled by the Adani family and based in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

The port expansion has a similar structure: five companies and two trusts in Australia, ultimately controlled by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

The vast expansion of the coal port planned by Adani has sparked enormous controversy.

It will involve dredging 1.1 million tonnes of spoil from the ocean near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and poses a potential danger to the environmentally-sensitive reef, which is listed on the World Heritage Register.

Critics say the company structure set up by Adani raises serious concerns about the value of strict environmental approvals placed on the project.

Ownership of the existing Abbot Point Coal Terminal is in limbo.

Adani bought a 99-year lease over the coal port in 2011 for $1.8 billion through a company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (AZPEZ).

That company said it "sold" the port three years ago to a Singaporean-based Adani family company "subject to regulatory and lenders approvals".

But the sale has not been completed, because of objections by the State Bank of India, which lent Adani $US800 million ($1.1 billion) for the port purchase.

In its latest filings with the Australian corporate watchdog, Adani still lists the port as being owned by the Bombay-listed company.

But ASPEZ's 2016 annual report said it had "recorded the divestment" of the port to Abbot Point Port Holdings Pte Ltd, Singapore: an entity which lists as its sole director Vinod Shantilal Adani, the brother of Guatam Adani, head of the Adani Group, and which is ultimately owned by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands.

Transferring ownership of the critical port infrastructure to a Caymans Islands' company "means it will be unregulated, unaccountable," Tim Buckley, director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analytics told the ABC.

"It will be non-transparent to the Australian Government as to what is going on, who owns it, who are the directors. To me it is a matter of national security."

Companies and trusts created by Adani for the proposed Carmichael mine are ultimately owned by Adani Enterprises, a publicly-listed company in India, but the control flows via a company registered in the tax haven of Mauritius, Adani Global Ltd.

Adani Global Ltd. is based at Suite 501 St James Court, St Denis Street in Port Louis, Mauritius, and since 1998 has operated as a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited which was incorporated in March 1993 as Adani Exports Ltd with the name change effected in 2007.

In October 2010 Adani's Australian subsidiary, Adani Mining Pty Ltd, made an application for approval of the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project.

On 14 October 2015 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment granted approval of 'controlled action' subject to conditions following re-consideration of project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

In 2014 Adani and Posco had agreed to build rail line in Australia and the following year Adani signed an MoU with Australia's Woodside Energy for Energy Cooperation.

Adani media release, 25 November 2016:

Adani welcomes court decisions Adani Group today welcomed decisions by the Queensland Supreme Court to dismiss activist lead appeals against the granting of a Mining Lease and an Environmental Authority in relation to the company’s planned $21 billion coal project. The company said the decisions were further positive steps towards starting work in the September Quarter 2017 on the Carmichael Mine in central western Queensland and associated projects – a near-400km rail line and port expansion at Abbott Point. Adani said it would now examine the full decision documents and make no further comment.

Adani letter to the Indian stock exchange, excerpt, 8 December 2016:

Live Mint, 21 December 2016:

Adani Enterprises Ltd is aiming to start production at its $16 billion integrated mining project in Australia by end of 2020, after facing a four-year delay because of stiff resistance from environmental groups. 

In an interview, group chairman Gautam Adani brushed aside concerns about the group’s indebtedness and said it was looking at investment opportunities in sectors such as defence, coal conversions and water. He added that the group continues to explore opportunities in the mining sector as it looks at an integrated “pit-to-plug” strategy encompassing mines, rail and the port sector. 

The Carmichael mines in Galilee, Australia, will produce about 25 million tonnes of coal a year in fiscal 2021. The group has invested close to $4.5 billion in the first phase, Adani said. It is planning to use the coal to fuel its Mundra and Udupi power plants. 

Adani also said he sees the ports business—one of the group’s most successful ventures so far—to meet its target of setting up 200 million tonnes of cargo handling capacity by the end of 2018, two years before schedule. 

The fate of Australia's dugongs and sea turtles

The fate of Australia’s dugongs and sea turtles due to declining numbers, loss of habitat, pollution, unmonitored legal hunting and illegal poaching is once more being debated in the media.

Tropic Now, 14 November 2016:

Traditional hunting advocates say the practise represents a small component of the issues facing sea turtles and dugongs.

Pic: David Reid

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion has defended traditional hunting at a graduation ceremony for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers in Cairns.

Native title laws allow traditional owners to hunt endangered turtles and dugongs.

Wildlife identity Bob Irwin has recently called for a moratorium on current practices but Mr Scullion says hunting isn’t the problem.

“There is evidence to demonstrate it is sustainable and there is no evidence to demonstrate it isn’t,” he says.

“Yes, there are some threats to dugongs and turtles. But none of them come from the ocean, they all come from the land and they’re all associated with degradation of habitat.”

Indigenous ranger Mick Hale runs a turtle hospital, Yuku-Baja-Muliku, with his wife, Larissa, at Archer Point more than 300 kilometres north of Cairns.

“We started about six years ago,” Mr Hale says. “It came about around the time Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Yasi decimated our seagrass beds.

“We noticed a lot of sick turtles around [with no food], so instead of letting them die we started a turtle hospital.

Traditional hunting can be sustainable, Mr Hale says.

“The biggest challenge for us is getting the public to understand that traditional hunting is the smallest percentage of mortality for turtles and dugongs,” he says.

“We’ve got environmental impacts, habitat destruction, global climate change.

“These are all massive contributors to the demise of turtle and dugong populations.”

The Hales are currently caring for three turtles - two green sea turtles and a hawksbill.

“We just do it because it’s what we do,” Ms Hale says. “We look after country and after people so that we do have a sustainable future.”

Injinoo ranger Cristo Lifu says rescuing five olive ridley sea turtles from ghost nets with fellow Cape York rangers recently was a powerful experience.

“They were stranded and stuck in a net,” Mr Lifu says.

“We rescued them but it was lucky we were there. Because if not, they would have been dead in another two or three days.

“It’s just about caring for country. Our elders looked after country before us and it’s our time now to take over.”……

The Australian, 11 November 2016:

…three federal ministers commit to talk to indigenous rangers and the Queensland state government to spearhead moves that could see more “no take’’ zones introduced in a bid to stop the vulnerable ­species being poached and traded, as revealed in The Australian last month…..

The North Australian Indig­en­ous Land and Sea Management Alliance says commerc­ia­l­isation claims have been found to be “unsubstantiated”, while envir­onmental groups point out that dugongs and turtles face far greater threats than hunting, including loss of habitat, marine debris and coastal development.

The Cairns Post, 9 August 2016:

AN indigenous leader claims a moratorium on dug­ong and turtle hunting will not work and will only push poachers further underground.

The Coalition is preparing draft legislation to provide stronger protection for the marine creatures from over-exploitation by traditional owner groups.

Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch has said he is not happy with some elements of the draft legislation and wants a blanket moratorium on the traditional take of the species.

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Phil Rist said his group’s TUMRA (Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreement) had ens­ured populations of turtles and dugongs along the Cassowary Coast remained sustainable for 10 years.

He said imposing a moratorium on hunting of the animals would push illegal hunting and exploitation further underground.

“TUMRAs around turtles and dugongs are the way to go,” he said.

“These are instruments for us – ourselves – to better manage our take of turtle and dug­ong on a sustainable level.

“These agreements are end­orsed by the State and Federal governments, and we have proven that they work and they work really well.”

Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre co-ordinator Jennie Gilbert supported a moratorium on turtle hunting, saying the animals definitely needed more protection in Far Northern waters.

“They have got enough threats in their lives without hunting,” she said. “We know that there’s illegal hunting and poaching going on out there.

“The numbers of green sea turtles in Far North Queensland still haven’t recovered from the mass stranding event of 2012, due to a lack of feeding grounds.”

BACKGROUND

ABC News, 27 September 2014:

The Federal Government is warning anyone involved in the illegal trade of dugong and turtle meat that they will be caught.

The Government has allocated $5 million to a dugong and turtle protection plan that involves the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Customs and Border Protection, and the Australian Crime Commission.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Crime Commission has been given $2 million to investigate the illegal trade.

Traditional owners have given their backing to the Government's protection plan.

"They know that their good name is being used by poachers," Mr Hunt said.

"We are determined to end the illegal trafficking in dugong and turtle meat and to protect these majestic creatures."

Under the Native Title Act of 1993, Indigenous people with native title rights can hunt marine turtles and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs, and "in exercise and enjoyment of their native title rights and interests".

Dugong and turtle poaching has been identified as a problem in the Northern Territory and Queensland, where the animals are hunted and the meat sold illegally.

National Indigenous radio broadcaster Seith Fourmile said non-Indigenous people were also involved in the illegal trade.

"They are involved with the trading, with selling it, passing it down - some of the turtle meat has gone as far south as Sydney and Melbourne," he said. 

Australian Government Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan 2014-2017:

To enhance the protection of our iconic marine turtles and dugong in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait, the Australian Government has committed $5.3 million over three years for delivery of a Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan under the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust. The plan addresses threatening processes that impact on the long-term recovery and survival of these protected migratory species. Information about the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust is available at www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/reef-trust

The Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan includes the following seven core elements:

       1.    $2 million for a Specialised Indigenous Ranger Programme for strengthened  enforcement and compliance and marine conservation in Queensland and the Torres Strait
The programme is being delivered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. More information is available at www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/minister-scullion-2-million-strengthen-compliance-powers-indigenous

       2.    $2 million for an Australian Crime Commission investigation into the illegal poaching, transportation and trade of turtle and dugong meat in the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait
A fact sheet about the investigation by the commission’s Wildlife and Environmental Crime Team is available at
https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/ Wildlife%20%26%20Environmental%20Crime%20Team%20FACTSHEET%20281114.pdf(link is external)

      3.    $700 000 for marine debris clean-up initiatives
Information about the Great Barrier Reef marine debris clean-up initiative is available at www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2014/mr20141113a.html

     4.    $600 000 to support the Cairns and Fitzroy Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre
The Reef Trust will support the work of the centre to rehabilitate sick and injured turtles and return them to the marine environment.
Information about the Cairns and Fitzroy Turtle Rehabilitation Centre is available at www.saveourseaturtles.com.au/about-ctrc.html(link is external) and www.fitzroyisland.com/newsroom/meet-patients-cairns-turtle-rehabilitation-centre(link is external)

      5.    Working with Indigenous leaders to provide for traditional use and reef protection
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is working with Traditional Owners to develop Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements to provide for traditional use and deliver reef protection. This may also include voluntary no take agreements.
Information about the agreements is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-marine-resources-agreements(link is external)

      6.    Federal legislation tripling the penalties for poaching and illegal transportation of turtle and dugong meat
The Environment Legislation Amendment Act 2015 amends various sections of the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Marine Park Act) to provide additional protection for turtles and dugong. The amendments triple the maximum penalties for various criminal offences related to the killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong under the EPBC Act and for criminal offences and civil penalty provisions which apply to the taking of, or injury to, turtles and dugong where they are a protected species under the Marine Park Act.
The tripling of maximum penalties does not impact on the rights of Native Title holders under the Native Title Act 1993 to hunt turtle and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs.
Information about the legislation is available at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/ Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5128

      7.    A national approach to dugong and turtle management
Refers to the nationally co-ordinated management of turtle and dugong in Australia. This includes the development of EPBC Act policy documents and guidelines such as updating the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles of Australia 2003, Marine Turtle Referral Guidelines and policy guidelines for dugong and seagrass habitats.

At the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart Australia it was unanimously agreed to create Ross Sea marine protected area

Ross Sea as seen from a satellite sensor (the SeaWiFS sensor). Data are used courtesy of NASA, USA

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, media release, 28 October 2016:

CCAMLR to create world's largest Marine Protected Area

The world's experts on Antarctic marine conservation have agreed to establish a marine protected area (MPA) in Antarctica's Ross Sea.

This week at the Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Hobart, Australia, all Member countries have agreed to a joint USA/New Zealand proposal to establish a 1.55 million km2area of the Ross Sea with special protection from human activities.

This new MPA, to come into force in December 2017, will limit, or entirely prohibit, certain activities in order to meet specific conservation, habitat protection, ecosystem monitoring and fisheries management objectives. Seventy-two percent of the MPA will be a 'no-take' zone, which forbids all fishing, while other sections will permit some harvesting of fish and krill for scientific research.

CCAMLR Executive Secretary, Andrew Wright, is excited by this achievement and acknowledges that the decision has been several years in the making.

"This has been an incredibly complex negotiation which has required a number of Member countries bringing their hopes and concerns to the table at six annual CCAMLR meetings as well as at intersessional workshops.

"A number of details regarding the MPA are yet to be finalised but the establishment of the protected zone is in no doubt and we are incredibly proud to have reached this point," said Mr Wright.

CCAMLR's Scientific Committee first endorsed the scientific basis for proposals for the Ross Sea region put forward by the USA and New Zealand in 2011. It invited the Commission to consider the proposals and provide guidance on how they could be progressed. Each year from 2012 to 2015 the proposal was refined in terms of the scientific data to support the proposal as well as the specific details such as exact location of the boundaries of the MPA. Details of implementation of the MPA will be negotiated through the development of a specific monitoring and assessment plan. The delegations of New Zealand and the USA will facilitate this process.

This year's decision to establish a Ross Sea MPA follows CCAMLR's establishment, in 2009, of the world’s first high-seas MPA, the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA, a region covering 94 000 km2 in the south Atlantic.

"This decision represents an almost unprecedented level of international cooperation regarding a large marine ecosystem comprising important benthic and pelagic habitats," said Mr Wright.

"It has been well worth the wait because there is now agreement among all Members that this is the right thing to do and they will all work towards the MPA's successful implementation," he said.

MPAs aim to provide protection to marine species, biodiversity, habitat, foraging and nursery areas, as well as to preserve historical and cultural sites. MPAs can assist in rebuilding fish stocks, supporting ecosystem processes, monitoring ecosystem change and sustaining biological diversity.

Areas closed to fishing, or in which fishing activities are restricted, can be used by scientists to compare with areas that are open to fishing. This enables scientists to research the relative impacts of fishing and other changes, such as those arising from climate change. This can help our understanding of the range of variables affecting the overall status and health of marine ecosystems.

ABC News, 28 October 2016:

A hard-won agreement to establish the first large-scale marine park in international waters south of Australia has been described as a "turning point" for conservation, however an expiry date of 35 years concerns the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Today, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) meeting in Hobart announced agreement had been reached between the member nations over the establishment of the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area, which will cover more than one and a half million square kilometres in Antarctica.

The agreement follows years of wrangling and failure to reach consensus, with Russia proving to be a stumbling block.

The area, which has been described as "the size of France, Germany and Spain combined", is revered for its biodiversity.

"Today's agreement is a turning point for the protection of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean," Chris Johnson, WWF Australia Ocean Science Manager, said.

"It is home to one third of the world's Adélie penguins, one quarter of all emperor penguins, one third of all Antarctic petrels, and over half of all South Pacific Weddell seals."

Mr Johnson said while the announcement was "good news", the expiration of the zone after 35 years was a cause for concern…..

Australian Federal Election 2016: which major political party is likely to put brakes on the petroluem industry's risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

For the second time in less than a year multinational gas and petroleum giant BP plc (British Petroleum) has not met all environmental assessment criteria according to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA):

BP Developments Australia Pty Ltd (BP), in its capacity as operator of the proposed Great Australian Bight (GAB) Exploration Drilling Program proposes to drill four exploration wells in Commonwealth marine waters in the GAB. Exact well locations are yet to be determined for all wells; however they will be drilled within a defined ‘drilling area’. The drilling area is the previously acquired Ceduna 3D seismic survey area, which covers 12,100 km2 across Exploration Permit for Petroleum (EPP) 37, EPP 38, EPP 39 and EPP 40. BP and Statoil are the registered titleholders of EPPs 37, 38, 39 and 40, with BP being the Operator. The drilling area has water depths ranging between 1,000 and 2,500 m Lowest Astronomical Tide. At the closest point, the drilling area is located approximately 395 km west of Port Lincoln and 340 km southwest of Ceduna in South Australia (SA). The project is scheduled to commence in the summer of 2016-2017, with each well taking between 45 and 170 days to drill. The wells will be drilled using a dynamically positioned semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). The purpose of the drilling program is to determine whether the target formations have commercially recoverable volumes of hydrocarbons. Additional project details are available on BP’s project website www.bpgabproject.com.au.

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, 17 May 2016:

On 16 May 2016, NOPSEMA provided BP an opportunity to modify and resubmit their environment plan for exploration drilling in the Great Australian Bight. If BP accepts this opportunity, the modified plan is expected to be resubmitted by 15 July, at which time NOPSEMA will recommence the assessment.

An opportunity to modify and resubmit is a normal part of NOPSEMA’s environment plan assessment process. In fact, NOPSEMA is required by law to provide a titleholder (the company proposing the activity) a reasonable opportunity to modify and resubmit their plan if it doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance. NOPSEMA will typically provide two opportunities to modify and resubmit, but is not restricted to providing only two opportunities.

If a titleholder has been given a reasonable opportunity to modify their plan and NOPSEMA determines that it still doesn’t meet the regulatory requirements for acceptance then NOPSEMA will refuse to accept the plan. Since NOPSEMA was established on 1 January 2012, 4% of all environment plans submitted for assessment have been refused.

NOPSEMA has updated the status of the assessment on the Great Australian Bight Exploration Drilling Program submission page. Stakeholders are encouraged to subscribe to the page to receive email alerts of any changes.

For more information about the environment plan assessment process see NOPSEMA’s Assessment process and FAQ pages at nopsema.gov.au.

The Wilderness Society re-released this animated graphic on 17 May 2016:

The oil and gas independent regulator, NOPSEMA, has handed down its decision. It has once again knocked back BP’s environment plan. BP has shown it has learnt nothing from its Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP now has the opportunity to resubmit its application to drill in the Great Australian Bight as early as July. However, BP still hasn’t released its oil spill modelling, so we released independent modelling which shows some the far-reaching impacts of a potential spill.

https://youtu.be/B5OnMGtx1cQ

An explanation of NOPSEMA’s environmental approval process can be found here.

BP currently owes the United States of America an est. US$7.1 billion in fines and compensation for the environmental damage caused by it Deepwater rig oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

This multinational is not the only oil and gas corporation with exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight - Santos, Chevron and Murphy Australia Oil received exploration permits in 2013-2015 which are current until 2020-2021. Joining Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd in the race to drill and be damned.

Petroluem exploration leases current in 2016

In November 2013 the Abbott Government ordered a review of certain national marine reserves. In effect by establishing this review it sought to block any increase in level of environmental protection afforded the Great Australian Bight when the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve was extended to cover 45,926 km2 with a depth range of 15 to 6,000 metres as part of a wider extension of national marine reserves by the former Labor federal government.

At the time of writing unpublished review recommendations have been in the hands of the Turnbull Government since December 2015 and to date mining exploration is still allowed within the waters of these south-west marine reserves at the discretion of the government of the day.

Although the current petroleum leases appear to be adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the GAB Commonwealth Marine Reserve it is clear from the aforementioned major spill modelling that oil/chemical contamination would reach both this reserve and major commercial fishing grounds within the Bight and Bass Strait.

Before casting your vote on 2 July 2016  you might consider this question: Which major political party is likely to put the brakes on these risky commercial ambitions in the Great Australian Bight?

BP plc BACKGROUND AS A SERIAL OFFENDER

Corporate Research Project, accessed 18 May 2016:

Starting about 2000, BP attempted the difficult feat of depicting itself as an environmentally friendly oil company. Some of its initiatives were merely symbolic—adopting a sunburst logo and claiming that its initials now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”—while others were concrete steps, such as (modest) investments in solar power. BP’s campaign was all the more difficult because of its involvement in controversial Alaskan oil and gas production, and because its environmental compliance record was far from unblemished.

For example, in 1990 BP agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine as part of a settlement of an $11 million suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought against the company in connection with illegal discharges from BP's Marcus Hook refinery into the Delaware River. Several months later the state of California sued the company over a 400,000-gallon spill of crude oil that occurred in February 1990 near Huntington Beach.

In July 1991 BP was one of ten major oil companies the EPA cited for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground sources of drinking water. BP agreed to pay a fine of $74,000, and to clean up the contaminated water sources by the end of 1993.

In 1992 the EPA charged BP Chemicals with violating hazardous waste laws at its plant in Lima, Ohio, and sought almost $600,000 in penalties.

In 2000 a federal judge imposed a $500,000 criminal fine on BP for failing to report the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope. The company was also ordered to establish a national environmental management system to prevent future violations. The total cost to the company from this and a related civil matter was said to be more than $20 million.

In 2002 BP was fined £1 million by UK authorities for violating safety regulations in connection with several accidents at a refinery in Grangemouth, Scotland (later sold by BP).

In 2003 California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District filed an omnibus complaint against BP, seeking $319 million in penalties for thousands of air pollution violations over an 8-year period at the company’s refinery in Carson. BP acquired that facility through its purchase of Atlantic Richfield in 2000. The agency later filed another suit against BP for $183 million. In 2005 the parties reached a settlement under which BP agreed to pay $25 million in cash penalties and $6 million in past emissions fees while spending $20 million on environmental improvements at the refinery and $30 million on community programs focused on asthma diagnosis and treatment.

In 2005 BP was accused of trying to cover up deficiencies in the anti-corrosion coating on the 1,000-mile-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. BP is the lead participant in the joint venture that operates the pipeline, the largest shareholder in the consortium that owns it, and the operator of the oil fields that supply it.

In March 2006 more than 250,000 gallons of crude oil spilled at BP’s Prudhoe Bay operations in the Alaskan tundra. Several month later, the company shut down the huge Prudhoe Bay oil field because of additional leakage caused by corrosion in the transit line that carried crude oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There were press reports that BP had been warned of the problem more than two years earlier. In May 2007 the House Energy Committee released documents suggesting that cost-cutting pressures weakened preventive maintenance and other safety practices in the period leading up to the leaks.

In October 2007 BP agreed to pay a total of $60 million in fines to the EPA. The amount included $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act in connection with the 2005 explosion at the Texas City, Texas refinery in which 15 workers were killed. The company also pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the act and was to serve three years of probation. Apart from the fine, BP agreed to spend $265 million for a facility-wide study of its safety valves and a renovation of its flare system to prevent excess emissions.

At the same time, BP agreed to pay the EPA a $12 million fine in connection with the March 2006 oil spill in Alaska, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, and was ordered to serve three years probation on this offense as well. The company was also required to replace 16 miles of pipeline at a cost of $1.56 billion.

Later, in October 2010, BP agreed to pay $15 million in Clean Air Act penalties in connection with violations at the Texas City refinery.

In 2008 BP and several other oil majors agreed to pay $422 million to settle suits that had been brought by public water systems in 20 states and consolidated in federal court relating to the contamination of groundwater supplies by the carcinogenic gasoline additive MTBE.

At its annual meeting in mid-April 2010, BP faced a barrage of criticism over its involvement in controversial tar sands oil production in Canada.

Only days after that meeting, BP had to contend with a much bigger problem: an explosion at its Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and opened a massive underwater oil leak. While the disaster continued, government investigators were looking into indications that BP pushed for work on the well to move ahead despite evidence of unsafe conditions……

Read the full post here.