Protecting The Leard Forest: one of the many reasons why Environmental Defenders Office NSW is a vital asset in relation to good governance & safeguarding both community interest and the natural environment

Lock The Gate Alliance media release:

Legal Action Launched to Stop Clearing in Leard Forest

Posted by Jane Hammond on June 06, 2014

The Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) has today launched legal action in court to stop the clearing of Leard State Forest for the controversial Maules Creek Coal Mine, near Narrabri in north-west NSW.

The Council has commenced civil enforcement proceedings against Whitehaven Coal in the NSW Land and Environment Court. 

It is represented by the environmental law experts EDO NSW.  

MCCC is seeking an injunction to stop the operational clearing of Leard State Forest on the grounds that Whitehaven is in breach of its development consent by clearing the forest during winter when animals, including threatened species, are hibernating.  

A breach of a development consent contravenes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 

Maules Creek Community Council spokesperson, farmer Phil Laird, said: “We have launched a legal case today because we believe the winter clearing that is occurring in the forest is a breach of NSW planning and environment laws. 

"We believe the clearing is unlawful, and we are seeking to have the case heard quickly so that no more irreparable damage is done to this unique forest environment and the animals that live in it.

"As a local community, we feel that we have been forced to take this action because the NSW Government has failed in its responsibility to uphold the law and protect the environment of NSW" he said. 

Further comment: Phil Laird 0428 712 622

EDO contact Jon Walter 0404 647 842

UPDATE

From Mining Australia 12 June 2014:

Environmentalists are claiming a win against Whitehaven Coal after the miner agreed to stop clearing the Leard State Forest after a hearing in the Land and Environment Court.

The Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) sought an injunction to halt the miner’s operational work in the forest, near Narrabri in north-west NSW.

The group, represented by environmental law experts, EDO NSW,claim Whitehaven is in breach of its development consent by clearing the forest during winter when animals, including threatened species, are hibernating.  

It said the clearing is unlawful and contravenes the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A full case on this matter will be heard by the court in September and the MCCC wanted the clearing, underway to make way for the Maules Creek mine, halted until then.

Before a decision was made by the court on Thursday, Whitehaven agreed to stop its clearing activity.

MCCC spokesman and Maules Creek mine farmer Phil Laird said he was delighted at Whitehaven’s decision.

“This outcome today is a huge relief for the Maules Creek community and everyone that loves the wildlife of Leard State Forest. The slaughter of hibernating bats and other animals over winter was an outrage that has been rightly stopped today” Laird said.

“This outcome today sends a strong message to coal mining companies across NSW and to the NSW Government – if they will not enforce the law, then the community is prepared to step up and do it themselves.

“We appreciate the action taken by Whitehaven today and we will be preparing to vigorously pursue the full legal challenge.”….

Just when you think the Institute for Cetacean Research cannot sink any lower, the media reports this..................

ABC News 2 June 2013:

Japan's peak whaling body has launched a new campaign to promote whale meat as a nutritious food that enhances physical strength and reduces fatigue.

With about 5,000 tonnes of whale meat sitting unwanted in freezers around Japan, the country's Institute for Cetacean Research has decided to launch a new campaign to promote the by-product of its so-called scientific whaling program.

Once popular in school lunches, younger generations of Japanese rarely, if ever, eat whale.

But the institute hopes to revive flagging interest by advertising whale meat as a great source of balenine - a substance believed to enhance energy and physical health….

Sushi made from Minke whale meat and blubber

The Australian Commonwealth Ombudman's opinion on the matter of the AFMA-Seafish Tasmania alleged conflict of interest concerning allocated fishing quotas

Letter from Commonwealth Ombudsman to Andrew Wilkie MP concerning the matter of Seafish Tasmania's fish quo...

Clancy: "Chris Gulaptis, will now have blood on his hands after having the reduced speed limit on the Iluka Road reversed"

“The state local member, Chris Gulaptis, will now have blood on his hands after having the reduced speed limit on the Iluka Road reversed.  The blood will be that of the many animals that will now be killed as a result of this stupid decision” said Dr Greg Clancy Ecologist of Coutts Crossing.  Dr Clancy who narrowly missed hitting a Koala striding across the Iluka Road, 600 m east of the Esk River Bridge on Friday night, believes that a great variety of animals will be killed. “I was driving at 80 km and always look out for wildlife.  Just imagine if it was someone driving at 100 km per hour without wildlife awareness.  The koala would be dead now” he said.  I have driven the Iluka Road many times since 1978 and my casual observations indicate that since the 80 km speed limit was introduced the number of road kills has significantly decreased.  Over the years I have seen Swamp Wallabies, Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Red-necked Wallabies, Koalas, reptiles such as the Land Mullet and birds such as the Variegated Fairy-wren and Lewin’s Honeyeater and many more killed on the road.  A number of Coastal Emus were also killed in that time.  What is really sad is that this decision, which will shave a couple of minutes of the trip from the Highway, is being hailed as a triumph.  My contacts at Iluka say that the majority of residents were happy with the 80 km speed limit.  It was a mere political decision that will cost lives, not human lives, but lives of animals that don’t have a vote” Dr Clancy said.

Dr. Greg Clancy, Media Release, 20 August 2012

BirdLife Northern NSW invites you to a meeting about the fate of the Coastal Emu, Grafton 31 August 2012



Media release

BirdLife Northern NSW, has been joined by local residents, ecologists and local environment groups to call a meeting with the RMS (formerly RTA) to discuss the proposed Pacific Highway Grafton Bypass route.

A Public meeting has been arranged for 6pm on 31^st August at the Community Centre 59 Duke Street, Grafton.

This route will travel from Glenugie to Tyndale via the Pillar Valley and Tubacia wetlands and then beside the Coldstream River east of Tyndale to the Harwood bridge.

Birdlife Australia,  Northern NSW spokesperson Dr. Greg  Clancy said “The only suitable route that will reduce the impact on the ecosystem is the ‘Orange’ route, which approximates the existing highway.  It was rejected by the RMS on social and economic grounds.”

“The preferred route of the bypass intersects the home range of the last significant population of the threatened Coastal Emu. There are only about 100 emus left in this isolated population.  As well it transects the habitat of over 80 threatened flora and fauna species. Ecologically the RMS could not have chosen a worse route.  Will this drive our local icon to extinction?”

If you have concerns on this route you are encouraged to attend this meeting.

Contact:Dr Greg Clancy 66493153 0429601960 gclancy@tpg.com.au    

I'm a Coastal Emu and I need your help. Will you let the NSW Roads & Maritime Services drive me and my family to extinction?

Has Clarence Valley Council finally abandoned all pretence of openness and transparency with Mayor Williamson and General Manager Greensill at the helm?

On 12 June 2012 there was a workshop for Clarence Valley shire councillors on the matter of proposed staging of the Yamba Road Bypass and shortly afterwards Council’s own Civil & Corporate Committee met to decide on its recommendation to the forthcoming Ordinary Monthly Meeting of 26 June on this issue.

The first red flag which went up in the Yamba community was the realisation that councillors, residents and ratepayers were being inaccurately advised at the workshop and in business papers/minutes that there were only three endangered species in the path of the proposed road works – an unidentified orchid, the Grey Crowned Babbler and (very inaccurately) the Sugar Glider.

The second red flag was the discovery that a flora and fauna report (commissioned by Council in February 2012 which assessed possible negative environmental impacts along less than half of the Bypass stage under consideration) was not included as an attachment to any of the business papers.

By and large the Yamba community remained in the dark concerning this public document when a local resident made a deputation on 12 June.

To date the document continues to be unavailable for viewing on Council’s website and is not included as an attachment to the 26 June business paper.

The report clearly indicated that in the proposal before Council there were up to eight scheduled threatened species which may be impacted by land clearing associated with the Bypass route between Shores Drive and Deering Street alone.

It also properly identified the Squirrel Glider, Grey-Crowned Babbler and Scented Acronychia tree as being under particular threat by road construction in that area.

These species are respectively listed by the NSW Government as Vulnerable, Vulnerable and Threatened.

The Commonwealth also respectively lists these three species nationally as Vulnerable, Near Threatened and Threatened .

All in all the field survey revealed a total of 191 flora species, comprising 112 native species and 79 introduced species and Eight plants of significance were identified during the field survey including Umbrella Cheese Tree, Willow Primrose, Pink-flowered Doughwood, Scented Achronychia (also endangered), Queensland Silver Wattle, Zornia, Swamp Lilly and Narrow-leaved Cumbungi....

Results of a desktop search of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Wildlife Atlas identified thirty two threatened fauna species as occurring within a five kilometre radius of the proposed activity site.

As matters now stand, next week Clarence Valley councillors will also be making further decisions concerning the Bypass between Shores Drive and Coldstream Street without any information on biodiversity values in the other half of this Bypass stage, which would have to pass through what appears to be forested Crown land.

In the interests of the openness and transparency which Clarence Valley Council’s Mayor, Executive and Management appear to have abandoned, here is a transcript of North Coast Environment Planning’s Flora and Fauna Report: Proposed Construction Freeburn Street to Yamba Road*.

Clarence Valley Council Flora and Fauna Report 14 March 2012

* I apologise for the fact that Page 4 Contents did not upload successfully.

Two good reasons why you should stop buying chocolate, icecream, frozen desserts, biscuits, crisps or soap and shampoo products made with palm oil

According to Barbi this Orangutan mother was captured stealing fruit for her undernourished infant.
You can feel proud the next time you put a chocolate bar, ice cream cone, slice of cheescake, sweet biscuit or handful of crisps in your mouth, shower with a soap bar or shampoo your hair from the usual range of toiletry products.

A rare frog the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy & Anchor Resources intends to ignore?

Giant Barred Frog found on the Wild Cattle Creek property

Scientific name: Mixophyes iteratus
Conservation status in NSW: Endangered
National conservation status: Endangered

Image found at

Protect & Preserve the Dorrigo Plateau

It is no secret that NSW Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher, is enthusiastic at the prospect of mining on the Mid and Far North Coast – particularly when it comes to gold and antimony mining on the Dorrigo Plateau.

A plateau which takes in the Clarence River catchment high country which supplies fresh water to an estimated 125,419 residents (based on 2010 ERP figures) in Coffs Harbour City and Clarence Valley Shire local government areas.

Local government areas falling within a region which has a population expected to grow more than 28% to around 424,400 by 2031.

Given the ongoing exploration within Anchor Resources Limited’s Wild Cattle Creek EL 6388 lease and the corporation’s recent history of environmental degradation, one has to wonder why Minister Hartcher and his department head have not yet thought fit to insist on a formal environmental assessment of the lease area.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation:

Description

Giant Barred Frogs are large frogs, up to 115 mm in length. They are olive to dark brown above with paler or darker blotches, and cream to pale yellow below. The skin is finely granular. The pupil of the eye is vertical and the iris is pale golden in the upper half and brown in the lower half. The call is a deep ‘ork’ breaking into a series of ‘orks’ and grunts. The Giant Barred Frog can be most easily distinguished from other barred frog species by the black thighs with smaller yellow spots, distinct barring on the limbs, dark blotches on the sides, absence of a creamy stripe on the upper lip and the distinctive eye colour.

Location and habitat

Distribution

Coast and ranges from south-eastern Queensland to the Hawkesbury River in NSW. North-eastern NSW, particularly the Coffs Harbour-Dorrigo area, is now a stronghold. Considered to have disappeared south of the Hawkesbury and there are no recent records from the Blue Mountains. [my bolding]

Habitat and ecology

• Giant Barred Frogs forage and live amongst deep, damp leaf litter in rainforests, moist eucalypt forest and nearby dry eucalypt forest, at elevations below 1000 m.
• They breed around shallow, flowing rocky streams from late spring to summer.
• Females lay eggs onto moist creek banks or rocks above water level, from where tadpoles drop into the water when hatched.
• Tadpoles grow to a length of 80 mm and take up to 14 months before changing into frogs. When not breeding the frogs disperse hundreds of metres away from streams. They feed primarily on large insects and spiders.

Threats

• Reduction in water quality, from sedimentation or pollution.
• Changes in water flow patterns, either increased or decreased flows.
• Reduction of leaf-litter and fallen log cover through burning.
• Timber harvesting and other forestry practices.
• Vegetation clearance.
• Predation on eggs and tadpoles by introduced fish.
• Weed spraying close to streams.
• Chytrid fungal disease.

One of the reasons why Japan thumbs its nose at Australia and continues to slaughter whales in the Southern Ocean?

A Japanese ship injures a whale with its first harpoon.

 It took three harpoon attempts to kill the mammal.

Photograph: Kate Davidson/EPA/Corbis,

The Guardian UK December 14, 2011

Perhaps this is the answer to the puzzle of why, in the face of ongoing Australian opposition, the Government of Japan (under the guise of research) continues to needlessly kill whales in Antarctica for a dwindling domestic whale meat market – it thinks it owns us.

According to the Australian Parliament’s About the House Magazine in December 2011:

Japan [is] ranked as Australia’s third largest source of merchandise imports in 2010 (after China and the United States), worth $18.2 billion. The automotive sector dominates this trade, with Australia constituting the third-biggest market for new passenger motor vehicles manufactured in Japan.

The economic relationship between Australia and Japan is not only about trade. Japan has been Australia’s third largest foreign investor for many years (after the United States and the United Kingdom). The total stock of Japanese investment in Australia at the end of 2010 was $117.6 billion, almost twice as large as that of China (including Hong Kong). When both trade and investment are included – and taking account of both the depth and breadth of that investment, which has been critical to the development of Australia’s most important industries – Japan could still be considered to be Australia’s most important economic partner overall.

Japanese demand for Australia’s resources – and the accompanying investment – has contributed enormously to the development of Australia’s mining industry. In the area of agriculture, over 40 per cent of ‘Aussie beef’ imported into Japan comes from Japanese-owned farms in Australia. Kirin Holdings now owns Australia’s largest dairy company, as well as some of Australia’s largest beer producers. In the field of manufacturing, Toyota not only exports passenger vehicles to Australia, but – through its in-country production facilities – is also the largest producer of these vehicles in Australia. Furthermore, Japanese investment is increasingly targeted at using Australia as a springboard into the emerging economies of Asia. Japanese investment has been remarkable for its breadth, continuity and steady expansion over time, regardless of fluctuations in the global economic situation.

Australians can noticeably alter this scenario if enough individuals refuse to purchase goods imported from Japan or goods produced by Japanese–owned companies operating in this country, for as long as Japan acts as an inhumane environmental vandal in the Southern Ocean.



O'Farrell Government exposes itself as a ship of fools

The Hon Robyn Parker, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage, exposes the level of her incompetence concerning matters affecting the NSW North Coast.NSW Parliament Legislative Council Environment and Heritage Committee - Estimates Hearing, 27 October 2011

Dorrigo Environment Watch on the subject of mining at Wild Cattle Creek

Stuttering Frog

Dorrigo Environment Watch is on a mission to raise community awareness of risks to human and environmental health. The following can be found on its website at

http://www.dorrigoenvironmentwatch.org.au/index.html:

With 70% of NSW under mining exploration licences it seems no place is protected, regardless of known high conservation values and environmental legislation requirements.

There is considerable potential for endangered frogs to be at risk from renewed mining development on the Dorrigo Plateau. The site of the antimony deposit known as Wild
Cattle Creek is well known habitat of a number of rare and threatened frog species, in particular the Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus) listed as nationally endangered
and the Stuttering Frog (Mixophyes balbus) listed as nationally vulnerable. These frogs and their habitat are supposedly protected by the Australian Government’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC).

Dorrigo Environment Watch has located both the Giant Barred frog and the Stuttering frog in the streams just below the current drilling activity zone. Frog surveys, conducted by DEW members with scientific and environmental education expertise, have been underway since November 2010, with the data validated by an independent frog expert and sent to the DECCW Wildlife Database Unit.

Under the EPBC there are no third party referral procedures for an individual or community group to report these frogs to and it seems that proponents such as Anchor Resources Ltd are required to ‘self assess’ as to whether they would be required to submit ‘notice of an action’ to the Australian Government. Similarly under the NSW Department of Industry and Investment, Anchor Resources drilling program was considered low impact and deemed not to require a ‘Review of Environmental Factors’. DEW considers that both the Australian and NSW Governments are failing in their legislative responsibilities to protect these nationally listed frogs and their habitat. In particular it is concerning how this exploration licence managed to avoid
any environmental assessment under either State or Australian legislation given that a quick Google search of ‘Wild Cattle Creek NSW and frogs’ leads straight to the Government web sites for threatened frog species.

As required under the EPBC Act, DEW has written to the NSW State Government requesting that they notify the Australian Government of the need to trigger the EPBC for this mining development site and for a Review of Environmental Factors to be undertaken.

As yet, the EPBC has not been triggered on any NSW mining exploration licences. Wild Cattle Creek Dorrigo provides both the NSW and Australian Governments an opportunity to use the legislation they have enacted to protect threatened species and to regain a balance of appropriate land use in rural Australia currently dominated by the mining sector.

Giant Barred Frog

The Daily Examiner couldn't or wouldn't name company directors responsible for the illegal destruction of pristine natural habitat - why?

On 7 September 2011 The Daily Examiner reported:

A COMPANY which illegally cleared 38 hectares of native vegetation and may have displaced several koalas on a Halfway Creek property was fined $200,000 in the Land and Environment Court in Sydney on Thursday.

Judge Shaehan found Graymarshall Pty Ltd had breached the Native Vegetation Act by completely clearing six areas of the 170ha property of white mahogany, tallowwood and red mahogany.

One company director was found to have participated in the clearing, which was done on the instructions of both directors using a D6 bulldozer and a D65 excavator.

Neither director was named in the judgement.

Now, I have no idea if the company’s directors were not named in The Daily Examiner article because the newspaper knew their names and declined to publish or if it was too apathetic to search the public record – either way the Clarence Valley community is entitled to know all relevant facts surrounding Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Graymarshall Pty Ltd (No.2) [2011] NSWLEC 149 (1 September 2011).

The judgment in this case clearly stated that:

One director of the defendant participated in the clearing, done on the instructions of both directors, and under their supervision, using a D6 bulldozer and a D65 excavator….

I agree with the prosecutor's submission that the offence should be considered to be of high objective gravity.

This is what is previously stated about the company structure in Graymarshall Pty Ltd v Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water [2010] NSWLEC 54 in relation to the same illegal clearing matter:

Annexed to Mr Beaumont’s affidavit was a company search dated 15 March 2010, which listed Mr Murray Gray and Mr Darrin Marshall as the sole directors and shareholders Graymarshall. Mr Darrin Marshall is also listed as the company secretary. No other evidence concerning the company was, however, given. [my bolding]

Clarence Valley Shire Council Environment, Economic & Community Committee Tuesday, 9 March 2010 Inspections states:

Development Application SUB2009/0026 was lodged on 22 June 2009 by Peterson Consulting Group on behalf of the owners D. Marshall and M. Gray (Graymarshall Pty Ltd) for subdivision of land (boundary adjustment).

The applicant is seeking approval for boundary adjustments between 5 existing lots (Lots 20, 53, 54 and 105 DP751368 & Lot 3 DP816313) to reconfigure the lots to create 4 lots of 40 ha and one lot 195.6 ha in size.

The boundary adjustment will result in the creation of an additional three (3) dwelling entitlements.

The lots are located at the end of Gilmores Lane approximately 7.5 km south of Halfway Creek and 4 km west of Kungala. The lots are zoned 1(a) General Rural under the Ulmarra Local Environmental Plan (the LEP). Together the lots comprise approximately 356 hectares……

By letter dated 11 March 2009, Council was notified by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) that it was investigating potential illegal clearing of native vegetation on Lots 20, 53, 54 and 105 DP751368. At the time of writing this report, DECCW had not concluded investigations though the Department has advised Council that a direction to carry out remedial works was to be issued pursuant to Section 38 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 for the revegetation of approximately 50 hectares of land on the lots.

This was extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 08:25:57 on 07/09/2011 and shows the only recorded change in company detalis since 2008:

Name GRAYMARSHALL PTY LTD
ACN 132 679 719
ABN 60 132 679 719
Type Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date 11/08/2008
Next Review Date 11/08/2012
Status Strike-Off Action In Progress
Locality of Registered Office Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission
31/08/2011 6010 Application For Voluntary Deregistration of a Company

It took me all of fifteen minutes to search for, download and open files relating to this destruction of an estimated 38ha of pristine habitat (including part or all of a 2ha section listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) in the Halfway Creek area and, it is very evident who the company owners/directors were during the relevant period.

It took me only a few minutes more to ascertain that two businessmen with identical names are listed in the Coffs Harbour local government area – one an earthmover and excavator, the other a medical specialist. These two men may or may not be the same Gray and Marshall.

I’m still wondering why the newspaper didn’t bother to identify the company directors in question. It is very quick to name and shame drink drivers and others coming before the local courts on the NSW North Coast. I would have thought environmental vandalism perpetrators should also be similarly shamed.

Flying fox dispersal is the wrong way to go - NSW O'Farrell Government increases Hendra risk

We have to wonder about our best and brightest. By that I mean our politicians. This week the Minister for the Environment, Ms Robyn Parker, announced that the Office of the Environment had approved the Department of Education and Communities’ (DEC) application to disperse flying-foxes in Maclean. Ms Parker said she had asked the Office of Environment and Heritage to expedite the assessment of the permit, following representations from the local Member for Clarence, Mr Steve Cansdell.

With an outbreak of Hendra virus just up the road at South Ballina, and scientists saying stress in flying-foxes can increase the virus, our best and brightest are proposing to stress these animals. What are they thinking?

A study found that in times of nutritional stress (food shortages) the prevalence of disease in flying foxes increases. Dispersal is a slightly different type of stress but we do know that it's very stressful to flying foxes. The Qld government has also warned, dispersals could increase Hendra virus loads in flying-foxes and increase the risk of spillover into horses.

Despite this knowledge our pollies are keen to pursue this because they claim they want to reduce the “ impact on the amenity of students and teachers at the school”.  But what about the rest of the community? Isn’t there a plan for them?

And this is where it gets really silly. The bureaucrats have just spent two years working on a plan for the whole community. Seems the Minister and the MP don’t know about that.

Chiroptera

Northern Rivers

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com for consideration.

International Whaling Commission in July 2011: Australia replies to Japan

From Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society members blogging from IWC 63:

Japan notes the importance of the agenda item ‘Safety at Sea’ to them and that this issue will be looked at on Wednesday. He calls on his Commissioner to make a short statement. The Japanese Commissioner is grateful for the many messages of sympathy and offers of help that Japan has received subsequent to the Japanese earthquake. He noted the devastation wrought on coastal communities and that this makes it even more important to promote sustainable use.

The Hon.Tony Burke MP, Australian Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities replies to the Japanese position:

Intervention on safety at sea, International Whaling Commission, Jersey
E&OE Transcript 12 July 2011

TONY BURKE: Thank you very much Mr Chair.
While Australia has intervened previously, this is my first opportunity as Australia's Minister for the Environment to intervene and I wish to congratulate you on the role that you've taken on and the work that you've been doing with the Commission.
Mr Chair, Australia's position on safety at sea is actually shared by the Japanese Government. Nothing less than full compliance with domestic and international laws is acceptable. Safety at sea is important enough to make sure that laws are enforced and also important enough to make sure that appropriate international fora are used.
The International Maritime Organization is the appropriate forum for safety at sea. It had a resolution on the 17th of May of last year, specifically dealing with assuring safety during demonstrations, protests or confrontations on the high seas. It is extremely important to ensure safety at sea. The Australian Federal Police continues to deal with the investigations which have been put to us and deal with them through the appropriate law enforcement agency which we have.
But what is also being asked in the presentation by Japan are two further things.
First, every description of the whaling vessels involved was a reference to research vessels, to Antarctic research activities, to legitimate research activities. Those particular views are views that Australia cannot hold.
Secondly, the presentation from Japan also raised the issue of asking Australia to do more than what are our legal obligations under the International Law of the Sea. We cannot be in a situation where we are providing a higher level of support for a whaling vessel than we would provide to any other vessel within the waters, or within our responsibilities under the International Law of the Sea. That is effectively what is being asked.
So as long as the issue is focused on genuinely ensuring safety at sea, Australia is there and we are there to help provide our international obligations and indeed, Mr Chair, to also make sure that we provide an equal level of protection for all vessels. But to the extent that we are being asked to provide specific protection above and beyond, simply because a vessel is involved in whaling is something which goes beyond the reasonable expectations of safety at sea. And indeed the appropriate forum is not here but is the International Maritime Organization.

WHALE NEWS: Britain to push for IWC anti-corruption measures ahead of Japanese whaling fleet again entering the Antarctic in December 2011

Migaloo photograph from Aquatic Blue Charters

Japan’s whaling fleet is currently hunting in the north-west Pacific Ocean and apparently intends to turn its attention to the Southern Ocean at the end of the year, according to the Kyodo News June 27, 2011:

TOKYO — The fisheries ministry has asked the Japan Coast Guard to dispatch a patrol boat to protect Japanese ships engaged in what they call research whaling from obstructive actions by an anti whaling group this season, sources familiar with the matter said Monday.
The request followed the Japanese whaling fleet’s suspension of operations in the Antarctic Ocean last season due to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s actions, which forced the fleet’s four vessels to return home in February after catching far fewer whales than planned, the sources said.

Meanwhile in the same paper on June 24 it was reported that in Japanese waters:

Radioactive cesium was detected from two minke whales caught off the coast of Kushiro, Hokkaido, in Japan's so-called research whaling, a whalers' association said Tuesday. While the level of the radioactive material remained below the temporarily set upper limit, the association officials said during a press conference in Kushiro that the contamination must have been caused by the continuing nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant and that they will closely monitor future developments.

The Independent newspaper on July 2, 2011 published the following concerning the International Whaling Commission:

Britain is embarking on a radical attempt to clean up the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which has been increasingly racked by allegations of corruption amongst its member countries.

At the heart of the concerns are repeated accusations that Japan, the leading pro-whaling nation, has been persuading small nations which are members of the IWC to vote in favour of a resumption of commercial whaling, by means of aid packages and the direct bribing of individuals………

A sweeping resolution put forward for the next IWC meeting, beginning in Jersey a week on Monday, would radically revise the commission's procedures, some of which date from its founding in 1946, are regarded as lax and inadequate and "leave it open to accusations of malpractice," in the words of Britain's Fisheries minister, Richard Benyon.

In particular, the UK resolution would end the astonishing situation where the 89 IWC member states are allowed to pay their annual subscriptions by cheque or in cash, instead of by bank transfer, as is the normal case with international organisations. It is thought that some of these subscriptions, which range from £100,000 in the case of Japan to about £4,000 for small states, have been paid in the past with Japanese-provided funds.

The British resolution also seeks to make the IWC's own scientific reports more rigorous, make its record-keeping more timely and accurate, and make its meetings more open to representatives from environmental pressure groups and other non-governmental organisations.

Australia submits case to The Hague citing Japan for alleged breach of international obligations concerning whaling

According to Australia’s Attorney-General Robert McClelland, Minister for Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd and Minister for Environment Tony Burke on 9 May 2011:

The Government has announced that Australia will file its written submission in the Whaling Case against Japan at the International Court of Justice later today in The Hague.

The filing of the Memorial is the next step in the case to stop Japan’s Southern Ocean whaling program for good.

The Australian Government believes Japan’s whaling activities are contrary to its international obligations, in particular, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Despite Australia repeatedly calling on Japan to cease its illegal whaling activities, Japan has refused to do so. That is why the Australian Government has taken this case in the ICJ.

The decision to commence proceedings in May 2010 was not taken lightly. The Government disagrees with Japan’s decision to continue whaling and this is the proper way to settle legal differences between friends.

Australia will argue that Japan is in breach of the general prohibition under the Convention on commercial whaling as well as a prohibition on such whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, also established under the Convention.

Japan has sought to rely on an exception to the Convention concerning whaling ‘for purposes of scientific research’.

The Government believes the whaling carried out by Japan is commercial, not scientific, and does not fall within that narrow exception.

The decision to take legal action demonstrates the Government’s commitment to do what it takes to end whaling globally.

The Memorial will remain confidential until its public release is ordered by the Court, which is likely to be at the first oral hearing of the case. Japan must file its Counter-Memorial by 9 March 2012.

In March, the ICJ accepted the nomination of Professor Hilary Charlesworth AM as Australia’s ad hoc judge in the Case.

There has been little reaction in the Japanese media to this latest move by Australia. Which is understandable given Japan's necessarily internal focus on recovery after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

However, earlier this year, the Daily Yomiuri Online reported that the Government of Japan is considering ending Antarctic whaling:

Asked at a press conference Friday about the possibility of the country ending research whaling entirely, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Michihiko Kano replied: "We can't say anything definite about that."
According to ministry officials, however, discussions have already begun behind the scenes about ending Japan's Antarctic whaling.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one high-ranking ministry official said five alternative scenarios have so far been studied:
-- Have the whaling fleet escorted by Japan Coast Guard vessels or others.
-- Build new whaling vessels capable of traveling at high speed.
-- Replace research whaling with commercial whaling.
-- Continue with the current whaling arrangements.
-- End whaling in the Antarctic Ocean.
The first option, whaling accompanied by escort vessels, was discussed in the government from around 2007, but was scrapped because there are no escort vessels that could travel all the way to the Antarctic.
The second alternative is "almost impossible," the official said, due to the government's severe fiscal condition.
Concerning the third option, Japan sought to bring about an IWC accord to resume commercial whaling at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in June 2010. However, the meeting broke down when the gap could not be bridged between whaling and antiwhaling nations........
The ministry official said, "With the suspension of research whaling, there is no possibility of whaling continuing from next season as it has in the past."

'Research' whaling is still being conducted in waters off Japan in 2011.

Photograph The Daily Telegraph

Anti-whaling warrior the Bob Barker in the Clarence for maintenance

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s MY Bob Barker quietly slipped into the Clarence River last Saturday so that it can be repainted at the at the Harwood Slipway over the next two weeks.

The Society states:

Our “black ships” have served their purpose. Since 2002, our ships have been painted black with the objective of driving the Japanese whaling fleet from the waters of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The color black served four purposes for the Sea Shepherd fleet. First, it’s an intimidating color, and up against the superior number of ships in the whaling fleet, I felt we should be as intimidating as possible. The black ships, coupled with our own Jolly Roger, lent an air of intimidation. Secondly, the color black absorbs heat and this helped conserve energy in an environment with 24-hour sunlight, but a close to zero degrees climate.

Added to intimidation and keeping warm, we had a third factor…the black ships have long been a part of Japanese culture signifying change. In Japan, the term “black ships” has a specific meaning. First, with the black fleet of the Portuguese that brought Catholicism and Western trade to Japan, and then with the black fleet led by American Admiral Matthew Perry, that brought Japan out of centuries of isolationism in 1854. Our objective was to stop Japan from whaling, and we succeeded. We drove the Japanese whalers from the Antarctic waters…hopefully for good. If they return, we will return, but the prospect is very good that they will not.

Our fourth factor was to symbolize mourning for the death of so many whales due to Japanese harpoons in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Meanwhile we have other challenges to deal with including shark finning, tuna poaching, and the slaughter of seals, sea turtles, and small cetaceans. And with campaigns before us in the Mediterranean, Palau, Galapagos, and across the Indian Ocean, Equatorial Africa, and the South Pacific, the color black is not the most comfortable. We now need to reflect heat instead of absorbing it. The Gojira will be painted metallic silver,…….

Photograph from The Daily Examiner

Securing their future

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit a protected population of orang-utan in Sarawak. It was a fabulous experience quietly watching them as they went about feeding, grooming and playing. The ease with which they moved through the canopy, often with a baby clutching on, was truly an amazing sight. However, despite the good work of many people who work to protect these animals in these reserves, sadly the future of the orang-utan is threatened by loss of habitat as rainforests are cleared.

Closer to home the situation is not much better for our wildlife. Australia has one of the highest rates of mammal extinctions in the world. Also largely due to loss of habitat. Though our wildlife is often cryptic and many are nocturnal and so may not be considered as visually spectacular as the orang-utan, Australian native animals are unique. Many are found only in Australia and have evolved in isolation, giving them characteristics not seen in other animals of the world. They have developed alongside our native plants and so a distinctive Australian environment has been produced. However, as trees are lopped and vegetation cleared, the food and shelter essential to the survival of our native animals is lost.

Australia’s 2010 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy indicates that more than 1,700 species and ecological communities are known to be threatened and at risk of extinction. Now is the time for us to take steps to protect our unique wildlife. Attention was drawn to the plight of the orang-utan many years ago, but still their future is not secure. As a developed nation we are in a better position to ensure our Australian animals have a future in their native environment.

Imelda Jennings
Wildlife SOS

Quote of the day on scientific whaling

The Institute for Cetacean Research in Japan, despite its unflagging efforts, has never told us a thing about the whale apart from that it tastes good with a dab of wasabi. Undaunted, that venerable institute's research continues.
(Anson Cameron at ABC The Drum)