Showing posts sorted by date for query logging. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query logging. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, 19 January 2025

KOALA EXTNICTION CRISIS STATE OF PLAY 2025: Dean Caton's felling koala feed trees in Tuckers Nob State Forest from 9:00 am Monday 9th December 2024 and 6:00 pm Monday 30th June 2025

 

In 2020, the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Koalas found that koalas will become extinct in the wild before 2050 if urgent action isn't taken to protect their habitat. 2050 is a mere 25 years away......


Forestry Corporation, 9 December 2024


Partial closure of Tuckers Nob State Forest


NO ENTRY

FORESTRY REGULATION 2022 - SECTION 6 & 7 CLOSURE OF PART TUCKERS NOB STATE FOREST

  

FORESTRY CORPORATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES HAS RESERVED THE AREA DESCRIBED BELOW AS 'THE CLOSED AREA' FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF ITS CONTRACTORS, SUPPORT AND SUPERVISING STAFF CARRYING OUT HARVESTING OPERATIONS DURING THE PERIOD DESCRIBED BELOW AS 'THE CLOSURE PERIOD'.


THE ENTRY OF ALL PERSONS INTO THE CLOSED AREA DURING THE CLOSURE PERIOD, OTHER THAN PERSONS AUTHORISED IN WRITING BY THE FORESTRY CORPORATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES, IS HEREBY PROHIBITED.


PERSONS ENTERING INTO OR REMAINING IN THE CLOSED AREA DURING THE CLOSURE PERIOD WITHOUT FORESTRY CORPORATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES' PERMISSION ARE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION, MAXIMUM PENALTY $2,200 PER OFFENCE.


DESCRIPTION OF THE CLOSED AREAS

That part of Tuckers Nob State Forest No. 612 enclosed by the boundary commencing at the State Forest boundary adjacent to the intersection of Gleniffer Road and Roses Road (marked point 'A' on the map); then moving in a clockwise direction around the closure area, in a generally south-easterly direction following the State Forest boundary running parallel to the Gleniffer Road to the intersection with 27/1 Trail (marked point 'B' on the map) NB. Gleniffer Road remains open; then in a generally westerly direction following 27/1 Trail to the intersection with an un-named drainage line (marked point 'C' on the map), then in a generally south-westerly direction following the un-named drainage line to the State Forest boundary (marked point 'D' on the map), then in a generally north-westerly direction following the State Forest boundary adjacent to the intersection of Gleniffer Road and Roses Road (marked point 'A' on the map).


DESCRIPTION OF THE CLOSURE PERIOD

Between 9:00 am Monday 9th December 2024 and 6:00 pm Monday 30th June 2025


BY ORDER OF FORESTRY CORPORATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES, by its delegate:


Dean Caton

REGIONAL MANAGER - NORTHERN

FCNSW COFFS HARBOR [sic]


 
 KoalaMashUp

Tim Cadman

Jan 17, 2025 #Koala #NSWForestry #NSWGovernment

A composite of two nights of drone flying over compartments 10, 12 and 18 in Tuckers Nob State Forest - all areas zoned 'plantation' by #NSWForestry, and slated for clearing. 
The results shows that this is one of the densest populations of wild #Koala in New South Wales. 
Yet these forests are excluded from the #NSWGovernment's so-called 'Great Koala National Park - which is why we need a #GreaterKoalaPark - free from logging, because #PlantationsAreHabitatToo!

 

Saturday, 11 January 2025

PROPOSED GREAT KOALA NATIONAL PARK IN 2025: Under Minns Government the rate of logging inside the park has increased and state-owned Forestry NSW has already logged the homes of 500 koalas and another 37 threatened species. This carnage has to stop now.

 



Nature Conservation NSW, 10 January 2025:


Media Alert: Fulfil your promise Chris Minns: Protect the great koala national park forests now!


What: Rallies at Coffs Harbour and Pennant Hills Sydney outside the offices of the Forestry Corporation.


When: Monday, 13th January, 10am


Where: Coffs Harbour, cnr of Park and Gordon Sts


Sydney: Cnr Castle Hill Rd and Cumberland Forest Way, West Pennant Hills


Why: Creating the Great Koala National Park has been an ALP promise since 2015. Almost 2 years after getting elected, the Minns government has completed their assessment of the park and identified an industry restructuring package but has still not announced their decision on the park boundaries.


Since they were elected, the rate of logging inside the park has increased compared to under the Coalition. More than 60%. The logging is continuing with new areas being opened up. How much longer will they let the promised Park be logged?


Are they going to allow the Forestry Corporation to log the heart out of the promised park?


According to their own data the Minns Government has already logged the homes of 500 koalas and another 37 threatened species. This carnage has to stop now. These forests also hold the soils together, sequester and store carbon, act as natural water reservoirs and could provide boundless opportunities for recreation, education and appreciation.


31 groups have signed on to a letter to the NSW Government demanding they fulfil their promise to create a world class Great Koala National Park NOW


The statement, background and signatories can be found here.


Monday, 16 December 2024

North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) continues to call for an end to the logging of public native forests as Forestry NSW losses on such logging rises to $29 million on the back of a $15 million loss in the 2022-23 financial year following on from a $9 million loss in 2021-22 & a $20 million loss in 2020-21 year

 

Snapshot image via Meredith Staunton on X/Twitter
Click on image to enlarge


According to NEFA, the FCNSW 2023/24 Biomaterial Report identifies Forestry NSW as logging 9,484 ha of native forests in the last financial year.


The current state minister responsible for the Forestry Act 2012 (NSW) is Tara Moriarty MLC, Minister for Agriculture. Under the Forestry Act 2012, Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (Forestry NSW), has two voting shareholders, the NSW Treasurer (currently Daniel Mookhey MLC) and Minister for Finance (currently Courtney Houssos MLC), who appoint the Board of Directors.


Forestry NSW as a government-owned corporation manages around two million hectares of multiple-use public native forests, including coastal native forests, cypress forests and red gum forests and, a small number of hardwood plantations.


The responsibility and accountability 'buck' has always stopped with successive NSW governments when it comes to forestry in this state and, in 2024 there is no legitimate excuse for the Minns Labor Government and Ministers Moriarty, Mookhey and Houssos to continue down this environmentally and financially ruinous path towards a multiple species flora & fauna extinction event.


Wednesday, 11 December 2024

Near chlamydia-free, genetically diverse & unique Koala community found in Fernbrook area of northern New South Wales

 

Yahoo! News, 9 December 2024:


Australian wildlife researchers have made an incredibly rare discovery in the bush that they've branded "such an exciting result" for koala conservation.


Thanks to assistance from a "poo-sniffing English springer spaniel" named Max, a new community of koalas at Fernbrook, inland of Coffs Harbour, has been found that appear to be both chlamydia free and genetically different — an "increasingly rare" feat in NSW......


"More surveys need to be done, but it appears these koalas at Fernbrook are very special. They can still breed and produce future generations with higher climate resilience."






.....

Why is it so significant to find both chlamydia-free and genetically diverse koalas in NSW?


Surveys by Max and the team from Canines for Wildlife showed that the broader koala population in Coffs Harbour and Bellingen has low levels of chlamydia and high genetic diversity overall.


Genetic diversity enhances a population's ability to resist diseases and in koalas, a lack of it makes them more susceptible to infections.


Urban development, agriculture, and deforestation have broken up koala habitats into smaller, scattered patches, limiting their ability to travel and find unrelated mates. Koalas often remain in isolated areas, leading to a reduced genetic pool and increased inbreeding over generations. The Fernbrook results "have conservationists celebrating" and calling for a "halt to logging in state forests" that contain vital koala food and habitat trees. While the group of 10 koalas in Fernbrook are on private properties and are not threatened by logging — the wider population around Coffs Harbour is.


Canines for Wildlife were recruited to survey for koalas across 115 sites in the Coffs Harbour and Bellingen areas, ranging from coastal regions to the Dorrigo Plateau nearly 1,000 metres above sea level.


"We learned this population is healthy, has high genetic diversity and relatively low levels of chlamydia. So this is a really important population. If we’re going to save koalas we need to wrap healthy populations like this in cotton wool and protect them," Blanch said.


"It beggars belief that the tree homes of koalas continue to be knocked down and destroyed. Logging should stop right now in the area being assessed for the Great Koala National Park and in plantations where koalas live."


What's next?


A total of 109 poo samples were collected in 2022-2023 and sent for genetic testing at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Lynn Baker from Canines for Wildlife said this new colony must be protected.


"For a koala researcher this is such an exciting result," she said. "We knew the koalas at Fernbrook looked different. They are a lot furrier and darker in colour than their compatriots on the coast. They look like cold weather koalas.


"But if this is a genetically different and a chlamydia-free group then it’s important that they are protected. There are not many areas left in NSW that have distinct groups of [healthy] koalas.


"The burning question is are these koalas isolated to the habitat on these properties or are they connected to other chlamydia-free koalas that we haven’t sampled yet?"


Canines for Wildlife is hoping to do further surveys in the areas surrounding Fernbrook to help answer the question.


Since 2001, koala numbers in the state have decreased by 33 per cent to 61 per cent, driven by habitat destruction, climate change, disease, and urbanisation. The devastating 2019–2020 bushfires alone killed at least 6,400 koalas.


Read the full article at https://au.news.yahoo.com/incredibly-rare-discovery-in-aussie-bush-by-sniffer-dog-like-striking-gold-040624856.html


Friday, 6 December 2024

22 arrests and counting in forest defenders fight to stop logging in Bulga State Forest since 1 October 2024

 

Forestry Corporation of NSW resumed logging in the Bulga State Forest, west of Comboyne in the Mid-North Coast region of New South Wales', in early October 2024.


Since then 22 forest defenders, including Knitting Nannas, have been attested in the state forests.


Here are just three of these defenders......



ECHO, 4 December 2024:






Knitting Nannas Dominique Jacobs (60) and Helen Kvelde (73) yesterday became the 21st and 22nd people arrested protesting the logging of Bulga State Forest, west of Port Macquarie. They had attached themselves to the giant tree killing machine known as a harvester.


Both Nannas are active in protesting the lack of action on climate change and are deeply dismayed that the most effective carbon capture and storage technology on the planet, mature forests, are being destroyed at taxpayer expense.


Dom Jacobs said, ‘I’m a grandmother and a wildlife carer. I’m terrified about the future my grandkids face and what is happening to the wild creatures and wild places. We are losing so much that is perfect and wonderful on this planet and I’m really worried about what will be left for those who come after us.


As a wildlife carer I get to know those little creatures intimately, they have personalities, they are very susceptible to stress. The thought of them in their beautiful forest homes with trees crashing around them and all the noise of the machines, I can’t imagine their terror.


We humans, we take everything. We need to leave something. We need to leave some places be,’ she said.


I want to do everything I can. I want to do something that has real impact. Stopping the chopping of glider and koala homes is a good way to spend a day.’


Increasingly fed up


Helen Kvelde said, ‘I feel like I’ve been fighting this war for 50 years and I’m getting more and more fed up. The powers that be aren’t listening, not to the people or the scientists. Climate chaos is here now, it’s happening all over the globe and governments, logging and fossil fuel companies are still acting as if there is no tomorrow.


I’m bewildered at the lack of action. I’ve been to so many rallies and marches, signed petitions, written letters but it feels like we are just going through the motions. As Greta Thunberg said all we get back is bla bla bla.


Our governments are full of hot air and empty promises. They say they see climate change as a serious threat and that there is a biodiversity crisis, but their actions suggest they think it’s a joke or it’s not real,’ she said.


It’s like I’m watching the Lorax play out in real life. It was a story where in order to get rich, all the trees were cut down, and the land was left a dirty stinking wreck.


I’m hoping that our action today gives kids hope and encourages others to do the same. I’m a bit frightened but I also feel that desperate times require desperate measures,’ said Ms Kvelde.


Both women agreed that forests like Bulga are vital for threatened wildlife, saying that we need to respect and care for all those big trees, not just for their intrinsic right to exist and live in peace, but because they defend us from the most dangerous threat of all: climate chaos.



Save Bulga Forest, media release, 15 October 2024:


John Seed OAM, attached to logging machinery
in Bulga State Forest, 15th October 2024



John Seed, founder of the Rainforest Information Centre and the Deep Ecology Network was arrested today for attaching himself to logging machinery in Bulga forest.

John, now in his 79th year, says he had a transformative experience in the rainforests of north east NSW during the Terania Creek protests in 1979.


The forest spoke to me. Working to keep the trees standing was the best use of my short time on this amazing jewel of a planet, so far the only one of its kind that we know of in this galaxy.


It’s 45 years since I was FIRST arrested for the forests (and for which I subsequently received an OAM after the Wran government turned the forest where I was arrested into the Nightcap National Park – now on the World Heritage list along with the Grand Canyon and the Serengeti).


I believe the Bulga Forest will also find its way into National Park and World Heritage status once this government wakes up. Then tourism will earn orders of magnitude more than the vandalism that we’re currently trying to stop.


There’s been no proper assessment of the damage done by the 2019/20 fires. We don’t know how many trees and animals died, how many hollow habitat trees were lost. The most basic element of the precautionary principle is that if you don’t know, stop making things worse.


Climate chaos is barrelling towards us. We need to stop making the damage worse and focus on earth repair and building resilience. How can we have hope for a future for our kids and grandkids if our governments insist on destroying the planet’s protection mechanisms,” he said.


In 1995 John was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for his services to conservation and the environment. Through his work over the decades, the Rainforest Information Centre has supported communities in PNG, the Solomon Islands, Cambodia, Ecuador, India to defend their forests, through direct action, establishment of protected forest areas, reafforestation programs or funds for litigation.


Tuesday, 17 September 2024

STATE OF PLAY NSW 2024: On 3 September 2024 the NSW Minns Government released data showing that the state lost 45,252 ha of native vegetation to agriculture, native timber logging & infrastructure in 2022 and a total of 428,594 ha since 2018

 

NSW SLATS Insights Dashboard
Click on image to enlarge














Nature Conservation Council NSW


Urgent interim action needed as NSW clears 570 football fields of habitat each day


MEDIA RELEASE

13 September 2024


The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales (NCC), the state’s leading environmental advocacy organisation, has called on the NSW Government to act on its commitment to stop the runaway land clearing that is continuing to decimate NSW bush.


NSW remains in the midst of an extinction crisis which will continue to gather pace until the root cause – widespread and unregulated destruction of our habitat encouraged by the former government – is addressed.


The latest vegetation clearing data shows that clearing continues to devastate large swathes of habitat every year. In NSW, an equivalent of 300 times the Sydney CBD is cleared annually, or 570 football fields per day.


The annual Statewide Land and Tree Study (SLATS) data released today shows, yet again, a shocking amount of habitat was cleared across the state, taking the average to 84,000 hectares of native vegetation (defined as trees, shrubs or woody vines, or understory and groundcover plants that have been relatively undisturbed since 1990[1]) being cleared every year for the past five years.


Habitat clearing is, alongside climate change, the most significant threat to species in NSW[2], the worst ranked state in the country for protecting and restoring trees.


Statements attributable to NCC Chief Executive Officer, Jacqui Mumford:


These new figures still show the urgent need for reform. Every day of inaction means more species are at an ever-growing risk of going extinct.”


Our nature laws in NSW are broken and unable to protect habitat.”


The government has asked the Natural Resources Commission to come up with new options to stop runaway habitat clearing and protect critical species. We are heartened by this process but concerned about the slow timeframe – interim action to protect critical habitat must be taken given the numbers we are seeing today.”[3]


Protecting critically endangered ecosystems is urgent and needs to happen yesterday.”


The existing Native Vegetation Code is an inappropriate regulatory tool for managing impacts on biodiversity in rural areas. It permits a completely unsustainable amount of clearing without any robust environmental assessment or approval requirements. The new data shows that we don’t know the circumstances under which nearly half of the non-woody vegetation clearing happened in 2022. It may be illegal clearing – we just don’t know.”[4]


Clearly the scope of ‘allowable’ vegetation clearing activities is too broad and open to misuse.”


We need urgent interim action to immediately protect critically endangered ecosystems. These precious places and the critters than rely on them cannot wait while the scale of reform we require is nowhere to be seen.”


Statement ends


References


[1] As defined in the NSW Vegetation Clearing Report 2021 https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-vegetation/landcover-science/2021-nsw-vegetation-clearing-report


[2] https://www.soe.epa.nsw.gov.au/all-themes/land/native-vegetation#vegcover


[3] See the Government’s NSW Plan for Nature in response to the review of the BC Act and native vegetation provisions of the local land services act here.


[4] In 2022, 46.6% of the total of non woody vegetation clearing is unallocated, and 11.8% of woody clearing is unallocated. Unallocated clearing is vegetation clearing for which the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has not been able to identify a formal authorisation or is unable to presume authorised or allowable using visual cues in the imagery. See here


Further information can be found at

2022 NSW vegetation clearing data

This spreadsheet reports on figures of detected woody and non woody (grasses, small shrubs and groundcover) vegetation clearing that has occurred from 2018 to 2022, statewide and on Category 2 regulated land.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/nsw-vegetation-clearing-data-2022


Monday, 5 August 2024

How a rogue state-owned corporation played the NSW Land & Environment Court - by a last minute admission of guilt but at the same time insisting it was an accidental error & offering a half-hearted apology - in order to reduce a potential four million dollar penalty to a mere $360,000


On 24 March 2020 and between 6 April and 6 July 2020 the state government owned Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (FCNSW) committed breaches of Forestry Act 2012 within the boundaries of Yambulla State Forest on the far south coast of the state.


NOTE: As Forestry NSW is a state-owned entity, it is the NSW Treasury (on behalf the people of NSW) which will eventually pay any monetary penalties imposed by a court or government authority if FNSW is cash poor. It should also be noted that, based on past history, there appears to be a reluctance to individually hold to account any private logging company (contracted by Forestry NSW to work in state forests) which wilfully or negligently acts in breach of the law. This may go a long way to explaining the arrogance of the logging industry generally and repeat offender Forestry NSW in particular.


In the Land and Environment Court New South Wales on 31 July 2024 in Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of New South Wales [2024] NSWLEC 78 Peppers J handed down a judgment with the following orders:


Orders

In conformity with the reasons given above, the Court makes the following orders:


In proceedings 2022/171640


(1) the defendant is convicted of the offence contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act 2012 as charged;


(2) the defendant must pay a monetary penalty in the sum of $225,000;


In proceedings 2022/171639


(3) the defendant is convicted of the offence contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act 2012 as charged;


(4) the defendant must pay a monetary penalty in the sum of $135,000;


In proceedings 2022/171639 and 2022/171640


(5) pursuant to s 122 of the Fines Act 1996, 50% of each of the monetary penalties imposed on the defendant is to be paid to the prosecutor as a moiety;


(6) pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s professional costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed under s 257G of that Act;


(7) within 28 days of the date of this order, pursuant to s 13.25(1)(a) and (b) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the defendant must, at its own expense, cause a notice in the form of annexure ‘A’ to these orders to be published within the first 12 pages of the following publications, at a minimum size as near as practicable to 180 cm2:


(a) The Sydney Morning Herald;

(b) The Daily Telegraph; and

(c) the Bega District News.


(8) within 42 days of the date of this order, the defendant must provide the prosecutor with a complete copy of the notices as published pursuant to order 7; and


(9) the exhibits are to be returned.


Annexure A

[Forestry Corporation of New South Wales logo to be inserted]


Forestry Corporation of New South Wales Convicted of Offences in Relation To Harvesting Operations In Yambulla State Forest in 2020


On 31 July 2024, Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (“FCNSW”) was convicted in the Land and Environment Court of NSW (“the Court”) for offences under the Forestry Act 2012 for breaching two conditions of its integrated forestry operations approval (“the approval”).


FCNSW breached the approval by failing to show two known Environmentally Significant Areas on an operational map prepared for harvesting operations within compartment 299A of the Yambulla State Forest and by carrying out forestry operations between April and July 2020 in one of the two Environmentally Significant Areas. As a result, 53 eucalypt trees were felled and harvested. The harvesting operation caused actual harm to the felled trees and impacted the refuge of various native flora and fauna species following the Black Summer bushfires. It also led to the compaction and disturbance of groundcover elements. The harvesting operations also potentially harmed the Dusky Woodswallow, Scarlet Robin and the Varied Sitella, being threatened bird species known to inhabit the Yambulla State Forest.


The prosecution was brought by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (“EPA”). FCNSW has been fined a total of $360,000 and has agreed to pay the EPA’s professional costs as agreed or assessed. This notice was placed by order of the Court and was paid for by FCNSW.


**********


A brief look at aspects of the Court's reasons by way of judgment excerpts:


Maximum Penalty

81 The maximum penalty provided for an offence indicates the seriousness with which Parliament views the commission of the offence (Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357 at 359 and Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 at 698).


82 FCNSW is charged with two breaches of s 69SA(1)(b)(i) of the Forestry Act, each of which carry a maximum penalty of $2,000,000 in the case of a corporation.


104 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the commission of the harvesting offence caused actual and potential harm in the manner set out in Dr Wall’s report. I am further satisfied that the harm caused was substantial because the felling of the 53 trees not only had individual environmental value, but collectively, the trees represented a significant ecological cohort, the felling of which, together with the compaction and disturbance to ground cover, disrupted the refugial status of polygon 2 in a forest that had been severely impacted by bushfire (s 21A(2)(g) of the CSPA).


110 The mapping offence arose due to Clark incorrectly inputting the spatial data into the operational map and failing to adequately review her work. Clark’s supervisor, Clohesy, also failed to properly check her work despite being required to sign off on the operational map. The harvesting offence occurred due to the mapping offence. As stated above, both mistakes were inadvertent.


118 I do not accept that the circumstances giving rise to the error in spatial mapping were unique because they required manual data entry. Rather, the error occurred due to a failure to implement adequate systems to properly transition to a new process as necessitated by the SSOCs. It is entirely conceivable, if not likely given the impact of climate change on native vegetation, that FCNSW will have the need for SSOCs again.


119 I find that FCNSW failed to take the preventative measure of implementing a robust process for reviewing the operational map to ensure that all of the ESAs were properly identified on it. In addition, I find that Chaudhary’s evidence of the steps that FCNSW has taken to prevent future similar incidents was unhelpful given its highly generalised content.


123 A sentencing judge is not required to nominate a point on a scale of seriousness when assessing the objective seriousness of an offence. While occasionally useful, such an exercise adds little substance to the task of instinctive synthesis and determination of a proportionate sentence. As was observed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 (at [60]):


60. The assessment of objective seriousness of an offence is an essential element of the process of instinctive synthesis, a purpose of which is the imposition of a proportionate sentence: Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44 at [46]; R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 at 354; Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118. A sentencing judge is required to identify all the factors relevant to the objective seriousness of an offence but is not required to nominate a point on the scale of seriousness by reference to a notional mid-point. The use of descriptors such as “low end of the middle of the range”, “upper end of the middle of the range” or, “just below or above the midpoint” add nothing of value to the process of instinctive synthesis and the determination of a proportionate sentence.


124. Nevertheless, on any view, the environmental crimes committed by FCNSW were objectively serious, causing, as they did, substantial actual and potential ecological harm.


Contrition and Remorse

125 Pursuant to s 21A(3)(i) of the CSPA, remorse is only a mitigating factor if:


(i) the offender has provided evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions, and


(ii) the offender has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage (or both),


In Waste Recycling Preston J suggested at least four ways by which an offender may demonstrate genuine contrition and remorse, which are relied upon without repetition (at [204], [210], [212] and [214]). I respectfully adopt and apply his Honour’s analysis in the present proceedings.


In his affidavit, Chaudhary expressed contrition as follows:


10 On my behalf and that of FCNSW, I express sincere regret and remorse that FCNSW employees failed to properly prepare maps recording the ESA areas required for retention and that harvesting occurred within one of those areas.


11 I have read the report of Dr Julian Wall, date 9 November 2024. While I am aware that the precise nature of harm to Yambulla State Forest is still in dispute, I accept that the harvesting resulted in the harvesting of 53 trees that should have been retained, the loss of biomass and impacts on habitat after the fires. I also acknowledge that the failure to map the ESAs resulted in machinery entering one of the polygons in circumstances where this was not permitted. I regret to have caused any harm to the environment.


Chaudhary and Linda Broekman, FCNSW’s Senior Compliance Manager, were present for the sentencing hearing on behalf of FCNSW (T1:18). However, Chaudhary was required to be present for cross-examination and left as soon as it was concluded.


The Chaudhary affidavit was filed late in breach of the Court’s timetable. Leaving aside delay, the affidavit constitutes no more than a bare expression of contrition and remorse, the kind of which was cautioned against in Waste Recycling (at [203]). Moreover, FCNSW has not taken any steps to remediate the harm caused by the commission of the offences (Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid [2013] NSWLEC 51; (2013) 199 LGERA 1 at [80]). In addition, it has not wholly accepted responsibility for the environmental harm caused by the commission of the offences insofar as it rejects the refugial status of polygon 2.


I therefore give only limited weight to FCNSW’s expression of contrition through Chaudhary.


Early Pleas of Guilty

131 A guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity entitles a defendant to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of that plea (ss 21A(3)(k) and 22 of the CSPA and R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [160]).


132 The EPA submitted, and FCNSW accepted, that guilty pleas were not entered at the earliest opportunity. FCNSW entered guilty pleas on the morning of a contested liability hearing that was listed for four days. Having said this, the guilty pleas demonstrate some acceptance of culpability and some weight must be given to FCNSW’s entry of the pleas and the resultant savings in time and resources as a consequence. I therefore find that FCNSW is entitled to a 10% discount for its guilty pleas.


Prior Convictions of FCNSW

134 FCNSW has a lengthy record of prior convictions for environmental offences (s 21A(2)(d) and (3)(e) of the CSPA):


(a) on 12 June 2004 the Court convicted FCNSW (formally the Forestry Commission of New South Wales) of one offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the POEOA”) for causing the construction of a dirt road in the Chichester State Forest in such a manner that parts of it collapsed and resulted in pollutants entering the waters of the forest. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay a monetary penalty of $30,000 and awarded costs to the EPA (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 751 (“Chichester State Forest”));


(b) on 8 June 2011 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 175(1)(a) of the NPWA insofar as it breached a condition of a threatened species licence contrary to s 133(4) of that Act by conducting bushfire hazard reduction burning in the Smokey Mouse exclusion zone of the Nullica State Forest. The commission of the offence was caused by the inadequate shading of the exclusion zone on the relevant map. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay $5,600 to a project to improve the Smoky Mouse monitoring sites in the South East Forests National Park and awarded costs in the agreed sum of $19,000 (Director-General, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2011] NSWLEC 102 (“Nullica State Forest”));


(c) on 10 July 2013 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 120(1) of the POEOA for polluting waters and one offence against s 133(4) of the NPWA for breach of its threatened species licence arising from hazard reduction burns in the Mogo State Forest. The cause of the commission of the offences was inadequate training of persons involved in the preparation of a burn plan which resulted in an inaccurate plan. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay a total monetary penalty of $35,000 to be directed towards a project in the affected area. Legal and investigation costs were awarded to the EPA (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWLEC 101 (“Forestry Commission”));


(d) on 5 October 2017 the Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 133(4) of the NPWA for breach of its threatened species licence arising from its failure to conduct a thorough search for rocky outcrops in the Glenbog State Forest, which were consequently not identified on the harvest plan. The Court fined FCNSW $8,000, ordered it to publish a notice in the Bega District News in relation to its commission of the offences, and awarded costs to the EPA (Chief Environmental Regulator of the Environment Protection Authority v The Forestry Corporation of New South Wales [2017] NSWLEC 132 (“Glenbog State Forest”));


(e) the Batemans Bay Local Court convicted FCNSW of one offence against s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act for carrying out unlawful harvesting operations which resulted in the removal of four hollow bearing trees in Mogo State Forest. That Court fined FCNSW a total of $20,000 with 50% payable to the EPA as moiety, awarded the EPA costs in the amount of $84,340, and made a publication order (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW (Mogo State Forest prosecution) (Local Court (NSW), Dick LCM, 15 November 2023, unrep));


(f) on 9 June 2022 the Court convicted FCNSW of four offences contrary to s 2.14(4) of the BCA. The offences related to the carrying out of harvesting activities in koala and rainforest exclusion zones in the Wild Cattle Creek State Forest. The Court fined FCNSW a total of $135,600 with 50% payable to the EPA as a moiety, awarded costs in the sum of $150,000 to the EPA, and ordered FCNSW to publish notices in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Coffs Coast News of the Area in relation to its commission of the offences (Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW [2022] NSWLEC 70 (“Wild Cattle Creek”)); and


(g) on 22 June 2022 FCNSW was convicted of three offences contrary to s 69SA(1) of the Forestry Act in that it failed to mark the boundary of an ESA in breach of its threatened species licence and consequently carried out harvesting operations in bat roosting exclusion zones in the Dampier State Forest. The Court fined FCNSW a total of $225,000, with $45,000 to be paid to the Australasian Bat Society Inc and 50% to be paid to the EPA as a moiety. The Court ordered FCNSW to pay the EPA’s legal and investigation costs, and made publication orders (Dampier State Forest).


135 The EPA submitted that the two most comparable cases to the present proceedings were Dampier State Forest and Wild Cattle Creek.


136 FCNSW submitted that less weight ought to be attributed to its history of offending because it has not previously committed an offence similar to the harvesting and mapping offences.


137 FCNSW’s submission must be rejected. It has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations, which is exactly what the mapping and harvesting offences are (Wild Cattle Creek and Dampier State Forest). In addition, it has previously been convicted for failing to mark the boundary of ESAs and exclusion zones in breach of environmental approvals (Dampier State Forest and Wild Cattle Creek). I therefore take into account its extensive antecedents.


156 The EPA submitted that the quantum of any monetary penalty should not be reduced to take account of the award of costs merely because FCNSW has agreed to pay the EPA’s costs voluntarily (Liverpool City Council v Leppington Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 170 at [50] and Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Khouzame [2024] NSWLEC 54 at [125]-[126]).


157 An award of costs does not result in a commensurate reduction in any monetary penalty imposed. Rather, I have taken the fact of the payment of costs by FCNSW, which both the EPA and FCNSW agreed will be substantial, into account as a factor in mitigation.


Appropriate Sentence

162 Having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and the mitigating subjective factors of FCNSW, together with the penalties imposed in the comparable cases, I find that the imposition of a monetary penalty is warranted for each offence as follows:


(a) for the harvesting offence a monetary penalty of $250,000; and


(b) for the mapping offence a monetary penalty of $150,000.


163 After the application of the 10% discount for the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas, the penalty for the commission of each offence is reduced to:


(a) for the harvesting offence a monetary penalty of $225,000; and


(b) for the mapping offence a monetary penalty of $135,000.


164 This brings the total monetary penalty to be imposed on FCNSW to $360,000.


167 In the context of sentencing, a publication order serves the functions of general deterrence, denunciation, and a recognition of the harm caused by the offending conduct (Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 45 at [105] and Environment Protection Authority v Ditchfield Contracting Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 90 at [76]). FCNSW’s offending conduct was not trivial and occasioned substantial actual and potential environmental harm. FCNSW will continue to undertake forestry harvesting activities and has not sufficiently demonstrated genuine contrition and remorse for its commission of the offences. These factors weigh heavily in favour of making a publication order in the terms sought by the prosecutor. 


Monday, 4 March 2024

North East Forest Alliance & Environmental Defenders Office fight on to protect the continued existence of native forests and the biodivsersity they contain

 

Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), March 2024 Newsletter, 29 February 2024:









Hope for NSW forests: Court decision upholds community’s right to challenge native forest logging


In the shadow of claims made by the NSW Forestry Corporation, communities have been led to believe that they have no rights to challenge decisions about industrial logging in NSW native forests or seek action over unlawful conduct when logging destroys hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for threatened species.


But two recent court decisions have shattered those claims after EDO’s client successfully ran an argument which hasn’t previously been tested in the courts. After 20 years of resistance by the Forestry Corporation, it is now legally recognised that communities with a special interest have the right to hold the state-owned logging agency to account over its forestry operations in native forests.


NSW forests are remarkable for their diverse ecosystems, unique biodiversity and cultural significance. Encompassing semi-arid woodlands to lush rainforests, these globally recognised forests are home to an extraordinary array of plant and animal life, much of which is unique to the region.


Protecting our forests is one of the most important things we can do to manage climate change, preserve our precious biodiversity and prevent further species extinctions. Yet Forestry Corporation NSW logs around 30,000 hectares of state forest every year. Sadly, many of these forests are logged to be turned into low-value products, such as woodchips, that are exported to make cardboard and toilet paper.


Weak laws failing our forests


NSW Forestry Corporation is the state-owned logging agency that undertakes industrial logging in public native forests, including in nationally important koala habitat and areas that are still recovering from the catastrophic impacts of the 2019-20 Black Summer Bushfires. It is entrusted with managing two million hectares of public forests, yet in the past three years alone, Forestry Corporation has been fined 12 times for illegal logging activities. There are 21 investigations still pending. 1


Forestry Corporation operates under bilateral agreements with the Federal Government, called ‘regional forest agreements’, or RFAs, which allow logging to bypass normal federal environmental scrutiny. No other industry benefits from such an allowance. Under the current system of RFAs, threatened species such as the koala, greater glider and gang-gang cockatoo are being driven to extinction and the ecosystems and landscapes that we depend on are being destroyed at an astounding rate.


For some 20 years, Forestry Corporation has asserted that the community cannot seek to challenge its public native forestry operations. On 20 November 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected that position.


Court decision confirms community right


The EDO represented the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) in mid-2023 challenging logging approvals in Myrtle and Braemar State Forests. The forests were severely damaged by the ferocious Black Summer Bushfires, which wiped out an estimated 70 per cent of the local koala population.


While NEFA was not ultimately successful, the court confirmed for the first time that the Forestry Act does not prevent persons with a special interest from taking legal action over forestry operations in NSW, including disputing logging approvals.


This is particularly important as NSW laws explicitly attempt to reduce the community’s right to challenge Forestry Corporation conduct regarding industrial native forest logging.


Forestry Corporation also argued that the court cannot judicially review harvest and haul plans because all forestry operations had already been approved by the relevant Ministers in the overarching regulation, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA). However, the court again rejected that position and found that such operational plans are open to challenge.


Forest groups fight on after disappointing court decision


Building on the NEFA decision, South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) then took a step further with court action in January 2024. SEFR is seeking an injunction to stop Forestry Corporation from conducting any forestry activities in certain state forests until adequate surveys for greater, yellow-bellied and squirrel gliders have been performed. SEFR is being represented by XD Law.


SEFR argued that Forestry Corporation is breaking the law by not performing adequate surveys for den trees and necessary exclusion zones around den trees are not being implemented. It is the first time in 25 years that the Forestry Corporation has been brought to court by citizens for failure to comply with native forestry regulations, in particular failure to conduct adequate surveys for gliders.


Drawing from the findings in the NEFA decision, her Honour found that persons with a special interest can also seek to enforce the conditions of the CIFOA against Forestry Corporation.


These two decisions mark a significant departure from the status quo of the past 20 years and set important precedent for the community to hold the Forestry Corporation to account over native forest logging.


President of NEFA, Dailan Pugh said regarding NEFAs legal challenge:


While NEFA were disappointed that our legal challenge to the logging of important Koala populations in Braemar and Myrtle State Forests was not successful, it’s promising that the case did establish that NEFA have the civil right to enforce NSW’s logging rules, opening a door to litigation we thought had been shut to us since 1998.”


We thank the EDO for the immense effort they put into this case and creating future opportunities for NEFA, and other groups, to challenge the culture of complacency around logging fostered by lack of public accountability.”


1 Register of Crown forestry investigations (nsw.gov.au)