Australian government stops listing major threats to species under environment laws
|
Australian government stops listing major threats to species under environment laws
Documents show department has stopped recommending assessment of ‘key threatening processes’ affecting native wildlife Lisa Cox ,Guardian 8 May 2020 The federal government has stopped listing major threats to species under national environment laws, and plans to address listed threats are often years out of date or have not been done at all. Environment department documents released under freedom of information laws show the government has stopped assessing what are known as “key threatening processes”, which are major threats to the survival of native wildlife. Conservationists say it highlights the dysfunctional nature of Australia’s environmental framework, which makes aspects of wildlife protection optional for government. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act is being reviewed, a once-a-decade requirement under the legislation, and there are calls for greater accountability rules to be built into Australia’s environmental laws. It follows longstanding criticism that the act is failing to curb extinction. ‘An unacceptable excuse’In a series of reports since 2018Australia has uncovered multiple failures including delays in listing threatened species and habitats, threatened species funding being used for projects that do not benefit species, critical habitat not being protected, and recovery actions for species not being adopted or implemented. The act lists threats such as feral cats, land clearing and climate change as key threatening processes that push native plants and animals towards extinction. Once a threat is listed, the environment minister decides whether a plan – known as a threat abatement plan – should be adopted to try to reduce the impact of the threat on native species. Advertisement
But a 2019 briefing document shows the department has stopped recommending the government’s threatened species scientific committee assess new key threatening processes for potential listing……… ‘It’s shocking really’Further government data shows that of the 21 listed major threats, only three of those were listed in the last decade of the act, the most recent was in 2014…… The process for listing threats can also take years and is subject to ministerial discretion. Major alterations to the flow of river systems – caused by industry and dams – was accepted by the department for assessment in 2016 but removed from the list by the then environment minister, Josh Frydenberg. The only major threat currently under assessment – “fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline” – has been on the assessment list since 2008 and remains incomplete 12 years later. Its deadline is listed as August 2013. Fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline refers to changes in the frequency and scale of fire due to human influence. Every state of the environment report identifies changed fire patterns as a major threat to the survival of native wildlife. “They haven’t even listed it as a threat, let alone done something about it. It’s shocking really,” Andrew Cox, the chief executive of the Invasive Species Council, said. ……. ‘The system’s broken’Environmental organisations and the threatened species scientific committee have highlighted the weaknesses of the KTP system in submissions to the EPBC review, chaired by Graeme Samuel. ‘The system’s broken’Environmental organisations and the threatened species scientific committee have highlighted the weaknesses of the KTP system in submissions to the EPBC review, chaired by Graeme Samuel……… “It’s all optional. That’s the problem,” James Trezise, a policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said. “A threat abatement plan is this optional thing where it’s optional to establish them, it’s optional to implement them, there’s no system for tracking them and there’s not enough resources available.”…. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/08/australian-government-stops-listing-major-threats-to-species-under-environment-laws |
|
Rampant, unmonitored use of water by Australia’s coal industry in time of drought!
 Aren’t we in a drought? The Australian black coal industry uses enough water for over 5 million people, The Conversation, Ian Overton, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, 4 May 20, Water is a highly contested resource in this long, oppressive drought, and the coal industry is one of Australia’s biggest water users. Research released today, funded by the Australian Conservation Foundation, has identified how much water coal mining and coal-fired power stations actually use in New South Wales and Queensland. The answer? About 383 billion litres of fresh water every year. That’s the same amount 5.2 million people, or more than the entire population of Greater Sydney, uses in the same period. And it’s about 120 times the water used by wind and solar to generate the same amount of electricity. Monitoring how much water is used by industry is vital for sustainable water management. But a lack of transparency about how much water Australia’s coal industry uses makes this very difficult. Adani’s controversial Carmichael mine in central Queensland was granted a water licence that allows the company to take as much groundwater as it wants, despite fears it will damage aquifers and groundwater-dependent rivers. Now more than ever, we must make sure water use by coal mines and power stations are better monitored and managed………. No transparencyData on total water use by coal mines is not publicly available. Despite the development of Australian and international water accounting frameworks, there is no reporting to these standards in coal mine reports. This lack of consistent and available data means water use by the coal industry, and its negative effects, is not widely reported or understood. The problem is compounded by complex regulatory frameworks that allow gaps in water-use reporting. A patchwork of government agencies in each state regulate water licences, quality and discharge, coal mine planning, annual reviews of mine operations and water and environmental impacts. This means that problems can fall through the gaps…….. https://theconversation.com/arent-we-in-a-drought-the-australian-black-coal-industry-uses-enough-water-for-over-5-million-people-137591 |
|
|
|||||||
Current Review of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) ? – it’s all about promoting the polluters
The Government puts business ahead of the environment , Independent Australia, By Sue Arnold | 22 April 2020, The writing is on the wall for the environment. And it doesn’t look good.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has promised to:
‘Fast-track new and existing major infrastructure projects and adopt an aggressive pro-business strategy ahead of the October budget to help the country claw its way out of an expected virus-induced recession.’
Tax breaks for big business, deregulation and wide-scale industrial relations reform will form part of the Morrison Government’s attempts to lift the nation out of the economic black hole, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
Environmental organisations, ecologists, wildlife shelters and Australia’s biodiversity are facing an Armageddon as a result of state and federal governments’ absolute failure to protect the environment in the face of a serious economic recession.
Yet this is the nation which has lost over one billion animals to the catastrophic bushfires. A nation with dying and dead ecosystems, and thousands of hectares of burned-out forests. The forests will take many years to recover and ecosystems may never be rehabilitated.
A glimpse of what’s in store can be gained from the current review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (‘EPBC Act’), undertaken under the chairmanship of Professor Graeme Samuel AC.
The review is required under the EPBC Act every ten years, to examine the operation of the legislation and the extent to which its objects have been met.
An expert panel was set up to support Professor Samuel. Panel members include Bruce Martin, an inaugural member of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council and President of the Cape York Peninsula Live Export Group.
Dr Erica Smyth AC is a panel member with over 40 years’ experience in the mineral and petroleum industry, having worked for ten years in the oil and gas industry managing government approvals for offshore facilities, LNG and methanol facilities……
With no ecologists, environmental lawyers, or conservation organisations, the review and its panel completely fails the pub test.
It is important to note that in accordance with section 522A of the EPBC Act, the review is supposed to examine:
‘The operation of the Act; and
The extent to which the objects of the Act have been achieved.’
Added to the terms of reference is the following statement:
‘The review will make recommendations to modernise the EPBC Act and its operation to address current and future environmental challenges.’
The terms of reference may be at odds with section 522A of the Act, if the phrase ‘modernise the Act’ is interpreted as code for change to focus on economic growth at the expense of the environment.
Further evidence of the focus of the Government’s dirty business can be found on the EPBC website which lists as one of the objectives of the EPBC Act to:
‘Provide a streamlined national environmental assessment and approvals process.’
The legislation contains no such provision, and other objectives have also been changed ‘to promote the conservation of biodiversity” to ‘conserve Australia’s biodiversity’.
More importantly, the following legal objective wasn’t included:
‘To promote a cooperative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous people.’
In October 2019, Environment Minister Sussan Ley said that “cutting delays in project approvals could save the economy $300m a year,” with the Morrison Government promising to “tackle green tape”.
No one should be surprised by the review’s focus or the outcome.
The review will be ‘guided by the principles’ which include:
……… Making decisions simpler, including by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens for Australians, businesses and governments;
…….. Obviously, the first principle should be the predominant, sole guiding focus of the review given the catastrophic state of Australia’s biodiversity and environment.
Instead, the evidence of a drastically changed focus favouring the growth and the economy is made abundantly clear by the guiding principles and panel choices. There’s no explanation of the extraordinary failure to focus on the inability of the EPBC Act to have fulfilled any of its objectives.
April 17 was the final day for submissions to the review’s lengthy discussion paper. Six major environmental groups asked the Federal Government to delay the submission deadline and the review as a result of the chaos caused by the COVID-19 pandemic……..
Australia is currently cursed with governments and politicians who continue to ignore the environment. It’s almost incomprehensible that after the bushfire catastrophes, the environment should sink to the bottom of the pile……. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-government-puts-business-ahead-of-the-environment,13819
PLanning for waterways – a vital need, as Australia’s river systems are affected by global heating
 Australia’s inland rivers are the pulse of the outback. By 2070, they’ll be unrecognisable, The Conversation, April 21, 2020 Zacchary Larkin, Postdoctoral Researcher in Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University, Stephen Tooth, Professor of Physical Geography, Aberystwyth University, Timothy J. Ralph, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Sciences, Macquarie UniversityInland Australia’s complex system of winding rivers, extensive wetlands, ancient waterholes and seemingly endless parched floodplains are rarely given more than a passing thought by many Australians who live on the coastal fringes. Yet these waterways are lifelines along which communities, agriculture and trade have flourished. Etched into the psyche of regional Australia, these river systems are the pulse of the outback. Before asking a local how things are going, peek over the bridge in town for an indication. When relaxing in the shade of an old river red gum alongside one of Australia’s lazy inland rivers, it’s natural to think of them as timeless and resilient to environmental change. Yet, these rivers evolved over millennia and continue to change over years and decades. And we already know from previous studies that future climate change is likely to reduce stream flow and water availability in drylands around the world. But what our new research has shown, for the first time, is that these declines in stream flow may trigger a dramatic change in the physical structure and function (the geomorphology) of Australia’s inland rivers. Meandering rivers and flat, wide floodplainsThe physical structure of a river depends on how much water flows through it, and the sediment that water carries. Reductions in water flow – as expected due to climate change – can lead to a build-up of sediment downstream. In extreme cases, this “silting up” can cause complete disintegration of river channels, where water flows out across the floodplain. Not all rivers are alike, and the rivers of the Murray-Darling and Lake Eyre basins (covering 1.8 million square kilometres) are particularly diverse. Many of these rivers and wetlands are internationally recognised for their hydrological and ecological importance. They range from large meandering rivers swollen by seasonal spring flows (the Upper Murray, Mitta Mitta, Kiewa, and Ovens rivers), to rivers that progressively get smaller until they become exhausted on flat, wide floodplains and disintegrate into large, boom-and-bust wetlands (the Lachlan, Macquarie, and Gwydir rivers). In the drier areas of central Australia, rivers typically persist as a string of isolated waterholes for years at a time, occasionally punctuated by very large floods (Warrego, Paroo, Diamantina, and Cooper Creek). A sobering futureFor Australia’s inland rivers, the average dryness, or “aridity”, of the catchment is the best predictor of what the overall structure and function of the rivers within look like. Compiling a range of climatic data, we modelled aridity for the Australian continent in 2070 under a relatively moderate climate change scenario. The results are sobering. Over the next 50 years, the arid zone – containing the areas of true desert – is projected to expand well into the Murray-Darling Basin and almost entirely envelope the Lake Eyre Basin. At the same time, the humid and dry subhumid fringes around the Great Dividing Range and coastal areas are expected to contract. This is concerning because the relatively wet western slopes of the Great Dividing Range are where many inland Australian rivers begin, with most of their water sourced in these smaller sub-catchments. Evolution of our inland riversThe impact of this projected drying pattern on Australia’s inland rivers is expected to be profound……. A parched futureWhile our research hasn’t investigated the potential ecological, socio-economic or cultural effects of structural changes, we can expect them to be very significant, and potentially irreversible. Many of Australia’s native aquatic and dryland flora and fauna are adapted to a highly variable climate regime, but there are limits beyond which these ecosystems cannot recover or survive. For example, seeds and invertebrate eggs can survive many years buried in dry soil waiting for a flood, but if water doesn’t come, eventually they won’t be viable. What’s more, extracting too much water from our inland river systems for agriculture or other uses will exacerbate the threats posed by a drying climate. Given the complexity and tensions surrounding water use and water sharing in Australia’s inland rivers, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, understanding how these critical systems might respond in the future is now more important than ever. Water is one of the most contested resources in Australia, and it’s the fundamentally important river and wetland ecosystems and agricultural industries that will bear the brunt of a drying climate. To make sure outback communities can continue to survive, it’s vital we protect their lifeline. Water resource planning must include consideration of climate change, as the projected changes will likely increase pressure on already vulnerable systems. https://theconversation.com/australias-inland-rivers-are-the-pulse-of-the-outback-by-2070-theyll-be-unrecognisable-136492 |
|
Amid climate change threat to the Murray Darling river system, the States haggle
|
No water, no leadership: new Murray Darling Basin report reveals states’ climate gamble, The Conversation
April 17, 2020 Daniel Connell, Research Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University A report released today investigating how states share water in the Murray Darling Basin describes a fascinating contrast between state cultures – in particular, risk-averse South Australia and buccaneering New South Wales. Perhaps surprising is the report’s sparse discussion of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, which has been the focus of irrigators’ anger and denunciation by National Party leaders: Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro. In general terms, the Murray Darling Basin Plan was originally intended to make water management in the Murray Darling Basin more environmentally sustainable. Its critics see it as a restraint on development, and complain it has taken water away from irrigators during a time of extreme drought. In response to McCormack and Barliaro’s criticisms of the plan in late 2019, federal water minister (and senior National Party figure) David Littleproud commissioned Mick Keelty as Interim Inspector General of MDB Water Resources. For the new report, Keelty investigated the changing distribution of “inflows” – water flowing into the River Murray in the southern states. Climate change has brought the inflow to just a trickle. This dramatic reduction over the past 20 years is what Keelty has described as “the most telling finding”. He also investigated the reserve policies under which the three states choose – or don’t choose – to hold back water in Hume and Dartmouth Dams to manage future droughts. Keelty says there’s little transparency or clarity about how much water states are allocated under the Murray Darling Basin Agreement (the arrangement for sharing water between the states which underpins the Basin Plan). This failure in communication and leadership across such a vital system must change. Sharing water across three statesOne major finding of Keelty’s inquiry is that the federal government has little power to change the MDB Agreement between the three states, which was first approved in 1914-15. Any amendment requires the approval of all three governments. To increase the volume of water provided to NSW irrigators, South Australia and Victoria would need to agree to reduce the volumes supplied to their own entitlement holders. That will not happen. Why has the agreement lasted so long? Over the past century it has proved robust under a wide range of conditions. Its central principle is to share water with a proportion-of-available-flow formula, giving each state a percentage of whatever is available, no matter whether it’s a lot, or not much. After receiving its share of the River Murray flows, each state is then free to manage its allocation as it wishes. …… Reliability of water supply What’s more, each state makes its own decision about how its state allocation is shared between its entitlement holders (95% of water goes to irrigators the rest supplies towns and industry). South Australia chooses to distribute a much smaller proportion to its entitlement holders than New South Wales. It also restricted the number of licences in the 1970s. That combination ensures a very high level of reliability in supply. Victoria took a similar approach…….. When climate change is taken into account these differences between the three states result in their irrigators having significantly different risk profiles. The climate change threat to the basin is very realDespite climate denial in the National Party, the threat is very real in the MDB. The report describes a massive reduction in inflows over the past 20 years, approximately half compared with the previous century. One drought could be an aberration, but two begins to look like a pattern. The report also suggests that in many cases irrigator expectations of what should be normal were formed during the wet period Australia experienced between the second world war and the 1990s. Added to this have been business decisions by many irrigators to sell their entitlements and rely on the water market, a business model based on what now seems like unrealistic inflow expectations. In effect, successive New South Wales governments – a significant part of the state’s irrigation sector in the southern part of the state and the National Party – gambled against the climate and are now paying a high price. In desperation, they’re focusing on alternative sources. This includes the water in Hume and Dartmouth held under the reserves policy of the two other states; environmental entitlements managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder; the very large volume of water lost to evaporation in the lower lakes in South Australia; and the possibility of savings resulting from changes to management of the system by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Failure in leadership and communicationFor reasons already outlined, the state reserves policy is not likely to change and use of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder environmental water entitlements would not be permitted under current legislation. Management of the lower lakes is being reviewed through another investigation so is not discussed in the report. The report also states that management of the MDB Authority is subject to regular detailed assessment by state governments, and they have assessed its performance as satisfactory. However the report was critical of the performance of all MDB governments with regard to leadership and communications suggesting that failures in those areas were largely responsible for the public concern which triggered its investigation. https://theconversation.com/no-water-no-leadership-new-murray-darling-basin-report-reveals-states-climate-gamble-136514 |
|
13 Australian peak Non Government Organisations seek stronger Environmental Law on Nuclear Issues
Joint ENGO Submission on Nuclear Issues as they Relate to the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act Review 2020
This submission is made on behalf of the following national and state peak environment groups:
-
- Australian Conservation Foundation,
- Australian Nuclear Free Alliance,
- Friends of the Earth Australia,
- Greenpeace Australia Pacific,
- Mineral Policy Institute,
- The Wilderness Society,
- Arid Lands Environment Centre,
- Environment Centre NT,
- Environment Victoria,
- Conservation Council SA,
- Conservation Council WA,
- Nature Conservation Council NSW and Queensland Conservation Council.
This submission outlines the importance of retaining s140A of the EPBC Act which prohibits nuclear power; the retention of uranium exploration and mining in the definition of a Nuclear Action and the inclusion of Nuclear Actions as a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES).
This submission is made in consideration of the broader objects and principles of the Act and is based on evidence from recent inquiries into both nuclear power and uranium mining. There is clear evidence that nuclear activities can have a significant environmental and public health risk and, in many cases, irreversible impacts, and this is consistent with the current dedicated legislative prohibitions for both nuclear power and scrutiny for uranium mining.
While the current Act does not include a prohibition on uranium mining we strongly advocate that there be a national ban on uranium mining consistent with state legal or policy prohibitions in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and West Australia Written by Mia Pepper, Jim Green, Dave Sweeney, David Noonan & Annica Schoo.
Summary of Recommendations
Uranium:
• that uranium mining and milling be included in s140A prohibitions as nuclear actions that the Minister must not approve, on the basis that the nuclear industry has failed to successfully remediate any uranium mine in Australia and has impacts inconsistent with the objects and principles of the EPBC Act.
• if the above recommendation is not adopted that uranium mining and milling remains within the definition of a ‘nuclear action’ and that nuclear actions continue to be listed as MNES and the protected matters continue to be listed as the ‘environment’ and so be subject to full environmental assessment at the state level
• DAWE to initiate an inquiry into the human and environmental impacts of uranium mining, as advised by the UN Secretary General following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, noting that Australian uranium was present in each of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors at the time of multiple reactor meltdowns
. • regulatory reform for existing operating mines • that the review committee recommend DAWE prioritise the rehabilitation of abandoned uranium mines and processing facilities, exploration sites and uranium mines that have been in care and maintenance for more than two years.
Nuclear Power:
• the retention of s140A of the EPBC Act 1999 which states “No approval for certain nuclear installations: The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility.”
Other Matters:
• a National Environmental Protection Authority be established
• the effectiveness of assessment bilateral agreements be reviewed, and approval bilateral agreements are not pursued
• legislate requirements for mine closure, address activities that are used to avoid mine closure and to work with states and territories to remediate existing legacy mine sites
• there be established internal process for DAWE to pursue the listing of newly identified species by referring to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee
• that the principles of free, prior and informed consent become a mandatory operational principle within the EPBC Act along with a governance mechanism to operationalise this principle……… . https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Joint_Sub_EPBC_Nukes_FINAL.pdf
A brief Submission to the the Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
I first tried to use their online formal submission form. I found several of the questions they posed to be confusing, and obfuscated the issues. So, I gave up on their form, and just wrote my own ideas
Noel Wauchope, SUBMISSION TO EPBC REVIEW.
It is obvious that the polluting industries, especially mining, are keen to further weaken Australia’s environmental protection laws.
Announcing the statutory review of the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last October, the Morrison government pitched it as an opportunity to weaken the Howard era laws even further and make it easier still for environmentally destructive projects to be approved. 2
A particular case for scrutiny is in the uranium/nuclear industry. A very telling example of the weakness of the EPBC Act is in the sudden approval given by the then Environment Minister, Melissa Price, for the Yeelirrie uranium project to go ahead, in complete contradiction of its rejection by WA Environmental Protection Agency . The current EPBC Act specifies protection for species at risk of extinction. Still, the approval went ahead, the EPBC Act apparently a toothless tiger. 3
Australian governments, State and federal, are under relentless lobbying by the nuclear industry. There are several nuclear Inquiries going on at State level, and one Federal nuclear Inquiry. Despite the clear knowledge of nuclear power’s high costs, safety dangers and terrorism risks, the global nuclear lobby’s push is to remove Australia’s nuclear prohibition laws. The EPBC Act contains two strong nuclear prohibitions, which should not be changed – EPBC Act 1999 section 140A No approval for certain nuclear installations and EPBC Act 1999 section 22 What is a nuclear action?
2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/with-the-climate-crisis-and-coronavirus-bearing-down-on-us-the-age-of-disconnection-is-over
3. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-questions-shonky-wa-uranium-mine-deal
Call for Australian government to delay review of its Environment laws
|
Environment groups ask government to delay review of Australia’s conservation laws https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/16/environment-groups-ask-government-to-delay-review-of-australias-conservation-laws
Six organisations raise concerns with environment minister Sussan Ley about the impact of the bushfires and coronavirus, Lisa Cox 16 Apr 2020 Some of Australia’s biggest environmental organisations have asked the government to delay the completion of its statutory review of Australia’s national environment laws.Six groups – the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Wilderness Society, Environmental Justice Australia, Humane Society International and Birdlife Australia – have raised concerns with the environment minister, Sussan Ley, about the impact of the bushfire and coronavirus crises on the review process. The independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) occurs once every 10 years and is due to publish its final report in October. But the process this year has been affected by back-to-back crises that began with the unprecedented bushfires through spring and summer. The government extended its timeframe for submissions to the review to the end of this week to give the public and organisations time to respond to the fire crisis.
But the fires were almost immediately followed by the massive economic and social upheaval caused by the global outbreak of Covid-19. The review has also lost one of the members of its expert panel due to the departure of Andrew Macintosh, leaving it without an environmental law expert. Macintosh stepped down from the review after he was named one of the commissioners on the bushfire royal commission. The government has so far said it intends to continue with the review’s timetable to publish a draft report in June and a final report in October. A spokesman for Ley said the review’s chair, Graeme Samuel, could request an extension for the final report but “he has not indicated a need to do so at this stage”. In their letter, the environment groups ask the government “to be cognisant of the current series of crises” and extend the timeframes for the draft and final reports to ensure “there will be space for meaningful consultation and deliberation”. “Extending timeframes will also enable you to be sure there is requisite sectoral expertise on the advisory panel, which is currently missing,” they say, in reference to both Macintosh’s departure and the failure of the government to appoint an ecologist to the review. When the review was announced last year, the government said it would “tackle green tape” and reduce delays in approvals of major projects. Environment groups, however, have long called for an overhaul of the act, which has been failing to stem Australia’s rate of extinction. In their letter, they say the Covid-19 crisis has affected the capacity of NGOs, business and the community to “meaningfully engage in the EPBC review process”. “We are also highly concerned that the majority of the review will take place without the ability for the reviewer and his panel to visit the natural areas that are at stake, see the impact of the 2019-20 summer bushfires and hear from the communities and organisations working to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity and see their work,” the letter states. Environment groups, however, have long called for an overhaul of the act, which has been failing to stem Australia’s rate of extinction. In their letter, they say the Covid-19 crisis has affected the capacity of NGOs, business and the community to “meaningfully engage in the EPBC review process”. “We are also highly concerned that the majority of the review will take place without the ability for the reviewer and his panel to visit the natural areas that are at stake, see the impact of the 2019-20 summer bushfires and hear from the communities and organisations working to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity and see their work,” the letter states. Ley’s office did not indicate any plan to replace Macintosh on the panel. “While Prof MacIntosh has been a valuable source of advice in the early stages of the review before focussing on the bushfire royal commission, he was one of many people with expertise in a range of areas who have assisted Prof Samuel on all aspects of the review and their contribution will be specifically acknowledged in the final report,” the spokesman said. Australia’s fire crisis caused a spike in concern about the environment among voters. Polling published by the Australian National University in February found about half the respondents listed the environment as the most or second most important issue in deciding their vote. A new poll of 1,024 Australians for the Places You Love alliance of environment groups found 87% were worried species were now at more risk of extinction unless something is done to protect habitat after the bushfires. In the immediate aftermath of the fires, a government analysis found 113 species had needed urgent attention after at least 30% of their habitat was burnt. The effect of social distancing restrictions due to Covid-19 has meant that scientists have had to shut down or scale back some field work that was to assess the full impact of the fires on wildlife. |
|
Conservation Council of Western Australia stresses importance of submissions to strengthen environmental protection
K-A Garlick Nuclear Free WA Campaigner, 10 Apr 20, The webinar, Yeelirrie – A Case for Environmental Law Reform was a great success, with a wealth of information from our four stellar speakers, on the urgent need for improved environmental laws using Yeelirrie as a case study for environmental law reform. We reviewed the Yelirrie uranium mine assessment process and how we can improve the agility in the Commonwealth environment department to identify and classify threatened and endangered species.
If you missed the webinar or would like to see the highlights again ~ click here for some great information to help you form your submission to the EPBC Act review.
Keynotes from the webinar, include;
- The importance of retaining the prohibition of nuclear power and the retention of uranium exploration and mining and the inclusion of nuclear actions as a matter of national environmental significance (MNES) under the EPBC Act,
- Environmental protection laws should protect against the extinction of species,
- Opportunity to introduce a merits review in a reformed EPBC Act as an independent, expert court or tribunal to ensure worlds best practice for community participation, accountability and environmental protection,
- We need an independent authority to administer the EPBC Act,
- We need increased open and transparent assessment processes, and
- We need a national EPA as there is no equivalent body at the federal level. A national EPA could undertake independent and technically expert assessments of projects, ensuring that the scientific evidence is put into focus.
The push for the nuclear industry and the Minerals Council of Australia to remove the prohibition on nuclear power and to remove the trigger for uranium mining is a serious push and real threat.
To retain these parts of the EPBC Act we encourage you to write a submission.
The new dont-nuke-the-climate website is a great tool to help you understand the nuclear issues and threat. There is a really useful nuclear ban page, to support your submission writing.
Submissions are due 17 April 2020.
Make a submission to the The Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
- Via the Department: make a submission using the online form here.
- Via email: epbcreview@environment.gov.au
- Via post: EPBC Act Review Secretariat, Department of the Environment and Energy. GPO Box 787, CANBERRA ACT 2601
The committee ask that you complete and submit this cover page with any submission via e-mail or post. All submissions that include this cover sheet will be considered by the review.
The importance of strengthening the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)
On April 2, environmentalists across Australia met online, in a webinar focussed on the EPBC Act. The federal government is holding a Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , with Submissions due 17 April The Conservation Council of Western Australia, and Nuclear Free WA hosted the webinar. The case of the Yeelirrie uranium project was discussed, as a case especially relevant to the EPBC Act. As it turns out, the EPBC is weak, in relation to having power over this project. It relies on the Western Australian EPA for the relevant decision. Extraordinarily, in this case, the EPA advised against the project. However, the Environment Minister at the time, overrode this advice, and approved the project anyway.
Piers Verstagen, of CCWA, outlined the history of CCWA’s work in holding the Wester Australian EPA’s assessments to account. The Yeelirrie uranium project would threaten the extinction of up to 11 stygofauna, which are tiny groundwater species. The EPA therefore did not recommend the project. However, in approving the project , the Minister also inserted a clause into the legislation, which now will allow the extinction of any species. CCWA has challenged that approval. The project has not proceeded.
But – this Yeelirrie case is a fine example of the reasons why the EPBC Act needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Weakening the Act is the goal of the Mining Council and others, who seek unfettered development of mining and other polluting projects.
Ruby Hamilton pointed out the need for Australia’s Environmental Protection Act to relate to international treaties on environment.
ACF’s Environmental Investigator described ways in which the Act should be strengthened, emphasising that:
- We need to keep the right for 3rd parties to challenge bad decisions.
- We need an independent authority to administer the EPBC Act.
- WE need way more transparency in the way that the Act is used
A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10
|
A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10, The Conversation, Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Luigi Renzullo, Senior Research Fellow, Australian National University, Marta Yebra, Senior lecturer, Australian National University, Shoshana Rapley, Research assistant, Australian National University, March 30, 2020
2019 was the year Australians confronted the fact that a healthy environment is more than just a pretty waterfall in a national park; a nice extra we can do without. We do not survive without air to breathe, water to drink, soil to grow food and weather we can cope with.Every year, we collate a vast number of measurements on the state of our environment: weather, oceans, fire, water, soils, vegetation, population pressure, and biodiversity. The data is collected in many different ways: by satellites, field stations, surveys and so on.
We process this data into several indicators of environmental health at both national and regional levels. The report for 2019, released today, makes for grim reading. It reveals the worst environmental conditions in many decades, perhaps centuries, and confirms the devastating damage global warming and mismanagement are wreaking on our natural resources. Immediate action is needed to put Australia’s environment on a course to recovery. Environment scores in the redFrom the long list of environmental indicators we report on, we use seven to calculate an Environmental Condition Score (ECS) for each region, as well as nationally. These seven indicators – high temperatures, river flows, wetlands, soil health, vegetation condition, growth conditions and tree cover – are chosen because they allow a comparison against previous years. In Australia’s dry environment, they tend to move up and down together, which gives the score more robustness. See the interactive graphic below [on original] to find the score for your region. Nationally, Australia’s environmental condition score fell by 2.3 points in 2019, to a very low 0.8 out of ten. This is the lowest score since at least 2000 – the start of the period for which we have detailed data. Condition scores declined in every state and territory. The worst conditions were seen in the Northern Territory (0.2 points), New South Wales (0.3 points) and Western Australia (0.4 points), with the latter also recording the greatest decline from the previous year (-5.7 points). What is most striking is that almost the entire nation suffered terrible environmental conditions in 2019. In each case, the changes can be traced back to dry, hot conditions. Only parts of Queensland escaped the drought…… Even before the fires, 40 plant and animal species were added to the threatened list in 2019, bringing the total to 1890. Following the fires, more species are likely to be added in 2020. We’re not doomed yetLast year was neither an outlier nor the “new normal” – it will get worse. Greenhouse gas concentrations continued to increase rapidly in 2019, causing the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans to soar. Australia’s population also continued to grow quickly and with it, greenhouse gases emissions and other pollution, and our demand for land to build, mine and farm on. Whether we want to hear it or not, last year represented another step towards an ever-more dismal future, unless we take serious action. https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444 |
|
|
With the pandemic, and the bushfires, we now must strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)
in the immediate term we need to advocate for vital improvements to the EPBC. It is extraordinary that the Howard legacy of deliberately excluding a project’s climate impacts from the triggers to require assessment still hasn’t been remedied. That must now be fixed, as must the fact that there is no mechanism for assessing the cumulative ecological impacts of various proposals. After this summer’s destruction of huge areas of remaining healthy ecosystems, we need to institute, in both legislation and the practice of assessment, a presumption of protection instead of a culture of managed destruction.
|
With the climate crisis and coronavirus bearing down on us, the age of disconnection is over https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/with-the-climate-crisis-and-coronavirus-bearing-down-on-us-the-age-of-disconnection-is-overTim Hollo
We can no longer pretend that we’re separate from each other and from the natural world @timhollo, Sat 28 Mar 2020 Everything is connected. It’s hard to imagine right now that, just weeks ago, the truism of ecological politics was treated as hippy nonsense by mainstream politics.
Announcing the statutory review of the commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) last October, the Morrison government pitched it as an opportunity to weaken the Howard era laws even further and make it easier still for environmentally destructive projects to be approved. And, regardless of clear statements from scientists and strong advocacy by campaign groups, it looked like it would get away with it because, back then, we were still living in the age of disconnection when the environment and the economy could be seen as separate things, in competition with each other. But then the summer arrived, delivering one after the other two massive wake-up calls. In the age of consequences, with the climate crisis and a deadly pandemic bearing down on us, it’s impossible to pretend that we are separate from each other and from the natural world. A pandemic, more than almost any other phenomenon, shows that all our lives are inextricably intertwined, for now and forever, whether we like it or not. It brings into sharp focus the impossibility of trying to keep economics, health, environment, education and social justice treated as separate questions with separate answers. It heightens awareness of our vital need, as social beings, to stay connected to each other as well as we possibly can while keeping our physical distance. It shows how the “efficient”, on-demand world that capitalism has constructed is so incredibly fragile that a series of shocks can bring it to the point of collapse. And with the rules of neoliberal economics being broken by governments the world over, it demonstrates that massive policy interventions, shifting the entire structure of the global economy, are possible. This heralded a shift in thinking that went deeper than personal impact. Perhaps due to the remarkably low loss of human life compared with the scale of the disaster, there was a tremendous focus on the more than a billion mammals, birds and reptiles killed. We mourned the thousands of koalas and the numerous species being pushed towards extinction if their habitats aren’t restored. The true legacy of this summer could be a vital turning point in recognising that “the environment” isn’t something “over there”. The environment is the air we breathe and the water we drink; it’s the soil in which we grow our food; it’s the animals we identify with and the landscapes imprinted on our souls; the environment is us, all of us, together, integrally connected with everyone and everything else on this beautiful blue marble floating in space. Damage the environment and we damage ourselves. And not just some of us – all of us together. Continue to think in our compartmentalised, linear fashion, and we’ll keep missing what’s coming, be it weeks of smoke, runs on toilet paper, or deadly pandemic What started to become clear thanks to the fires was rammed home by Covid-19. We are only as healthy as the least healthy among us. Everything we do relies on extraordinary networks of activity by people we’ve never met, crisscrossing the globe. And responding to a health crisis that was likely triggered in part by environmental destruction has world-changing impacts on the economy, on education, on social justice, on geopolitics. The age of disconnection is over. To bring us back to where we started, where does that leave the review of the EPBC Act? We have an opportunity now to not just push for a new generation of environment laws, but to re-evaluate the whole deal, to cultivate a new political settlement based on ecological principles of living well together in harmony with the natural world, understanding our place as part of it as First Peoples did for millenniums, with an economy designed to serve people and planet.
As part of this, in the immediate term we need to advocate for vital improvements to the EPBC. It is extraordinary that the Howard legacy of deliberately excluding a project’s climate impacts from the triggers to require assessment still hasn’t been remedied. That must now be fixed, as must the fact that there is no mechanism for assessing the cumulative ecological impacts of various proposals. After this summer’s destruction of huge areas of remaining healthy ecosystems, we need to institute, in both legislation and the practice of assessment, a presumption of protection instead of a culture of managed destruction. All this will, of course, be attacked as “green tape” and we have to be ready to actively defend it instead of changing the subject – and defend it on ecological grounds. Regulation is a vital part of the connective tissue which holds the body politic together. Removing it sees us fall apart. Covid-19 is, among other things, showing us the consequences of deregulating markets in health services, food supply and more. Having that conversation in this way means we won’t just be advocating for marginal improvements, but will be working to change politics. We’ll be building into the political common sense the idea that corporations absolutely should be regulated to enforce environmental and social responsibilities, and that we can no longer consider shareholder profit to be their sole focus. That helps move our politics towards altering the DNA of corporations so they operate as part of the body politic rather than as cancer cells. The flip side of this systemic shift is to institute legal rights for the natural world. If BHP has legal rights, why shouldn’t the Great Barrier Reef? Rights of nature is an increasingly mature legal field, instituted from New Zealand to Bolivia, India to parts of the US. We can and should at least insert them as a normative principle in the goals of the EPBC. While we’re thinking at that level, a new ecological political settlement will need a rethink of federalism. Our system sees national and state governments cooperating to shut out community participation and scientific advice to facilitate destructive development. An effective regime based on a presumption of protection would see federal, state, territory and local governments enabling communities to collectively develop creative ideas at their local level, within the context of expert scientific advice, and coordinating those ideas at a regional and continental level. If we shift environmental regulation from a process that is primarily responsive to demands of developers into a proactive, constructive, community-led system, we can see it morph from a defensive protection stance into one of active restoration, repair and regeneration. It can lead to the greening of cities and towns as we embrace the fact that habitats are not just “over there” but among us. It can create industrial jobs in coalmine rehabilitation. It can support regenerative agriculture, and cooperative sharing of scarce water. It can even open space for community-led conversations about relocation as the overheating world retreats from rising seas and inland desertification is inevitable. Supporting and enabling communities to make decisions is also vital for rebuilding confidence in democracy, which has collapsed in recent years. The ongoing panic-buying response to Covid-19 suggests that the abject failure of government to provide leadership through the fires worsened this further. This is now an opportunity to rethink governance, reclaim agency for communities, build practices of trust and social cohesion, embedded in respect for expert advice. Now it’s important to recognise that with this government we’re not going to get these kinds of changes. At best we might hold off the push to weaken the EPBC even further. But that shouldn’t stop us advocating for what we need. Quite the opposite. Politics, like the natural world it operates within, is a system. It works in complex ways because all it is is the collected actions of humans, influenced by each other and by external impetuses such as the weather. Or viruses. Donella Meadows, the modern mother of systems thinking, wrote that the most effective leverage point to change a system is “the mindset or paradigm out of which the system … arises”. It’s critical, then, that we confront the paradigm which sees environmental protection as of marginal importance at best, and as a barrier at worst. It’s vital that we challenge the mindsets of human disconnection from and dominance over nature. Advertisement
Over the past three months, a huge number of people made that conceptual leap. In recent weeks the crisis has become such that even mainstream politics finds it impossible to ignore. At the same time, over this period numerous people decided to just get on with it, without waiting for government. In both bushfire response and the tremendous mutual aid response to Covid-19, millions of us are setting up local projects, or joining existing ones, that make life better, generate social cohesion, reduce our footprint, and cultivate an ethic of care – for ourselves, for each other, for the natural world we are part of. If enough of us start doing this in our communities, and if enough submissions to the EPBC inquiry call for reforms that are embedded in ecological thinking, we will be putting a whole lot of small chocks under the lever. Each of those chocks is tiny. But together they can tip the balance. All of a sudden, especially at a moment like this, change will come. • Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute and visiting fellow at the Australian National University’s school of regulation and global government (RegNet)
|
|
Legal challenge about Adani’s planned water use for giant coal mine
Morrison government faces legal challenge over Adani pipeline plan, Brisbane Times, Peter Hannam, March 16, 2020 The Morrison government’s failure to activate the so-called “water trigger” when assessing the proposed Adani coal mine in Queensland will be challenged in the Federal Court.
Lawyers acting for the Australian Conservation Foundation will test the government’s decision not to refer Adani’s North Galilee Water Scheme, a pipeline supplying the mine, for a thorough assessment as intended by the law.
The water trigger, introduced by the Rudd-Gillard government in mid-2013, was meant to require the government to assess the impact on water of all large coal mines and coal seam gas developments.
However, the government treated Adani’s plan to draw 12.5 billion litres a year from the Suttor River in central Queensland as a pipeline that was not a “large coal mining development”, nor did it involve one.
Similarly, it viewed the pipeline proponent, Adani Infrastructure Pty Ltd, as “a different legal entity” from the coal mine proponent, Adani Mining Pty Ltd.
The foundation plans to test both reasons for the failure not to activate the water trigger in court, arguing that the government made an error in law by ignoring infrastructure that was critical for the coal mine to proceed.
Tony Windsor, the former independent MP who was a key architect of the trigger, said reliable long-term access to clean water was “vital for regional communities and demands that we sustainably manage our rivers and aquifers”.
“Allowing companies to split up mining projects and assess them in isolation makes a nonsense of the process,” he said. “You don’t see much looking at just one piece of the jigsaw – you need to look at the whole puzzle.”……..https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/sustainability/morrison-government-faces-legal-challenge-over-adani-pipeline-plan-20200316-p54an6.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
A nuclear waste dump for Eyre Peninsula conflicts with the Strategic Plan for the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Region – 2017-2027
Susan Craig shared a No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
The Kimba nuclear waste dump will take a huge toll on the Murray River’s water
Annette Ellen Skipworth No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 25 Feb 20I spent some time as a remote road contractor and I learnt a little bit about roads and site works.
To take the weight of the truck load, a road has to be compacted to gain the strength to take the semi plus the load on the tray.
From asking questions and scouring internet sites, I have found out, the casks containing the high grade nuclear waste.. excuse me ..the intermediate nuclear waste are very very heavy.
It wasn’t advisable to use water that is very salty.. it rises to the top and makes the road slippery.
As Kimba’s only water supply comes from the precious Murray River, and the local underground water is salty and unusable.. where is the water needed coming from?
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 