[permaculture] Fight the fight

Martin Naylor martinwnaylor at yahoo.com.au
Tue Dec 19 18:21:45 EST 2006


We fought the law and WON
  the horizon is here
  Martin
   
  Justice Shane Marshall’s judgement in the Federal Court means that logging at Wielangta – and wherever else in Australia it has wrecked the habitat of rare and endangered species – has been and will be outside the law.
  The national Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act means what its title says. And the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement between Prime Minister Howard and the state government requires protection of the rare wildlife no less than the EPBC Act.
  The judgement flays Forestry Tasmania and those of its expert witnesses, who claimed logging, burning and chemical applications at Wielangta did not harm Tasmania’s Wedge- tailed eagle, the Swift parrot or the Wielangta stag beetle.
  The Judge pointed out that the EPBC Act requires more than avoiding harm – it requires that logging plans help the rare species populations to recover.
  Here are paragraphs 281 and 282 of Judge Marshall’s 301 paragraph ruling:
  281 I do not consider that the State has protected the eagle by applying relevant management prescriptions. Management prescriptions have helped to slow the eagle’s extinction but have not protected it in the sense of either maintaining existing numbers or restoring the species to pre-threatened levels.
  Will the State protect the three species by applying relevant management prescriptions?
  282 It is unlikely the State can, by management prescriptions, protect the eagle. As to the beetle and the parrot, the State must urge Forestry Tasmania to take a far more protective stance in respect of these species by relevant management prescriptions before it can be said it will protect them. On the evidence before the Court, given Forestry Tasmania’s satisfaction with current arrangements, I consider that protection by management prescriptions in the future is unlikely.
  This is a milestone for Australia’s rapidly eroding environment. This nation has one of the longest lists of creatures forced to, or towards, extinction in the world. The EPBC Act, meant to reverse this loss, has been flouted at Wielangta and, doubtless, in clearfell logging and burning and poisoning operations for the export woodchip industry elsewhere in Australia.
  Most Australians will celebrate the great commonsense as well as legal strength of the judgement which is available in full at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html
  “This is a watershed for Australia’s forests and wildlife. No doubt, though, the woodchippers and their Labor and Liberal backers will be furious. We must expect an angry reaction like that which followed the High Court decision which saved the Franklin River on 1 July 1983,” Senator Brown said.
  Justice Shane Marshall’s judgement in the Federal Court means that logging at Wielangta – and wherever else in Australia it has wrecked the habitat of rare and endangered species – has been and will be outside the law.
  The national Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act means what its title says. And the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement between Prime Minister Howard and the state government requires protection of the rare wildlife no less than the EPBC Act.
  The judgement flays Forestry Tasmania and those of its expert witnesses, who claimed logging, burning and chemical applications at Wielangta did not harm Tasmania’s Wedge- tailed eagle, the Swift parrot or the Wielangta stag beetle.
  The Judge pointed out that the EPBC Act requires more than avoiding harm – it requires that logging plans help the rare species populations to recover.
  Here are paragraphs 281 and 282 of Judge Marshall’s 301 paragraph ruling:
  281 I do not consider that the State has protected the eagle by applying relevant management prescriptions. Management prescriptions have helped to slow the eagle’s extinction but have not protected it in the sense of either maintaining existing numbers or restoring the species to pre-threatened levels.
  Will the State protect the three species by applying relevant management prescriptions?
  282 It is unlikely the State can, by management prescriptions, protect the eagle. As to the beetle and the parrot, the State must urge Forestry Tasmania to take a far more protective stance in respect of these species by relevant management prescriptions before it can be said it will protect them. On the evidence before the Court, given Forestry Tasmania’s satisfaction with current arrangements, I consider that protection by management prescriptions in the future is unlikely.
  This is a milestone for Australia’s rapidly eroding environment. This nation has one of the longest lists of creatures forced to, or towards, extinction in the world. The EPBC Act, meant to reverse this loss, has been flouted at Wielangta and, doubtless, in clearfell logging and burning and poisoning operations for the export woodchip industry elsewhere in Australia.
  Most Australians will celebrate the great commonsense as well as legal strength of the judgement which is available in full at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html
  “This is a watershed for Australia’s forests and wildlife. No doubt, though, the woodchippers and their Labor and Liberal backers will be furious. We must expect an angry reaction like that which followed the High Court decision which saved the Franklin River on 1 July 1983,” Senator Brown said.


   
   
   
     
  
 



 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 



More information about the permaculture mailing list