december number the tasmanian conservationist caring for Tasmania since 1968 2011 324

Review of the Wellington Park Management

Plan 3

Director’s Report 1

TCT councillor Ralph Rallings 1

Supreme court action regarding the Tamar Valley pulp mill 2

Changes to Tasmania’s native forest clearing policy 4

Tasmanian weed alert network 7

Tasmania’s Forest Practices Code 8

Breakthrough on Southern Ocean MPAs 10

Tasmania: Australia’s food bowl 11

Off-road vehicle management in the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area 12

‘Working’ for the Tasmanian Conservation Trust 13

Aquaculture legislation amendment 14

Let’s do nothting and see if that works 15

Seven Mile Beach Peninsula golf course and resort – is this a repeat of Ralphs Bay? 17

Action on roadkill 18

Plastic swirl 19 BA (Hons) Literature Member of Society of Editors (Tas), Tasmanian Writers’ Centre, Society of Authors

Editing and Proofreading, Specialising in conser reports • management plans • newsletters • books vation issues p (03) 6234 6569 e [email protected]

At Monotone we support environment conservation and have committed ourselves to passing Level 2 Sustainable Green Print, then proceeding to International Standard 14001. Key areas of change implemented at Monotone will be to reduce our Mt Welllington Management Plan. land-fill waste dramatically, recycle and re-use as a Photos: cover and inside cover: Toby Rowallan. priority and use environment friendly consumables. Refer to article on page 3.

Disclaimer The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the tasmanian conservation trust inc (TCT). Advice to TCT members making electronic payments for membership/donations

Copying Members making electronic payments directly into TCT bank account must include their name. We permit photocopying of all orginal material in the tasmanian conservationist. Two payments have been received with only the advice of ‘periodic payment’ and I’m Feel free to make use of our news and articles, but unable to allocate the payments. They are: please acknowledge the source. 15/6/2011 $90 3 year membership 30/6/2011 $35 1 year membership Contributions If you have made a payment to the TCT in June, We encourage readers to submit articles of interest for would you check your payment dates, and if publication. Articles should preferably be short (up to you believe that either of these payments relate 600 words) and well illustrated. Please forward copy to your membership, would you please contact on CD or USB stick or by email if possible. Guidelines for the TCT office on 6234 3552. contributors are available from the TCT office or online at www.tct.org.au.

Email version of newsletter Advertising The tasmanian conservationist is now available We accept advertising of products and services that in PDF format for members who would prefer an may be of interest to our readers. Our rates are GST electronic version. inclusive: Please send us an email at tct.administration@gmail. com including your name and home address and the email address you would like us to use, and we 1 issue 2 issues 3 issues will email the tasmanian conservationist to you. full page $250 $450 $600 Details half page $150 $280 $400 Design template: Kelly Eijdenberg, Poco People quarter page $110 $200 $280 Proofreading: Janice Bird Circulation: 375 Director’s report

Whether you believe the Forests Statement of So, viewed in this context, the FSoP and the IGA are Principles (FSoP) process is dead or not, it is hard giving the state government the excuse to implement to see that it is playing a significant role other than policies that will increase the damage to forests which keeping participating conservation groups occupied are not protected in reserves. It is time to let go of in meaningless discussions with industry groups and the pretence that the FSoP process can continue to preventing them from being more proactive. deliver on a broader forest conservation agenda and for all conservation groups to return to campaigning. Almost all the important forest conservation issues in Tasmania are now being dealt with (with varying We are glad to see that the Wilderness Society is now success) through other processes and largely by taking action against the pulp mill, as well as the TCT groups and individuals who are not involved with the and the local Tamar Valley community. The Society’s FSoP. overt opposition to the pulp mill at the recent Gunns AGM is a very welcome change from its more passive The major forest conservation issues in Tasmania other stance over the last year. Even more important is that than the IGA and the leading ENGO conservation TWS is re-entering the campaign against the financing advocates dealing with them can be summarised as: of the pulp mill. The level of commitment and scale • clearing and conversion of native forests: TCT of resources it is willing to commit is unclear but we wish to encourage TWS because without its previous • Forest Practices Code: TCT campaigns to stop ANZ bankrolling the project, the • Tamar Valley pulp mill: TCT, TWS and Tamar Valley pulp mill may have already been built. community groups Peter McGlone • Tarkine National Park: Tarkine National Coalition • Triabunna woodchip mill: Alec Marr • Market campaigns against irresponsible forestry Introducing TCT Councillor Ralph Rallings companies: Huon Valley Environment Centre and TCT Councillor Ralph Rallings is a geotechnical Peg Putt engineer with 50 years’ professional experience in Queensland, South Australia, Malaysia and Tasmania. • Reforming of Forestry Tasmania: vacant Geotechnical engineering, as Ralph has practised • Carbon value of forests: vacant it, is concerned with understanding the various agents, tectonic, air and water that have caused In relation to all of these issues the three key protest the landscape to develop its current shape and groups – Huon Valley Environment Centre, Code properties. It is also concerned with understanding Green and Still Wild Still Threatened – are keeping the the potential impact of a proposed development public, industry and governments aware of the forest on the landscape, soils, surface destruction that is still occurring, as well as targeting and subsurface water regimes Gunns’s pulp mill. and in providing solutions that In this edition of the Tasmanian Conservationist, we minimise negative impacts. Ralph have an article about the TCT’s Supreme Court case was a member of the Australian challenging the legality of the Tamar Valley pulp mill, Geomechanics Society’s Task Force the vital need to recommence the review of the on Landslide Risk Management. Forest Practices Code and the disastrous changes to Ralph is acquainted with areas of the state government’s forest clearing policy. soil behaviour that are commonly Although the FSoP never addressed the crucial considered to be within the province issue of biodiversity conservation on private land, of a soil scientist. This understanding of this has not stopped the government from moving soil-water physical phenomena and in the opposite direction. It is now looking very likely the role of salts arose from research that Bryan Green thinks that privately owned forests into piping failures of earth dams, an can be hammered harder then ever now that the early involvement in irrigation design Intergovernments Agreement (IGA) is likely to reserve and a continuing interest in these many of the iconic forest areas. In the minister’s areas. mind the conservation priorities will be dealt with As the engineering manager of the Materials and if areas such as the Styx, Weld, Picton, Florentine Research section of the then Main Roads Department etc are protected. Similarly, it appears that Forestry for 22 years, Ralph has an in-depth knowledge of road Tasmania has convinced the minister that the Forest pavements and of the factors that determine their Practices Code review must be held up until the IGA performance. is finalised. This will give FT the flexibility to weaken forestry practices if it believes this is needed to He has been a member of the Tasmanian maintain wood supplies. Conservation Trust since 1976.

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 1 Supreme court action regarding the tamar valley pulp mill

On 25 October 2011 the Tasmanian Conservation Trust commenced proceedings in the Tasmanian Supreme Court in Hobart seeking a determination that the Tamar Valley pulp mill permit has lapsed as the pulp mill was not A summary of the TCT’s statement of claims for the substantially commenced before midnight on 30 court: August 2011. a) To seek a determination that the Tamar Valley It is a matter of the utmost public interest for all Pulp Mill permit has lapsed as the pulp mill was not Tasmanians, and in particular the people of the substantially commenced before midnight on 30 Tamar Valley, that the legal status of the permit be August 2011. resolved. We are advised only a court can determine b) To seek a determination that the dam works this. permits under the Water Management Act lapsed As the state’s oldest conservation organisation we at midnight on 30 August 2011. see it as our duty to resolve this important matter. c) To seek a determination that the Assessment Why other conservation groups who undoubtedly Committee for Dam Construction has no power to have standing did not take this case is a question grant a new permit under the Water Management that numerous people have asked us. We truly do not Act for dam works for the purpose of constructing know. and/or operating the pulp mill. We believe we have strong arguments that substantial commencement was not achieved If the TCT wins the Supreme Court case, does this by the permit deadline of midnight, 30 August mean the pulp mill is dead? 2011. Our argument can be put very simply: if an The short answer is ‘maybe’: it is definitely not average person visited the site they would say that guaranteed. The Tasmanian Parliament could create no start had been made on the pulp mill. The TCT another permit if the state government was inclined will claim that at the end of 30 August there was no to rescue Gunns. evidence of construction of any part of the pulp If the current Labor-Green government does mill at the Long Reach site or other sites and all that not attempt to create another permit then the had occurred was clearance of native vegetation. next government (probably a majority Liberal There is a long list of things the proponent should and government) may do so. But this is too far into the could have done by the deadline which it failed future to attempt to predict. to do. While Gunns Ltd has done some preliminary earthworks at the site, there is no evidence of If the current government refuses to help Gunns out, construction. There has also been no start to then the pulp mill cannot be built unless Gunns wins constructing the nearby export wharf, the effluent an appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court. pipeline heading to Bass Strait and the freshwater If unsuccessful in its appeal, Gunns would have to pipeline bringing water from Trevallyn. There is no attempt to take it to the High Court. evidence that we know of that Gunns Ltd has raised the funding for the project, beyond the $20 million it Premier Lara Giddings has made a range of has committed to the earthworks which commenced unconvincing statements regarding what she might after 30 August 2011. If Gunns had funding, do in the event that a court finds that the pulp mill construction could not start immediately because permit has lapsed. It is our view that these statements the workers’ accommodation and on-site amenities are largely irrelevant and the Premier (it may not be have not been built. Lara Giddings) would decide whether to reissue a permit for the pulp mill based on the circumstances If the TCT is successful and the court upholds our at the time and what political advantage there was. claims, then the pulp mill cannot proceed under the So it is predictable that the government equivocates permit issued in 2007, pending a successful appeal on this question and keeps its options open. by Gunns. In that event, this case may put an end to the Tamar Valley pulp mill. Winning in the Supreme Court would not necessarily stop the pulp mill but it would increase the doubt The TCT has only been able to commence this case over the project while Gunns takes an appeal or until with the generous financial assistance of many political relief is given in the form of new permit. supporters who wish to remain anonymous and we thank them and our legal team. The TCT will The TCT remains focused on what happens to the be represented by barristers Duncan Kerr SC and pulp mill and not Gunns. The permit can be sold Stephen Estcourt QC and lawyer Roland Browne. along with the company’s other assets so Gunns going broke would not necessarily help stop the A directions hearing has been set down for pulp mill. But if the permit has lapsed, then there is 2 February 2012. nothing to be sold (or built) and the Tamar Valley will be off the hook; at least for now. Peter McGlone

2 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 review of the wellington park management plan

The TCT has a long association with Wellington Park. In 1990 the Wellington Range Working Group was set up with representatives from all government agencies (state and local) with an interest in the management of the Wellington Range. The working group undertook an extensive public consultation process during which the TCT lobbied heavily for the creation of a Wellington Range National Park. The results of the public consultation were released in mid-1991. The final recommendations of the working group were for ‘almost but not quite’ national park status for the Wellington Range. The Wellington Park Act 1993 established a new and unique reserve, Myrtle Gully. Photo: Rob Blakers. the Wellington Park, which was to be managed independently by the Wellington Park Management The deadline for comments on the Issues Discussion Trust. Paper was 9 December 2011. In November of this year, the Wellington Park The WPMT will then consider whether further Management Trust (WPMT) released an Issues consultation within the community is needed in order Discussion Paper for public comment. The paper to refine details of specific management issues and was part of the Trust’s review of the Wellington Park actions. Management Plan 2005. A draft management plan will be released in early The discussion paper took into account opportunities, 2012, based upon the extended negotiations, and issues and concerns raised during earlier consultations will be formally advertised for public and stakeholder undertaken with a number of groups such as park consultation. users, visitors and management agencies. The paper considered a variety of directions that could be Jennifer Rowallan employed in the future management of the park and Biodiversity Campaigner which might form the basis a new management plan that will be drafted in early 2012. The most contentious of the issues in the paper included: Introducing TCT Councillor David Obdendorf • allowing for consideration of commercial development in other areas of the park outside of David joined the Tasmanian Conservation Trust as the Springs (for example the Pinnacle) a Board member at the 2011 AGM. He has been a supporter and member since the 1980s and was • allowing for the consideration of a cable car made an honorary life member of the TCT in 1996 for his ‘unswerving dedication to Tasmanian wildlife’. • trialing of an off -lead dog-walking area Over the years David has • allowing for further opportunities for four-wheel- kept up his scientific pursuits drive access with research on transmissible • considering allowing commercial tour operators to facial cancer of Tasmanian run trail-bike and/or other motorised recreational devils and has been deeply vehicle tours under licence and limited to involved in the Tasmania fox designated fire trails controversy. He is a member of the Friends of Knocklofty Bush • allowing for the construction of a helipad on the Care Group and a community pinnacle for limited commercial charter landing. scientist and activist working with the Tasmanian Public Mt Wellington.Photo: Toby Rowallan. and Environmental Health Network on issues as varied as a cancer cluster at Wentworth Park (Howrah Beach) to setting up the Sourcewatch - Pollution Information Tasmania website. He joined the TCT Board with the ambitious goal of looking at new ways the Trust might raise funds through a broad cross-section of Tasmanians, regional and special interest communities and commercial businesses.

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 3 changes to tasmania’s native forest clearing policy

On 20 September 2011 the Minister for Energy Under the PNFE Policy, broad-scale clearing on and Resources, Bryan Green, approved a revised public land was to be stopped by 1 January 2010. Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy (PNFE Policy). Broad-scale clearing and conversion on private The TCT is greatly concerned about the effect the land must cease by 1 January 2015 or when the changes will have, and about how and why the limit of 95% of the 1996 native forest area is reached policy was amended. (whichever is sooner). As of 1 July 2011 the area of forest clearing that remains before the statewide The announcement regarding the revision to the threshold is reached is 9,611ha, or conversely the PNFE Policy hardly rated a mention in the media area to be retained is 3,046,887.5 million hectares. because Minister Green’s announcement related to forest ‘clearing and conversion’ and not ‘logging’. As bad as logging is (where felled forests 2005 supplementary RFA native forest estate are regenerated with native species) for forest objectives values such as old-growth-dependent animals and The key objectives relevant to forest clearing and wilderness, ‘clearing and conversion’, which results in conversion are included in section 45 of the 2005 the native forest or other vegetation being replaced Supplementary RFA: by pasture, crops, plantations or houses, is much 45. The Parties have agreed an approach to worse because nothing survives and the impacts the phasing out of broad-scale clearing and are permanent. While clearing and conversion conversion of native forest in Tasmania. The State affects a much smaller area of forests per year agrees to revise the Permanent Forest Estate Policy (logging affects tens of thousands of hectares so that: and clearing a few thousand hectares) the forest types being targeted for clearing are much less • An overall cap on clearing or conversion of common and some are close to being threatened native forest on both public and private land vegetation communities. Environmental impact is not will be established to retain 95% of the 1996 determined just by the area of vegetation affected area of native forest; but by the environmental values and the nature of • Broad scale clearing and conversion of native the land-use change. forest on public land will be phased out by It is the TCT’s view that the recent changes to the 2010; PNFE Policy were designed primarily to enable dairy • Broad scale clearing and conversion of interests in the heavily cleared north-west (and native forest on private land will be phased perhaps just one company) to clear native forest out over a period of ten years from the date which they have previously been refused permission of this Supplementary Agreement (but later to clear. The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) figures amended to 1 January 2015); and show that 56% (or 1323.4ha out of a total of 2367ha) of all native forest cleared in Tasmania in 2010–11 • Assessment criteria for regulating forest was in the far north-west (Woolnorth Bioregion) and clearing and conversion will ensure the the recent policy changes will enable even more protection of regional biodiversity and water rapid clearing in this area. This is one sure way to taint quality values and to meet salinity objectives. the dairy industries’ environmental reputation. Since 2005 the PNFE Policy has established non- Before addressing our concerns in detail, it is threatened native vegetation community retention important to provide some background because levels to prevent these communities also becoming most people are unfamiliar with the PNFE Policy and threatened. Vegetation communities that are the critical role it plays in regulation of forest clearing naturally rare, or have been heavily depleted in and conversion. a region but are not yet threatened, are to be retained at levels of 2000ha or 75% of the 1996 area The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy in an IBRA bioregion (whichever is higher). The PNFE Policy was established by the state Clearance and conversion of threatened vegetation government in 1996 following the Regional Forestry communities are regulated in accordance with the Agreement. The policy was significantly amended Forest Practices Act and the Nature Conservation following the 2005 Supplementary RFA which Act, so in effect the PNFE Policy does not apply to established a series of objectives in relation to these communities. native forest clearing and conversion. It sets out the mechanisms for achieving these objectives and is The objectives set out in the Supplementary RFA, administered by the Forest Practices Authority (now the PNFE Policy, the Forest Practices Act and the the minister also has a role) through its assessment of Code together form Tasmania’s system for regulating Forest Practices Plans under the Forest Practices Act. the broad-scale clearing and conversion of native forests. There is no stand-alone act as in some other states. As we have witnessed, the government of the day can change our system with the stroke of a pen.

4 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 Land clearance poses a serious threat to the Tasmanian devil’s survival rates into the future. Photo: Jon deLaine.

What has changed? Environmental damage Under the previous 2009 version of the Policy, the Essentially the changes to the PNFE Policy involve FPA decided whether to grant an exemption to the making it easier for private landowners to clear native bioregional or property limits and had to determine forest in excess of the limit of 40ha per property per that the application for clearing demonstrated year and to exceed regional limits for less common substantial public benefit. The key change made forest communities. in September 2011 to the PNFE Policy was to take We acknowledge that the government has retained the responsibility for determining ‘substantial public the overall statewide cap on clearing of native benefit’ from the FPA and give it to the Minister for forest, but it is vital to have strict limits at a property Resources. We fear that this will lead to the 40ha- and bioregional level because some parts of the per-property-per-year limit and the bioregional limits state and some forest communities have been more being ignored routinely. heavily affected by past clearing. The FPA did grant numerous and very substantial exemptions – e.g. The TCT’s concerns one application to clear 798ha was approved last Despite repeated letters, the minister has failed to year – which have significantly depleted some forest answer our questions and address our concerns communities, but this will only get worse with the about the policy changes. In perfect Yes, Minister minister having a say. Under the changes, we will not speak, when we ask the minister to explain why lose more native forest in total but the environmental the policy was changed, and why now, he simply impacts of the remaining clearing will be greater. describes (in bureaucratic language) what has changed, and describes these changes in the most The weakening of property and regional limits on innocent terms. In the minister’s words, the changes clearing of native forests on private land will lead to ensure the policy is ‘clear and unambiguous’, key an acceleration of native forest clearing, with most terms now have ‘clearer definitions’ and it enables clearing potentially being focused in a few small a ‘broader input from relevant agencies and areas or regions which have already lost much of authorities on any determination around “substantial their native forest. Forest types that are less common public benefit”.’ (Minister Green’s letter to the TCT, 8 and have been heavily affected by past clearing will November 2011). now be easier to clear, will become more depleted and may become threatened. Landscapes that The minister’s letters have failed to explain the are already heavily damaged by over-clearing will reasons why the policy was changed and why it potentially suffer more damage. was vital to change it now. He has failed to explain why he has taken the power over determining Although the government has retained a process ‘public benefit’ from the FPA and did not pursue a to assess and approve/refuse applications from less political and more transparent approach. He landowners who want to exceed property and simply ignores our concerns that the new policy regional clearing limits, the power to grant exemptions may lead to serious weakening of protection of has been taken away from the independent forest communities which are heavily depleted or Forest Practices Authority and is now in the hands threatened. of the Forests Minister. We have little confidence that the minister will demonstrate the appropriate The TCT’s concerns regarding the PNFE Policy are independence and capacities to be able to balance that it: the environmental and economic interests when • will lead to significant environmental damage assessing clearing applications. • appears to have been developed in response Contravention of the Regional Forest Agreement to the demands of a few large corporations Minister Green clearly misinterprets (deliberately or within the dairy industry – and perhaps just one otherwise) the wording of the Supplementary RFA. He corporation. says that because the recent changes to the PNFE • will disadvantage the vast majority of landowners Policy do not impact on the state’s commitments to in Tasmania the native forest retention objectives as agreed to in the Supplementary RFA, the state is not required to • if it was produced without consultation with the consult the Australian Government. This is not what Australian Government it is in contravention of the the RFA says. Supplementary RFA. Section 45 of the 2005 Supplementary RFA obliges the In our October 2011 letter to the minister we state government to revise the PNFE Policy to achieve recommended that he revert immediately to the a number of broad goals. December 2009 PNFE Policy, institute a full public consultation process in response to the proposed changes and refer the proposed new policy to the Australian Government for comment. Needless to say, these recommendations have been ignored.

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 5 Minister Green has confirmed that the PNFE Policy was revised without any consultation with the Australian Government; so in our opinion, the state government is in contravention of section 46 of the Supplementary RFA.

Section 46 of the Supplementary RFA requires the communities. In the Woolnorth Bioregion, during state government to amend the PNFE Policy to the financial year 2010–11, the FPA approved implement these goals and do so in consultation clearance of a very small area of threatened forest with the Australian Government. We interpret clause communities. Out of 1323.4ha of forests approved for 46 as meaning that the Australian Government is to clearing and conversion in the Woolnorth Bioregion, be consulted on the initial amendment of the PNFE just 12.7ha of this comprised threatened forest Policy and any subsequent amendments that may communities. affect the delivery of the broad goals as outlined The other thing that the minister fails to address is that in section 45. Clearly this was the intention of the recent clearing in the north-west has been heavily RFA authors, otherwise the PNFE Policy could be focused on a few forest communities (primarily dramatically changed, and fail to address the RFA Leptospermum sp. / Melaleuca squarrosa swamp goals, without the Australian Government being forest) and we have reason to believe that this aware of it. The RFA did not grant the state discretion community is approaching the regional limits in terms to decide when to consult but it requires that all of area that can be cleared. significant changes are done in consultation so that the Australian Government is seen to endorse the changes. Van Dieman’s Land Company Whether or not the policy was changed just to Minister Green has confirmed that the PNFE Policy benefit the Van Dieman’s Land Company, owners was revised without any consultation with the of the Woolnorth property in the far north-west Australian Government; soin our opinion, the state of Tasmania, is open to speculation. To change government is in contravention of section 46 of the government policy in response to the demands of Supplementary RFA. But the state government has one company grants that company a competitive contravened the RFA repeatedly and blatantly ever advantage. since the original RFA was signed, because there are no consequences. The Premier did a very good job of confirming this speculation when she was photographed with The Australian Government has not been willing to the Van Dieman’s Land Company CEO Nicola act on such contraventions previously but it will be Morris in the Mercury newspaper on 23 August 2011 interesting to see if anything is different this time. under the heading ‘$180m dairy plan a new state In October 2011 the TCT also wrote to the Prime cash cow’. The Mercury included the unattributed Minister (RFAs are signed for the Australian statement from the company that, ‘Some of the Government by the Prime Minister) and the two 7000 ha of forested land on the Woolnorth property ministers responsible for the RFA’s implementation: will be cleared to house the extra stock, which will Ministers Burke and Ludwig. We still await a reply. boost the farm’s milking herd to 40,000’. Following this statement the Mercury included the statement that, ‘Ms Giddings said the Government was keen to Social impacts quickly secure the approvals the company needed’. The TCT would have preferred a lower limit; however the limit of 40ha per property per year, introduced Although we do not have documented evidence in 2009, was a sensible measure to ensure an to make the connection, this looks a lot like another orderly and fair phase-out of broad-scale clearing special deal for one big corporation. and conversion of native forest on private land – everyone had an opportunity to clear a little. The What is a stake on the Woolnorth property recent changes may reverse this situation, with most We are concerned about what the VDL Company clearing potentially being done by a few landowners. wants to clear. We are particularly concerned that This may lead to the statewide and regional limits it may want to clear vegetation at Woolnorth that being rapidly met and most landowners missing out, includes habitats of threatened species, and native which will mean that most landowners will not have vegetation communities that are listed as threatened the same economic opportunities as the bigger on the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act (NCA). corporate farmers, which could push some into The Woolnorth property is known to contain stands attempting illegal clearing. of NCA-listed threatened Eucalyptus brookeriana forest and Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest, and The reason for the policy change possibly NCA-listed heathland communities. Native The TCT believes the revisions of the PNFE Policy vegetation on the Woolnorth property also contains were to facilitate continued expansion of the dairy habitat for the nationally listed tiger quoll, Tasmanian industry, which has been experiencing somewhat of devil and Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish, a boom. Linked to this boom has been a boom in the among many others. The Tasmanian devil population rate of clearing in the north-west of the state. What at Woolnorth has exceptionally high significance as it the minister fails to state is that the FPA has been is a high-density and disease-free population which is doing a good job fending off the dairy industry’s under investigation by the Save the Tasmanian Devil demands to be allowed to clear threatened forest Program for addition to the insurance population for the species. 6 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 Naturalised Iris pseudacorus at Tasmanian Week Alert network Brumbys Creek, Tasmanian Northern Midlands. Photo collecting the whole plant: why it matters Jonah Gouldthorpe.

We are also concerned that such a dramatic Around 12 months ago I collected a specimen of a intensification of use for dairy grazing will have plant that looked much like one of our target weeds, devastating impacts outside the areas directly Iris pseudacorus, (yellow flag iris). Unfortunately I did affected by clearing and conversion. Much of the not collect underground parts from the plant so, native vegetation remaining on Woolnorth is on in spite of its best efforts, the Tasmanian Herbarium poor soils and this is probably the reason it has not was not able to put a name to the plant because previously been cleared for pasture. We understand the specimen was inadequate. Without a complete that, if cleared and converted to dairy pasture, these specimen, we were not even able to pin the plant soils will require continued application of fertilisers. down to genus, or positively identify it as a target. Run-off from these areas will contain high nutrients Some weeks later another volunteer was able to from the fertilisers and cattle excrement, and this has visit the site and collected a complete specimen, the potential to devastate wetlands and streams. including roots. Underground, the plant had corms, With poor sandy soils and high winds, which are covered by a fibrous ‘tunic’ or sheath. Weed very common in the Woolnorth area, there is also Taxonomist Matt Baker was able to identify the plant potential for damaging wind-blows to develop. as Moraea spathulata, part of the Iridaceae family, The TCT wrote to the VDL company in September, but in a completely different genus to our target immediately after hearing of its planned expansion, weed. and was pleased that the CEO, Nicola Morris, Later in 2010 a number of volunteers collected immediately contacted us and met with us. complete specimens of Iris pseudacorus. This plant has Although she promised at our meeting to provide rhizomes underground, as compared to the corms a written reply to our letter, we are yet to receive of Moraea, and these rhiozomes are strongly pink- one. In our letter and at our meeting we offered to coloured inside when they are cut open. Matt was work with VDL to deliver a best-practice biodiversity able to positively identify these specimens as being and landscape management framework, which target weeds. maximises the protection of the natural values on the During September of 2011 an east coast volunteer Woolnorth property while still enabling a significant sent in a specimen that again looked very much like expansion of its dairy grazing business. She refused Iris pseudacorus. The volunteer submitted the entire to response either negatively or positively to this plant, including a corm-type part from under the suggestion and instead offered us a tour of the ground, with a fibrous skin. Matt Baker was able to property. promptly identify the plant as Moraea spathulata Peter McGlone thanks to the quality specimen. This story shows how important it is to collect the whole plant, so that a prompt, positive identification can be made. Letter to the Editor Keep up the good work looking for serious new weeds The Advocate this spring and summer! Published 21 October 2011 Jonah Gouldthorpe $1 million for Three Capes Track huts Project Officer, Tasmanian Weed Alert Network while doctors and nurses are cut Northern residents may have forgotten that the state government promised at the Iris pseudacorus and Moraea spathulata have very similar yellow last state election to spend more than $12 flowers and strappy green leaves but the pink rhizome identifies this as million on the Three Capes Track proposal. Iris pseudacorus. Photos: Jonah Gouldthorpe. This project would cause massive damage to the spectacular and environmentally sensitive Tasman National Park and benefit just one big corporate tourist operator at the expense of numerous small local businesses. The TCT thought that the Labor Party had put on hold construction of the controversial accommodation huts and would focus on upgrading existing tracks until the state budget situation improved. Not so! Last weekend the state government advertised for tenders for over $1 million for architectural design and administration of the construction of the huts. How many nurses and doctors would this employ in the Burnie Hospital? But moving ahead with the Three Capes Track is more likely to aggravate the Greens and that, it seems, is more important to the Labor Party. tasmanian conservationist December 2011 7 Peter McGlone, Director Tasmania’s forest practies code

There will always be a logging industry in Tasmania The issues raised during the FPC review cannot be in some form and on some scale, and it will always dealt with through discussions among the FSoP involve some native forests and some plantations. parties. Whether you believe the FSoP process is dead or not, there is no immediate possibility of any If you are concerned about how plantations are other FSoP-inspired deal which could address the managed and what happens to the native forests concerns raised during the FPC review. that remain available for logging – more than 1.5 million hectares if the reserves promised in the Having a Forest Practices Code which is informed Intergovernmental Agreement on Tasmania’s Forests by the most up-to-date science and addresses key (IGA) are achieved – you should be very interested community concerns is critical in any scenario for the in seeing Tasmania’s Forest Practices Code (FPC) forest industry. Having a passable FPC has been one improved. If you are concerned about the impact thing to which the forestry industry has been able of forestry operations on biodiversity, chemical use to point when facing criticism from consumers and in plantations affecting our waterways and smoke processors, both here and overseas. from forestry burn-offs, to mention just a few, you The reluctance of parties to the FSoP to get back should be very worried that since July 2010 the state to normal campaigning, and their belief that the government has held up the review of the FPC for no FSoP process still has credence, is weakening their good reason. position regarding forest management issues and Bizarrely, the real reason for the government’s increasing the chances of the Forestry Tasmania inaction on the FPC review may be that it is being view prevailing. The ENGO response must be that pressured by Forestry Tasmania (FT) to roll back improving the FPC and delivering the reserves are forestry standards rather than to strengthen them. non-negotiable and if anything must give, it is the We fear that FT is telling the government that if it is size of the wood allocations to the sawmilling and to continue to provide its customers with the same veneer industries. amount of wood from a smaller area of forest then either the reserves must be scaled back or forestry The Forest Practices Code review to date standards weakened to allow more intensive logging The current review of the FPC was commenced practices. by the Forest Practices Authority in 2007 but was It is unfortunate in the extreme that the Forest suspended in July 2010. The key publicly available Statement of Principles ( FSoP) process never even outcome up until then was the April 2009 report aspired to make improvements to Tasmania’s FPC. of the Independent Biodiversity Panel. The report The FPC review had been under way from 2007 is available from the FPA website at www.fpa.tas. until it was suspended in July 2010, so all that was gov.au and the TCT’s submission on that report is needed was for the Environmental Non-government available on our website at www.tct.org.au. Organisations (ENGO) parties to the FSoP to seek Following its decision to suspend the FPC in July industry and government support to continue an 2010, FPA issued a statement on its website at that existing review of the code being led by the Forest time, explaining the reasons for the suspension and Practices Authority (FPA). The type of changes to making clear that the ball was in the minister’s court forestry practices being recommended to the FPA in regard to restarting the review. (by the independent biodiversity panel in its April 2009 report) would, if implemented, lead to very significant The FPA statement says, in part: improvements to biodiversity protection, in particular The FPA has suspended the review of the Forest on private land, and improvement to management Practices Code whilst it seeks clarification from of waterways including chemical use in plantations. the government on matters of future forest policy, These are issues which the regional communities which include: and conservation groups have complained about for decades and here was a ready-made means of • objectives for the management of biodiversity addressing them. within forests See Tasmanian Conservationist No.317 for a summary • the type and intensity of silvicultural regimes of the biodiversity panel’s report. applied to native forests Clearly a big opportunity was missed during the FSoP • the management of smoke from planned burns process but the FPC review is now more important than ever and all conservation groups must put it • the impact of plantations on water catchments at the top of their agendas. The IGA promises a • public engagement in forest policy and maximum of 532,000ha and as little as 430,000ha of planning. new reserves so this would leave 1.5 million hectares of forests on public and private land for forestry These matters form part of the overarching policy operations. Add to this the impacts from managing framework under which the forest practices the hundreds of thousands of hectares of plantations. system must operate. They have important social, economic and environmental implications that

8 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 A streamside reserve in a Eucalyptus nitens plantation in Edith Creek, in north-western Tasmania. The Forest Practices Code stipulates minimum streamside reserve widths. Photo: Courtesy of the Forest Practices Authority.

belong within the realm of broader governmental catchments will continue and may become more legislation and policy. The FPA is of the view important and urgent to address. that changes in policy are needed before While it is possible that outcomes of the FSoP process these matters can be expressed in the form of could impact on the minister’s potential responses to operational guidelines in a revised Forest Practices the issues raised by the FPA, this should not stop him Code to best serve the future. from determining preliminary responses or options in consultation with those involved in the process. Rather Bryan Green’s response to the review than await the outcome of discussions between the In October 2011 the TCT wrote to the Minister for forest industry and some conservation groups, the Resources, Bryan Green, expressing its serious minister responsible for the Forest Practices Act should concern that the FPC is out of date and is urgently take the lead. in need of improvement, particularly in regard to the protection of biodiversity values. We asserted It will not surprise you to hear that the minister’s to the minister that he is needlessly holding up the response ignored our arguments and has simply completion of the current FPC review and urged him restated the postion described to Tim Morris back to work constructively with the FPA to ensure that the in March this year. For too long the TCT has carried review is restarted and completed without delay. this issue alone and it is vital that other conservation groups make it a priority to complete the review of the We pointed out to the minister that the TCT has been Forest Practices Code. provided with a copy of his 17 March 2011 letter to Tasmanian Greens MP Tim Morris in relation to the Peter McGlone suspension of the review. The letter expresses the minister’s reasons for not responding to the FPA’s requests in relation to legislative and policy changes.

In the letter to Mr Morris the minister claimed that: Letter to Editor (not published) The Mercury I was informed that the Authority had made 3 November 2011 substantial progress in its current review of the Code but that the Authority considered there were matters requiring further legislative or policy Response to Eric Abetz clarification from the Government to enable the regarding Macquarie Island Eric Abetz’s comment ‘The collateral review of the Code to to be completed. I informed damage seems worse than the problem the the Authority that these matters would best be government was seeking to eradicate’ (Media considered in the context of the outcomes of the release 18 October 2011) in relation to the forest industry stakeholder ‘roundtable’ discussions Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Program, that were being held at that time. is baffling to say the least. It is obvious that the Senator has not done his research and is The minister then continues to claim that, in relation commenting merely to score political points. to each of the five issues raised by the FPA as The death of so many birds as a result of requiring legislative and policy clarification, the FSoP the pest eradication program is extremely process may lead to a ‘different context within which unfortunate and impossible to avoid entirely these matters can be best considered’ and that, ‘it yet the potential for bird species to be wiped seems prudent to contuinue to delay the completion out on the island because of the impact of of the Code review until these outcomes become rabbits, rats and mice is clearly a greater clearer’. threat. We have been informed that none of the forest Abetz’s recent criticism of the Macquarie Island program comes after the baiting program management issues raised by the FPA has been has ended. Last year he was silent when he specifically discussed in any detail within the FSoP could have influenced the approaches to process. It is inconcievable that the issues raised by be taken to reduce non-target damage. This the FPA will cease to be concerns following the FSoP clearly calls into doubt Senator Abetz’s interest process. in Macquarie Island or the environment in general. Regardless of the likely outcomes of the process in terms of forest reservation and forest management, Without the pest eradication program, bird populations on Macquarie Island such as there will still be a substantial native forest and burrowing petrels, giant petrels, albatross and plantation-based forestry industry operating and, as prions would continue to remain vulnerable to such, the issues raised by the FPA would continue to the impacts of vegetation degradation caused be of concern and some may become of greater by rabbits. In addition, at least nine species concern. For example, given that the FSoP aims to of birds would continue to be threatened transition the industry away from native forests and by black rat predation. House mice on the towards a greater reliance on plantations, concerns island have an impact on vegetation and eat regarding the impact of plantations on water burrowing seabird eggs. Jennifer Rowallan, Biodiversity Campaigner. tasmanian conservationist December 2011 9 breakthrough on southern ocean mpas

Giant isopod found in Antarctic waters. Photo: Jon Bryan.

The annual CCAMLR Commission meeting • Australia has proposed a network of MPAs off finished in Hobart in early November – that’s the East Antarctica (the part that it is most familiar Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic with and where it asserts a sovereign interest) – Marine Living Resources, the international body with this proposal is grand and comprehensive to the a conservation mandate for controlling relevant point of being scary to some. activities in the Southern Ocean, with its Secretariat • The UK has proposed MPAs be established for based in Hobart. I had the privilege of representing retreating ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula Australian conservation organisations on the (where it, Chile and Argentina focus their Australian government delegation, as I have done scientific interests and/or assert a sovereign for the last few years. interest) – there’s a lot of interest in having a In an historic decision, CCAMLR 2012 adopted good scientific look at newly exposed seabed as a Conservation Measure setting out the general ice shelves retreat before some fisher blunders principles and procedures for establishing systems through. and networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) Additionally, there is already one CCAMLR high around the whole Southern Ocean. seas MPA, established last year – to the south of A couple of years ago, CCAMLR decided that it the South Orkney Islands (proposed by the UK and would seek to roll out a network of representative modified to exclude a Russian exploratory crab MPAs to give effect to the commitment of fishery proposal). The extent to which this acts as a governments at the 2002 World Summit on model or precedent for other MPA proponents to Sustainable Development (WSSD) to do so ‘by 2012’. follow remains a matter of dispute – for a variety of Very sensibly, this earlier CCAMLR decision allowed reasons. On top of this, various coastal states have member countries: (a) to take a ‘stepwise’ approach declared MPAs within EEZs (exclusive economic (i.e. once regionalisation had been worked out as zone) around their sub-Antarctic islands while others the basis for regional networks, an MPA could be are developing proposals. Australia led this process designated and then management arrangements in designating MPAs in its EEZ around Heard and worked out later); and (b) to explore different Macdonald Islands on the Kerguelen Plateau – an ‘approaches’ (i.e. there was no need to agree on outcome for which Howard government Minister a standard approach before proposals could be Ian Macdonald, WWF’s Marg Moore and Austral developed and considered – indeed, there is a job to Fisheries, the main fishing company involved, be done to work out which approaches might work). deserve much of the credit. The process had been kicked off by an expert Meanwhile, back in the present, a recent CCAMLR Southern Ocean ‘approaches to regionalisation’ workshop in Brest, France, earlier this year reviewed workshop convened and funded by WWF (Australia) available information and progress in developing held in Hobart in 2007, while Australia and Mexico MPAs and, among other things, proposed dividing co-convened a global workshop in Mexico City up the Southern Ocean into nine ‘planning domains’ on biogeographical approaches for benthic and for the purpose of developing regional networks pelagic ocean systems and the Convention on of MPAs. CCAMLR adopted this proposal from the Biological Diversity had a protected areas workshop workshop and has encouraged the membership process under way which included looking at to go out and develop proposals for MPAs and high seas MPAs . All these initiatives were driven networks of MPAs based on these domains. by the same WSSD commitment and all served as CCAMLR also agreed to support three more MPA critical confidence-building exercises among both workshops: one to look at the overall, oceanwide academics and officials. situation; one to look more closely at the Western This all adds up to next year being ‘the big one’ – Antarctic Peninsula/Scotia Arc planning domain, when one or more of the 30 or so member countries and another to look at the sub-Antarctic/Indian of the CCAMLR Commission can propose MPAs, Ocean domain. All this work is intended to alone or in groups, to form part of the ocean-wide culminate in a suite of decisions at CCAMLR next system envisaged. There are currently four proposals year, where much of a comprehensive system of in the pipeline for MPAs in high seas areas: MPAs will be designated. Given the shortness of time, it is probable that proposals covering other • Both New Zealand and the USA have proposed planning domains will take another year or maybe MPAs for the Ross Sea (where NZ asserts a two to develop – but, with luck, very substantial sovereign interest and both NZ and the US progress towards the WSSD 2012 deadline will have concentrates their activities) – which it is hoped been made by the deadline. will be reconciled into a single, joint proposal for next year where the key issue is how accommodating of commercial fishing interests a country is obliged to be.

10 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 tasmania: Australia’s food bowl?

Declaring MPAs is a controversial thing at the best of The food bowl vision, so favoured by the former times – as we know only too well in Tasmania. But on Premier David Bartlett, involved a proposal to invest the high seas – where no country exercises jurisdiction $1 billion into irrigation projects to enable Tasmanian over anything other than any vessels flying its flag agriculture to expand to match the Murray-Darling – setting up, let alone managing, MPAs remains a Basin and challenge it as Australia’s ‘food bowl’. diplomatic work in progress! These kinds of regional The ‘food bowl’ idea was justified on simple international agreements continue to operate under assumptions, including that Tasmania had plentiful frustratingly secretive rules of engagement which water resources – much of it apparently being mean that I am not at liberty to give details of how wasted. One statistic repeated hundreds of times by such a progressive result was achieved. Suffice it the former premier and other promoters of the ‘food to say that Australia led the charge and it was not bowl’ is that: easy. AAD, the Australian Antarctic Division based in Kingston, south of Hobart, with its new Director, Tony Tasmania has 12 % of the fresh water resources Fleming, did a wonderful job, with great support from of Australia in an area of less than 1% of the total other agencies and a wide range of other countries Australian land area.’ (Report on water availability in delivering this result. in Tasmania: background report; DPIWE, May 2001.) But, as the fishing nations have always made Since Bartlett and Llewellyn have departed the clear, getting MPAs designated is the easy bit – political scene the state government has reduced we still need to get consensus on management the amount of spin regarding the food bowl and arrangements before any conservation controls can we hardly ever hear that expression or the quoted be instituted. In other words, it will be a long, hard statistics. But still, we can expect that plans to invest struggle to get a system of MPAs in place, and harder $1 billion into irrigation projects (on hold during these still to establish any no-take zones or reserves within bad budget times) may resurface, with potentially such MPAs, to make them effective conservation disastrous results. instruments. A key issue remains how restraining commercial activity can be justified, with limited Before this happens, Tasmania needs to face the information – making a scientific judgement that an limitations of water availability. No one (certainly not MPA proposal is based on ‘best available science’ is politicians) ever references this 12% from 1% statistic a fairly easy scientific call, but the next political step or repeats the key findings of the report outlining the of agreeing that ‘sufficient information’ is available factors inhibiting water development in Tasmania. For to justify a management restriction is something surface water (space does not allow reference to else. It will be interesting to see which countries had underground water) these include the following: their fingers crossed when they signed up to support • Tasmania’s water resources are plentiful but they application of the precautionary principle. are distributed unevenly across the state: with the A major bright spot on the political horizon is the highest rainfall and runoff in the west, and far drier arrival of a new NGO, the Antarctic Ocean Alliance conditions in the farming and populated areas. (AOA) – launched with substantial funding from the • The Midlands receives one-sixth of the rainfall of Washington-based Oceans-5 group of foundations the west coast. with a shared marine conservation interest. Its • Runoff ranges from 80% to 90% of the annual interest is in establishing no-take marine reserves, rainfall in the Pieman River compared to 10–15% centred on wanting to make the Ross Sea the ‘jewel runoff in the Coal River region. in the crown’ of a Southern Ocean-wide network • Water needs to be allocated for in-stream of such reserves. It will be very interesting to see environmental requirements. how this new energy fits into the rather complacent consensus that habitually pervades CCAMLR • Transferring water from the source of supply to networks nowadays. the point of use is not always feasible: distances and terrain mean piping water from remote Alistair Graham sources to farming areas has prohibitive costs and environmental impacts. • Water resources in national parks and the World Heritage Area are not available for development. • Significant catchment yields are already allocated to Hydro Tasmania and already developed. ‘Tasmanian: Australia’s Food Bowl’ is an extract from the presentation given by Peter McGlone So, after these factors are taken into account; how at the 2011 Irrigation Australia conference held } much water do we potentially have available and in Launceston on 23 August. what are the costs and impacts of developing these? Ten years after the DPIPWE report we still do not have answers. Peter McGlone

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 11 Off-road vehicle management in the arthur-pieman conservation area

For three years, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife The TCT has lobbied Minister Wightman to: Service (PWS) has been talking with stakeholders and • immediately act to permanently close the 30-plus the general public regarding the impacts of 4WDs tracks which both the conservation groups and and other vehicles on the sensitive Arthur-Pieman off-road vehicle groups support closing Conservation Area (APCA): it has hired consultants to talk with the community to do further assessments; • put in place a moratorium to stop vehicle use of it has summarised public comments, held workshops remaining contentious tracks until they can be to discuss concerns with the community stakeholders resolved to the satisfaction of both conservation – but not one off-road track in the APCA has been groups and the Tasmanian Aboriginal community closed. (See below, ‘Parks and Wildlife Service’s Chronology of Inaction’.) • in the absence of a moratorium, avoid a rushed decision and provide another six months to The Arthur-Pieman area has been described by ensure a better informed and orderly resolution the Australian Heritage Commission as, ‘one of the which involves the Tasmanian Aboriginal world’s greatest archaeological regions for its rich community Aboriginal heritage’. The Aboriginal heritage and natural values are under constant threat from the • require that the PWS define the criteria that will increasing frequency of 4WDs in the APCA. be used for closing tracks in terms of natural and cultural values For these three years, the off-road vehicles have continued to damage the natural values and • if the government cannot involve the Aboriginal heritage of the APCA, but the PWS has Tasmanian Aboriginal community in the ongoing never defined a consultation process and a clear consultation, at the end of that six months put in and transparent timeframe for making decisions on place a moratorium on any driving on unresolved track closures. Nor has it defined the criteria to be tracks. used for closing tracks in terms of natural and cultural values, i.e. what are the criteria for deciding whether Parks and Wildlife Service’s a natural or cultural heritage value is significant chronology of inaction and vulnerable enough to justify closing a track to From the end of 2008 to December 2009 vehicles? This question was asked of the PWS during Arthur Pieman Off-road Vehicle Management Group the public consultation process in April–June 2010, developed a set of recommendations which were but has still not been answered. released by the PWS in the report Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area: Sustainable Recreational Vehicle PWS has some very good advice and data, provided Access Draft Report 2010 (Arthur Pieman Tracks by Birds Tasmania, regarding the important bird Report). nesting and feeding sites that ought to be closed, but appears to want to decide arbitrarily which ones April 2010 – June 2010 are important and deserving of protection. Arthur-Pieman Tracks Report released for public comment. In the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area: Sustainable Recreational Vehicle Access Draft Report 2010 the July 2010 PWS recommended numerous tracks be closed – Minister David O’Byrne held informal meetings with a and, in the TCT’s opinion this is the absolute minimum range of stakeholders. The TCT lobbied him to clarify number of tracks that must be closed. Additional what process would be followed to determine which tracks must also be closed as recommended by the tracks would be closed. community and conservation groups to ensure the conservation of natural values and of Aboriginal Vehicle damage to Arthur Beach after Devonport Show heritage. Failure to do so will see an unacceptable Day, November 2011. There were 11 points where various loss of biodiversity and heritage values from the area. vehicles had entered the beach through the dune and nine places where vehicles had intruded above the high- tide mark into the foredune for a play! Photo: Geoff King. What we have asked Minister Wightman to do We understand that this three-year-long process may come to an end when Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage Brian Wightman makes a decision, before Christmas, about which tracks will be closed.

12 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 ‘working’ for the tasmanian conservation trust

November 2010 Do you feel that you would you like to do more for the Minister O’Byrne held a series of stakeholder meetings TCT, such as contributing your time, but you feel you in Smithton at which he outlined how a consultant have none to spare? If the annual subscription and had been hired to carry out additional Aboriginal donations do not provide that sense of involvement heritage surveys. The minister and PWS offered that you desire, then the Australian Government’s ongoing stakeholder meetings, including a tentative Workplace Giving initiative might provide an answer offer of one in February (2011) at which we would that will be beneficial to both yourself and the TCT. have a preliminary report on the progress of an Aboriginal heritage survey (subject to approval of the Workplace Giving involves employees pledging a Tasmanian Aboriginal community). nominated amount to a deductible-gift recipient, such as the TCT, on a regular basis. The amount December 2010 is deducted by your employer from your pre-tax A supposedly new permit process for off-road vehicle income, so that: use in the APCA was announced, which merely involved payment of a new fee, no tracks were • there is no need to keep receipts for tax purposes closed and no new management actions were and there is no need for the TCT to issue receipts implemented. • the tax benefit to the wage earner is immediate, February 2011 because the deduction is from the pre-tax income. Whereas someone with a marginal tax Minister Brian Wightman responded to enquiries from rate of 30% has to earn nearly $14 to cover a $10 conservation groups by stating that: ‘Plans are under after-tax donation, to make the same donation way for facilitated workshops to be held with reserve through Workplace Giving involves only $10 of stakeholders groups to discuss track use and values earnings. in order to establish an agreed track network’, but failed to provide a timeframe for these workshops. Over several years I have pledged a percentage of the proceeds of my employment to the TCT through April 2011 Workplace Giving. In doing this, I have considered PWS released a brochure, Arthur-Pieman Sustainable that I am contributing in much the same spirit that Access Project Report and Stuart Lennox (Manager other volunteers give their time to the TCT. I have Strategy & Sustainable Use, PWS) followed this with found personal satisfaction in maintaining this meetings with some stakeholder groups. perspective of the pledge. I also believe that it is a July 2011 particularly effective and efficient way of assisting the PWS released two reports on its website: TCT. • Social Values of the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Your employer will need to agree to the Workplace Area Giving arrangement and you can withdraw from it at • Analysis of Public Responses Arthur-Pieman any time. Conservation Area Sustainable Vehicle Access If you would like to know more about Workplace but these were not distributed to stakeholder groups Giving, give Trish a call on 6234 3552, or go the or widely advertised (beyond a media release) – website of the Department of Families, Housing, nor did they make any actual recommendations Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (www. regarding track closures. fahcsia.gov.au). It has a ‘Workplace Giving’ booklet which explains the process. August 2011 Moore Consultancy was hired to consult with Ralph Rallings stakeholders and make recommendations to the TCT Councillor PWS regarding disputed tracks. Meetings were held with stakeholders August–November 2011. September 2011 Minister Brian Wightman met with a number of stakeholder groups in Smithton. Peter McGlone

Tree Hollows for Swift Parrots sticker available from the TCT office, $1.50

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 13 aquaculture legislation amendment

Amendment puts even more power in the hands of the minister and ignores systemic problems with aquaculture planning system

A recent amendment to the Marine Farming Public consultation is required by the Act, but Planning Act 1995 puts more direct power in the unfortunately this has little practical meaning. A legal hands of the minister. This change makes it even opinion obtained by the TCT says that this required more obvious that the government believes consultation merely gives the impression that the Tasmanians should have no meaningful role in public will be involved. There is no guarantee the planning process that governs Tasmania’s that views other that those of the Marine Farming aquaculture industry. Planning Review Panel and the Marine Farming Branch of Marine Resources will be taken into Along with the local forestry and mining industries, account. Tasmania’s aquaculture industry is quarantined from the normal planning processes that apply to other One example illustrates this problem. The Marine businesses and ordinary Tasmanians. If you want Farming Planning Review Panel approved a marine to start up a normal business or build a house, you farming zone near the Nine Pin Point Marine Nature are subject to Tasmania’s mainstream Planning and Reserve, despite opposition from the government’s Approvals System, and conflicting views are resolved own Department of Tourism, the Parks and Wildlife by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Service and the Coastal Unit of the Department of Environment and Land Management. In the end the The commission replaced the RPDC (Resource proposed area was never developed because it was Planning and Development Commission) as the considered uneconomic and unsuitable. It has to be independent body charged with assessing planning said that, if the panel can reject the views of three proposals. However, many of the operations of the significant government bodies in favour of those of commission are based on those of the RPDC, and the Marine Farming Branch on the development as a result there is a requirement, and expectation, of an area which turned out to be of no use to that decision-making processes are transparent the aquaculture industry, one has to wonder what and based on evidence, and that adequate chance there is of mere members of the community documentation is available for public scrutiny. having their views taken into account. While not a professional planner myself, I am As an aside, during the early days of the Marine informed by those who are that this system has Farming Planning Review Panel’s existence it worked well and provides a mechanism whereby was once the norm for government agencies to disparate views and values can be evaluated. It participate in the consultation process required for seems that, while those involved do not always aquaculture planning. However, since the unseemly get what they want, whether for or against dissent occurred, we understand that public displays development, there is a general consensus that at of disunity between government departments over least all the relevant information has been taken into aquaculture are no longer permitted in Tasmania account, that all involved have had a real input into and public participation in aquaculture planning by the process and that the decisions are based on a government agencies is severely discouraged. rational and transparent process. The Marine Farming Planning Review Panel has only In contrast, to assess aquaculture planning proposals turned down a marine farming proposal once during Tasmania has the Marine Farming Planning Review the whole time it has been operating. That was the Panel. This is supposed to be an expertise-based Soldiers Point decision that occurred earlier this year. committee that can represent the interests of disparate members of our community. Instead, it As stated in a previous article (#323, ‘Soldiers Point has repeatedly failed to take into account genuine Decisions: a win for the environment’), while new concerns about visual and noise pollution, water members and a new approach meant that there pollution resulting from the release of nutrients, was a definite improvement in the way the Marine antibiotics and antifoulants into the water, and Farming Planning Review Panel made and justified environmental impacts. This panel has repeatedly its decision, this did not really solve the underlying dismissed the views of local residents and problems associated with the planning process for communities as well as recreational users such as the aquaculture industry in Tasmania. And it is worth fishers and sailors. Many within the community have remembering that many significant concerns were raised concerns about this with the government. simply dismissed out of hand. I have been a member of two peak recreational Despite the existing shortcomings of the Marine fishing groups that have pointed out the lack Farming Planning Act 1995, Minister Bryan Green of meaningful representation and requested introduced an amendment to this legislation that representation on the panel, but were knocked made it even worse. In brief, it basically streamlines back. The TCT has raised these issues many times, the planning process and removes the involvement and made submissions during both reviews of the of the Marine Farming Planning Review Panel if it fails legislation, again with no effect. to accept a proposal.

14 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 Let’s do nothing and see if that works

Prior to the amendment, the minister always had The Tasmanian Government’s failure to act on great power. The new amendment means that the longstanding problems associated with the rock lobster minister of the day has the final say on whether an fishery not only threatens its sustainability and export aquaculture development gets approved or not. The accreditation, but also jeopardises the abalone fishery longstanding concerns about public participation and the marine environment. in aquaculture planning have been ignored in the interests of concentrating power. Tasmania’s iconic rock lobster fishery has been plagued by serious problems for many years and A cynic might suggest that the amendment was the Tasmanian Government is doing nothing about introduced in response to the failure of the Soldiers it. Localised overfishing, inshore fishing pressure and Point proposal to get up, and concerns that the expanding Centrostephanus urchin barrens are industry proposal for a huge expansion of the longstanding problems. Since 2008, recruitment failure, aquaculture industry in Macquarie Harbour might be that is the failure of juvenile rock lobsters to grow and at risk. survive to become part of the legal sized fishery stock, has amplified the other problems. Taking a broader view, I have to say that I believe that it is a mistake to try to short-circuit a planning Centrostephanus barrens arguably pose the greatest system so as to further exclude real public threat. These occur because fishing removes the large participation. One would have hoped that the rock lobster that can prey upon Centrostephanus ongoing Gunns pulp mill fiasco and many other very urchins, so urchin numbers explode and their grazing public battles associated with Tasmanian planning clears the large marine plants that are vital to this issues would have taught us that lesson by now. habitat. The resulting urchin barrens do not support significant numbers of either rock lobster or abalone, Realistically, the amendment will make little so both these important fisheries are excluded. difference as the Marine Farming Planning The environmental impact is devastating, as once Review Panel has an almost perfect history of productive reefs are converted into underwater rubber-stamping any old proposal that comes wastelands. from Tasmania’s aquaculture industry. But the amendment is taking aquaculture planning in the As a regular diver along Tasmania’s east coast, I have wrong direction and is still very disappointing. observed that urchin barrens are rapidly expanding and we are running out of time to deal with this The TCT’s position on Tasmania’s aquaculture problem. The last five years has seen a great expansion planning system is that it should be brought into the in the number of incipient barrens, which are likely to mainstream planning process and that legislation multiply and become full-blown barrens in the near should be changed so that the panel’s role is carried future. We do not have five or ten years to manage out by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. this problem. If urchin barrens continue to develop at Rather than attempt to fix the existing problems this rate and something is not done right away, we can associated with aquaculture planning in Tasmania, say goodbye to very large areas of reef along the east Bryan Green’s amendment takes an already broken and south-east coasts during the next five years. planning system, tramples it underfoot and then sets Suggestions by the fishing industry that culling or a it on fire. commercial market for Centrostephanus urchins are It seems to me that the ‘winners’ are the people in solutions have so far failed to withstand scrutiny. The the aquaculture industry who think that the minister size of the potential market and time/cost contraints is going to do them favours and pass any planning appear to make this impractical. An even more proposal they come up with. But that could never difficult barrier is created by the practical difficulty for happen in Tasmania ... divers operating in depths greater than 15m to 20m. At best, culling and a commercial market may be useful Jon Bryan, Marine Campaigner in certain limited areas, but will not have a significant Thanks to Bio-Distributors – Biodynamic and Organic effect on the east and south-east coast under current Wholesalers of Tasmania for their support of our newsletter. circumstances. www.biodistributors.com.au The real key to solving this problem is increasing numbers of large rock lobster to somewhere in the order of 0.1/100m2. While this is much lower than normal densities of large rock lobster (densities in the Maria Island Marine Protected Area are approximately 1.0/100m2), experimental work indicates that this density is likely to protect reefs from further encroachment by urchin barrens and gives them a chance of recovery.

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 15 Rock lobster. Photo Jon Bryan

It is interesting to note that a recent scientific (IMAS) This would be bad enough if the only thing to suffer report indicated that the only single management were the rock lobster and its associated commercial option that would achieve densities of large rock and recreational fisheries. Unfortunately, the marine lobster greater than the required 0.1/100m2 on the environment is also severely damaged and the east coast is a complete closure of the east-coast abalone fishery is excluded along with rock lobster from fishery for somewhere between five and 10 years. The areas where urchin barrens become established. TCT believes that a more targeted approach would Just to be clear, the Tasmanian Government has be better, but if nothing is done soon then this may allowed, and continues to allow, the rock lobster be the only viable option. fishery to operate at a level that not only destroys Reducing the total allowable catch (TAC), the environment upon which it depends, but turns introducing maximum size limits (to protect once productive reef into wasteland and threatens the large rock lobster that are able to prey on Tasmania's valuable abalone fishery. Centrostephanus urchins), temporary area closures This is a truly bizarre situation. It seems that the process to allow reefs to recover, directing fishing activities of fishery management has been paralysed by the to reduce pressure on critical areas and the enormity of the problems. So far, it seems that the introduction of area management for the fishery management response has been ‘let’s do nothing and are all options that could be part of the solution. see if that works’. These should have been considered as part of the just-completed statutory five-year review of the rock Complicit with the Tasmanian Government is the lobster fishery. Instead, some essentially meaningless commercial rock lobster fishery. I am sure that there reductions in TAC and recreational bag limits have are many commercial fishers who are as concerned been introduced and other options have been put as I am, but there is no doubt that many have lobbied off for consideration at some indefinite point in the hard to prevent meaningful changes being made. future. Representatives have repeatedly rejected the introduction of area management at a scale that A reduction in commercial TAC and recreational would assist in dealing with the main problems, and the bag limits might seem like a good idea, but the peak body, the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen's cuts proposed so far will barely, if at all, reduce Association, recently voted to support a one-year the catch to below the amount that would be moratorium on any further reduction in the commercial caught if there were no limits at all. A basic fisheries catch. management principle is that a catch limit is only a useful management tool if it actually limits catch. A possible circuit breaker to all this is the need for the If it doesn’t, it is analogous to starting out with a commercial fishery to get export approval under the speed limit on the Midland Highway of 500kph, then Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation reducing it to 250kph in an effort to reduce the road (EPBC) Act. As almost all (90%) of the Tasmanian rock toll. The constraint is meaningless as no cars can lobster catch is sold into China (mainly via illegal reach either limit. imports, but that is another story), a failure to get EPBC export approval would be devastating. EPBC In Tasmania's rock lobster fishery, the catch over the export approval requires a review every five years to years has clearly led to serious problems, such as ensure that the fishery is managed in an ecologically urchin barrens. The actual commercial catch in every sustainable way. season since 2008–09 has been significantly below the limit imposed by the TAC and has therefore not It is clear that the Tasmanian rock lobster fishery is not been constraining. Changes to recreational bag currently being managed in a sustainable way. Current limits have also simply reflected the normal catches management not only threatens this fishery itself, but taken by average recreational fishers, so once again also the marine ecosystem and Tasmanian abalone management tools are not limiting catches to a level fishery. below that which can be caught and which has clearly led to problems. There is currently a Commonwealth review of this fishery, with public submissions closing on This year, for the first time since 2008, there is a 7 December 2011. It is to be hoped that critical chance that the greatly reduced TAC may put a Commonwealth Government scrutiny of the rock limit on the actual commercial catch, but it will be a lobster fishery, together with the threat of halting close-run thing, and if it does reduce the catch it will exports, will motivate the Tasmanian Government to not be by much. The limit will certainly not be enough take meaningful action to protect the fishery from itself to address problems such as inshore fishing pressure as well as the abalone fishery and Tasmania's marine or Centrostephanus barrens. environment. What all this means is that, since 2008, the Tasmanian Doing nothing for another five years is not an option Government has, in effect, made no management if we want viable rock lobster and abalone fisheries decisions that would lead to an actual reduction along the east and south-east coasts, and a marine in catch or deal with any of the major problems environment in that region that is not devastated by associated with this fishery. urchin barrens. Jon Bryan, Marine Campaigner 16 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 seven mile beach peninsula golf course and resort – Is this a repeat of ralphs bay?

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust recently issued a Unless the government can provide explanations, media statement accusing the state government of the general public would be entitled to believe that scraping the 2009 draft management plan for the the current development proposal is linked to the Seven Mile Peninsula and abandoning a proposed government’s decision to scrap the management community steering committee in favour of a Ralphs plan and community consultation process. Bay–style exclusive deal, to develop a golf course The TCT is not against development of the Seven Mile and resort for the peninsula. The development also Peninsula and a golf course might be acceptable, seems to defy the recommendations of a 2008 but without a management plan there are no rules to government-funded consultant’s report which ‘rules place limits on how big the golf course can be, where out development over most of the peninsula’. it can be constructed and how it may restrict other In response to numerous competing development uses. proposals for the area, including a major sand mine, Another key document which, to our knowledge, the state government produced the preliminary has never seen the light of day is the June 2007 September 2008 Seven Mile Peninsula Management report Strategic Land Use and Development Study and Development Strategy (Seven Mile Peninsula for the Seven Mile Peninsula, produced for the Strategy). One of the key recommendations of the state government by consultant Robert Luxmoore. strategy was to develop a management plan for According to the Seven Mile Peninsula Strategy, the the peninsula immediately, including a rehabilitation Luxmore report ‘rules out development over most of plan. The management plan was to be developed the peninsula’. with full public consultation and to define the kind of development that could take place on the peninsula If the government is interested in a balanced and and balance this with protecting the area’s natural transparent approach to development of public and recreational values. land, it should publicly release the consultant’s report which advised against development of the Seven In March 2009 the state government informed the Mile Peninsula. The community deserves to see the TCT and the Seven Mile Beach Coastcare Group report and have the government explain why its that a draft management plan for Seven Mile Beach recommendations appear to have been ignored. Peninsula had been developed and invited the TCT to join for a steering committee to oversee its The licence issued to the Matthew Goggin Foundation implementation. should be revoked immediately and no other licences issued until the management plan is finalised and the The draft management plan for the Seven Mile Luxmoore consultant’s report is publicly released. Peninsula has never been publicly released or completed and the community consultation The state government must answer these key committee has never eventuated. questions: In scrapping the management plan and consultative • Why was the management plan drafted and then committee, the government has abandoned the not finalised? principles of transparency and balance and again seems intent on striking an exclusive deal with a big • Why was the community invited to participate in a company (the Matthew Goggin Foundation) to steering committee that never eventuated? develop public land. • Why has a consultant’s report which was critical The government is putting the development of an of the development potential of the area never exclusive resort ahead of the interest of the many been released? people who enjoy the area for walking, horse riding, Peter McGlone orienteering, cycling, dog walking and picnics.

tasmanian conservationist December 2011 17 action on roadkill

Tasmania has been branded ‘the roadkill state’: on devil as the most effective sign (for images of an apt title considering that it has the highest wildlife signs and full survey results, visit: http://roadkill. incidence of wildlife roadkill in the nation (Reducing imaginocean.com.au/info/roadkill-signs-survey- the Incidence of Wildlife Roadkill: improving the article.pdf). visitor experience in Tasmania, Zoe Magnus, Lorne K. Kriwoken, Nicholas J. Mooney, Menna E. Jones, 2004). The TCT and the creators of roadkilltas.com are An estimated 293,000 animals are killed on Tasmanian working with the Department of Infrastructure, roads each year. Of those, approximately 3000 are Energy and Resources (DIER) to carry out surveys Tasmanian devils (3% of the total devil population), on the effectiveness of signage in roadkill hot spots making roadkill the second biggest threat to the in changing driver behaviour. Further details of this species after devil facial tumour disease. Examples project will be available on the TCT website next of every species of Tasmanian native animal can year. be found dead on the roads: quolls, bandicoots, Roadkilltas.com is a website that has been created wedge-tailed eagles… the list goes on. Local to educate drivers about sharing the road with newspapers and state government departments wildlife. It also provides locations of roadkill hotspots, frequently receive comments and complaints from which can be downloaded to a GPS (www. visitors to the state expressing concern about the roadkilltas.com). amount of roadkill they have seen. In addition, the TCT, in conjunction with the Save The obvious solution to reducing the amount of the Devil Program and roadkilltas.com, is working on roadkill is to change driver behaviour. Roadside a flyer to educate drivers on how to avoid wildlife signage aimed at educating drivers about the on the road. DIER has agreed to send out the flyer importance of reducing their speed from dusk to with car registration renewals. The flyer is still being dawn is becoming more common, but needs to be developed, but it is hoped that it will be sent out improved. A survey was conducted by roadkiltas. early next year. com, with the help of the RACT, asking the readers of the RACT’s Motor News Journeys to respond to The TCT is also planning to launch an advertising the design of wildlife warning signs. Participants were campaign in the new year. We are currently seeking asked to comment on four different wildlife warning donations to fund a roadkill advertisement to be signs, two that are currently used on Tasmanian placed on the back of a Metro bus, similar to the roads and two new designs. The new designs were image below. To donate to this campaign, please of a devil, face-on, and a wallaby with a joey in its visit the TCT website: www.tct.org.au. pouch. The majority of respondents rated the face- Jennifer Rowallan, Biodiversity Campainger

18 tasmanian conservationist December 2011 plastic swirl

Plastic Swirl is a collaborative installation project The installation creates a vortex imagery of currents which links art and science with the environment and marine life when viewed from above. This project and community. The work is about the consumption highlights the unique and rich biodiversity of the of plastic and its effects on the marine environment. Taroona High School location and its relationship to Grade 7, 8 and 9 students at Taroona High School the Derwent River and deepens an understanding of have been making hundreds of sculptural elements the river and our connection to it. about the biodiversity of the River Derwent, specific Robyn McNicol to the school location. The works are made from (Installation project manager) plastics sourced from households, recycling depots TCT Councillor and beach litter. Plastic Swirl was installed at the School on 10 November and photographed from airplane by both the Sunday Tasmanian newspaper and ABC TV news. Par Avion is thanked for providing the plane at no cost. Issue 324 Crossword

RD #6 CR OSSWO solutions to crossword #5

CLUES

* denotes solutions to be found in previous issue of the tasmanian conservationist (issue 323) Clues * DenotesAcross solutions to be found in previous issue of The Tasmanian Conservationist (numberDown 323) 1. Odour 2. * This is measured to determine legal size in rock lobsters Across (minimum 105mm female, 110mm male) 1. Odour7. Orient 3. Emotional quotient (abbr.) 7. Orient11. * One of several Tasmanian industries quarantined from 11. * One of several Tasmanian industries quarantined from the state planning laws applying to other the state planning laws 4. Thirteenth letter of modern Greek alphabet people and organisations 13. Expression13. Expression of hesitation of hesitation 5. Tropical root vegetable grown for its edible starchy corm 14. With14. reference With reference to to 6. Twelfth letter of modern Greek alphabet 15. Relatives 16. * Three15. speciesRelatives of these culled annually in Maria Island National Park most years 7.since Latin 1994; and only one is16. native * Three to the species island of these culled annually in Maria Island 8. Northern hemisphere seabird family vaguely similar to 20. To higher point National Park; only one is native to the island penguins but able to fly (one large flightless species became extinct in 1800s) 20. To higher point 9. First word in name of Indian Ocean island country; 21. Mammal native to Americas; five species in genera Sanskrit title of veneration Nasua and Nasuella; member of raccoon family Procyonidae 10. * A brand name of sodium fluoroacetate, a naturally occurring metabolic poison also synthesised for the 22. Australian state (abbr.) killing of mammals, including native herbivores in 23. Small carnivorous mammal of family Mustelidae, genus Tasmania (3,7) Mustela (17 species, 10 of which have this word in 12. Mollusc class including octopuses, squid, cuttlefish, their common name); wide original world distribution nautiluses and argonauts which excluded Australia 13. Second-largest birds (fourth-largest by weight); 24. Expression of delight, relief, pleasure or realisation Tasmanian subspecies extinct 25. Two Tasmanian waterbirds of family Anatidae, genus 17. * Jennifer ______, TCT’s new biodiversity Anas have this common name campaigner 27. Eastern chant 18. Deus caritas est (abbr.) 29. That is to say 19. * Site in D’Entrecasteaux Channel of first-ever refusal 31. Household insect control that is healthier for humans of marine farming development proposal by Marine than insecticides but perhaps more unsightly Farming Planning Review Panel, ______Point 33. James Lovelock’s 1970s theory proposing that the 26. Burning organic and inorganic parts of the Earth form a 28. He led action resulting in 1992 High Court decision that complex interacting system that maintains conditions recognised native title and rejected the doctrine of for life terra nullius in Australia 35. Lake that now harbours major population of fish Pedder 30. Away or back galaxias Galaxias pedderensis, which is considered extinct in its entire natural habitat 32. Work a metal’s surface to improve its material properties, typically by hammering or shot blasting 37. Violently rotating air columns connecting cloud and earth 33. Gran Turismo (abbr.) 38. General term meaning mammal of superfamily 34. Adults only (abbr.) 20 20 tasmanianHominoidea; conservationist native to Africa December and Asia 2011 36. Forty winks membership and donation form

we greatly value your generosity D-Day approaches for the Swift Parrot send completed form to tasmanian conservation name...... trust inc Floor 2,191 Liverpool Street address...... Hobart TAS 7000 Australia ...... p (03) 6234 3552 f (03) 6231 2491 postcode...... e [email protected] www.tct.org.au phone (home)......

(work)...... email address......

I wish to join the tasmanian conservation trust inc

I wish to renew my membership

I wish to make a donation

I have paid via EFT (BSB 067000 ACCT 28043114 Commonwealth Bank Account name: Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc) I enclose a cheque/money order

please charge my bankcard visa mastercard cardholder name...... card no

signature...... expiry date......

Please circle relevant amounts

membership categories 1 year 2 years 3 years

regular $35 $65 $90

concession $22 n/a n/a

household/organisation $50 $85 $110

corporate $500 $1000 $1500

life $700

overseas surcharge $30 $60 $90 airmail only

donation (tax-deductible)

TOTAL tasmanian conservation trust inc

The tasmanian conservationist is the regular newsletter of the tasmanian conservation trust inc ABN 63091237. Printed on 100% recycled, 100% Australian-made paper.

Floor 2,191 Liverpool Street, Hobart TAS 7000 Australia p (03) 6234 3552 f (03) 6231 2491 e [email protected] w www.tct.org.au