|
Birding-aussies,
In response to Rob Farnes'
email to Birding-Aus (2 April 2005) concerning the death of 10 Long-nosed
Potoroo's (listed, Vulnerable species, EPBC Act) during fuel reduction burns in
Victoria:
Fuel reduction burning has clearly got to happen,
but not at the expense of Australia's wildlife. As a modern westernised country,
and one that has embraced a western civilisation model for conservation and
sustainable development, this is an outrage. Unfortunately, it is not an
isolated incident as Victoria is embarking on larger fuel reduction burns now
than in recent years. I have recently written an article for the National
Environment Law Association concerning the same subject and mallee emu wren in
Murray Sunset National Park and surrounds.
The motivation for fuel reduction is health and
safety and it can happen with due regard for conservation but only if the State
government is willing. However, fuel reduction burning without appropriate
rigorous environmental assessment is simply unlawful. Statements that the
process is of conservation benefit are clearly not appropriate - as Rob Farnes
has easily demonstrated - and in any case, such 'positive' outcomes are not a
material consideration under Commonwealth law, when it comes to determining
whether the EPBC Act is triggered.
I disagree with Lawrie Conole that this does not
have to stop - sorry Lawrie, I know I am taking you slightly out of context -
but the EPBC Act is very specific in its duty of care to establish assessments
as appropriate for any actions likely to have a significant impact on a Matter
of National Environmental Significance. Long-nosed Potoroo is one such species
but there may also be others in the area. Any action likely to have a
significant impact is required by law to be referred to the Commonwealth
Environment Minister for a decision on whether this is likely to have a
significant impact. In other words, the State government does not have complete
jurisidiction to authorise the fuel reduction burns. If the Commonwealth
Environment Minister has not issued a decision and an action is likely to have a
significant impact on any Matter of National Environmental Significance, then it
simply cannot lawfully occur. In other words, until such actions are referred,
they can and should be stopped. Organisations
that have such an impact face fines of up to 5.5 million dollars or substantial
prison sentences.
These laws exist because Australia has pledged
commitment to global conservation strategies and has signed multi-lateral
agreements with a large proportion of other countries in the world. I am shocked
and appalled that Australia can allow such procedures to go ahead without any
form of formal assessment or management. I have no problem with fuel reduction
burns at all, in fact I think they are a good idea in general, but not the way
that they are being done now.
I will be equally appalled if every other member of
birding-aus does not email similar concerns over the next few days, copying
these to the Federal and State Environment Ministers. To not do so will be an
indictment on the natural history past-times we all pursue, and will negate the
enormous benefit that birding and other natural history knowledge has given
Australia's society for decades. Otherwise, one would ask what is the Atlas of
Victorian Wildlife for, other than to become a record of the continuing demise
of our rare species to extinction.
Kind regards,
Simon Mustoe.
| 