True, poor wording, I meant mining companies shouldn't be the ones deciding in the final instance whether their own activities are harmful or not.
You can't have a situation where companies are appointing environmental consultants &c to monitor their activities and those same people have the final say, because what will happen is that over time the company will favour more and more compliant consultants and have their favoured people to say everything is fine. Even the worse environmental vandals have environmental consultants nodding in the background.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 13:34, Ross Macfarlane (TPG) <> wrote:
I am sorry, but this statement is just plain wrong. Of course mining companies should be responsible for their own activities, and that means they should, indeed must, police their own activities. Otherwise by implication, they’re not responsible when they do the wrong thing, as long as they don’t get caught. (Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be independent oversight in addition, of course.) From: Birding-Aus <m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus-bounces");" target="_blank">> On Behalf Of calyptorhynchus
Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2018 10:28 AM
To: <m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus");" target="_blank">> <m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus");" target="_blank">>
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Red Goshawks caught and netted during nesting season Miners should not be responsible for policing their own activities. The government should charge miners, as part of the fees charged for their activities, for independent ecological monitoring of the impacts. The fact this does not happen is another shameful neo-liberal abnegation of the responsibilities of government to citizens and to the environment. Greg, Perhaps you should have first-hand experience with animal ethics committees, either as a member of one or as a proponent of an animal research project. You would then realise the detailed justification that is required to be granted a permit, the level of thought required by the researcher regarding animal welfare, and the extent of reporting back to the committee on animal welfare outcomes of the research. If you did that then you would realise that your assertion of animal ethics approvals are freely-granted is incorrect. Animal ethics committees must ensure that all animal research projects conform with the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-care-and-use-animals-scientific-purposes . Note that animal ethics committees have at least one vet and a member of the public who has experience and expertise in animal welfare as members https://www.animalethics.org.au/animal-ethics-committees , so there is real community input into this process. In my experience, and those of many other researchers, ethics committees respond to an initial application for animal ethics approval with a request for more information. This usually means that either not enough detail about the proposed research project was provided in the initial application, the committee has some questions that need answering, the committee has some genuine concerns about the project that need to be addressed by the researcher, or all or a combination of these things. Then there is the requirement of reporting back to the committee, either at regular intervals (if a long-term research project) or at the end of the project (if the project is short-term) on animal welfare issues. Researchers often grumble at the amount of paperwork, research justification and reporting that is involved, but animal ethics committees do really make a difference and are far from rubber-stamping entities. Stephen Ambrose Ryde NSW From: Birding-Aus <m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus-bounces");" target="_blank">> On Behalf Of Greg Roberts
Sent: 19 December 2018 4:17 PM
To: birding-aus <m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus");" target="_blank">>
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Red Goshawks caught and netted during nesting season A moment to respond to some comments about this thread relating to this story: Angus says I am wrong to claim that the Queensland Government has handed over responsibility for the project to Rio Tinto. He might wish to explain this Queensland Environment and Science Department comment to me: "...this project is funded and led by Rio Tinto. All questions can be directed to them." Yes, the results of research need not be immediately available, but basic information should reasonably be expected to be made public. For instance, how many birds have been caught or will be caught, or have died or are missing? The Department of Environment and Science won't say. Rio Tinto won't say. As for animal ethics approval, it seems this is freely granted. It was given, for instance, for the netting and tagging of a Night Parrot in Western Australia last year; that critically endangered bird and its mate promptly disappeared. David says there are more important issues to be concerned about. Indeed. Like the fact that Rio Tinto is strip-mining tens of thousands of hectares of potential Red Goshawk habitat on Cape York. <HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> m("birding-aus.org","Birding-Aus");" target="_blank">
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
-- John Leonard
Canberra
Australia
www.jleonard.net ‘There is kinship between people and all animals. Such is the Law.’ Kimberley lawmen (from Yorro Yorro)
--
John Leonard Canberra Australia www.jleonard.net‘There is kinship between people and all animals. Such is the Law.’ Kimberley lawmen (from Yorro Yorro)
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
