|
I'm sure there are others with a better, more
expert understanding of the mean of "endangered" in the context of "endangered
[xxx]", where [xxx] could be a type of woodland, or a species of bird, or
animal, or whatever the object of interest/concern is; but here's my two cents
worth!
First, the terminology really only has meaning if
it has so in some form of statutory instrument, so that - for example - if in
the ACT there is/should be some legislative or subsidiary statutory requirement
that when (by some well-defined process) a formal designation by a
governmentally established body of (say) "endangered box-woodland" has
been made (and defined for the purposes of the legislation, etc), then a
specific action must necessarily follow (such as, for example, "no box-woodland
in the ACT can be cleared" or "box woodland in the ACT may not be cleared
without the written approval of the minister for [abc]", or some other
"protective" action is triggered.
Normally, I would expect a formal "endangered
[xxx]" designation to apply not to a specific (ie individual) thing, but rather
to the class (or a well-defined subset) of all such things. Otherwise
you'd have the problem that Philip has raised, of natural or socially acceptable
loss or destruction occurring.
In other words, if the class (or a defined subset)
of all box-woodland areas in the ACT (however defined) were formally declared to
be "endangered", then there could be some form of statutory prohibition or other
protective action required - with some level of appropriate penalty or sanction
for failure to comply.
Outside of such a form of statutory management, I
think the "endangered" concept is meaningless.
As a matter of interest, our son recently acquired
a small rural property in NSW near Adelong, about 300 hectares in all, with the
majority of it subject to a formal conservation order which would (for example)
prevent the clearing or even (deliberate) partial loss of (say) any box-woodland
on it. As I understand it, the NSW government has designated such areas as
subject to conservation orders as a form of "offset" for the deliberate (and
legal) removal of equivalent areas of similar land/woodland in the construction
of official roads. (The turning of formerly single lane sections of the
Hume Highway in southern NSW into dual carriageway in recent years has
necessarily involved the clearing of considerable areas of woodland, hence the
application of the "offset" in that region).
In my example, that would mean (assuming the
principle of it is applied thoroughly!) that for every hectare of box-woodland
destroyed to build a road, a hectare of box-woodland on otherwise private land,
with no prior restriction on its use, would be designated as part of a
conservation area and thus become subject to some form of protective
regime.
Whether or not the practical implementation of such
a regime is effective - with good enforcement - is of course another
matter!
Regards.
Kevin Bray
| 