Environmental offsets (was Re: [canberrabirds] preservation of birds and the sale of Block 9, Section 64 North Watson)

[Denis Wilson <>]

Thanks to the various contributers on the subject of Environmental Offsets
(sale of Block 9, Section 64 North Watson).

As an outsider to the ACT I was surprised at the intial comments in this thread from David McDonald which included this quote: "We run the risk of trading something irreplaceable for the short term development gains with the mirage of having a good conservation outcome in the future through the activities of the offset." Because it was in quotes, i still do not what position David actually holds on this issue.

To all COG Chatline Readers i would say that if you look across the NSW border, and even worse, look into Qld and Victoria, such trade-offs are becoming exactly how "business" is being conducted in Australia. Remember Tony Abbott's declaration on Election Night, that "once again Australia is open for business".

The EPBC Act is being gutted, by handing back the decision-making powers to the States (to the very Agencies who are pushing the developments which destroy forests and rivers and groundwater). None of this will be "news" to David Lindemayer who is still working to protect the endangered Leadbeater's Possums in Victoria, which are threatened by the skilful and deliberate inactivity of VicForests (which failed to created the necessary Species Recovery Plan required under the EPBC Act). Without such a plan, VicForests cannot be held to implement the necessary Plan to assist the species ot recover. Catch 22 par excellence. 

In the case of this North Watson development, from what I understand, Simon Corbell is just as likely to agree to any development proposal which he can "spin" as good for the workers of the ACT (his "mates" from the CFMEU).

And Geoffrey Dabb's comments illustrate precisely how these death-by-1000-cuts proceed. Apply strict conditions initially, then let the developer appeal them, and then claim something is unsafe, and get the whole case overturned on grounds of public safety. Right this week, schools across NSW are having huge and critical habitat trees removed because Arborists have been asked to certify that huge old trees are "safe" (which nobody can reasonably be expected to declare), since a little girl was killed by a falling limb from a big old tree in a suburban school ground in Sydney.

Fear and greed are working together to condemn countless thousands of trees in NSW schools, because, ultimately no arborist will dare to declare any large tree to be "safe" or not a public risk. 

These are the forces at work in this case too (mostly greed, it seems).

I totally support Mark Clayton's comments about these offsets being used to take us all for a ride. That is exactly the case the huge Whitehaven Coal Mine in Narrabri region where Leards State Forest is being "offset" with stringybark forest from high on the range in New England - totally different habit, physically remote from the forest on the plains in question.

I hope somebody in the COG Committee considers officially supporting Megan's excellent case.

Denis WIlson

Robertson NSW 2577

Denis Wilson

Are you amongst Greg Hunt's "increasingly hysterical environmental activists"?
If not, why not?
The Great Barrier Reef decision of 31 January 2014 is a travesty.

"The Nature of Robertson"
www.peonyden.blogspot.com.au

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Mark Clayton <> wrote:

I have said for a long time that COG was being “had” by the ACT Government with all this off-set nonsense. As Lia has said we can’t give anything as an off-set if there is nothing to give, we need to save what we now have. Heaven help us when the Liberal Party next gets in to office after the comments by their environment spokesperson on “feral” Koels. I have seen reports by Alistair Coe that we have too much bush around Canberra!! Go figure .....

 

Mark

 

From: Geoffrey Dabb [
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 5:07 PM
To:
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Environmental offsets (was Re: [canberrabirds] preservation of birds and the sale of Block 9, Section 64 North Watson)

 

I would add that conditions about tree retention are worthless.  For a development near here it was a specific condition that 11 mature yellowbox trees be retained.  The buildings were constructed hard up against the trees.  Official permission was later given for severe lopping of the trees on the ground they were a danger to the occupants.  Then permission was given for total removal on the ground the trees were unbalanced and sickly.  

 

From: Martin Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2014 4:56 PM
To: David McDonald (personal)
Cc: COG List
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Environmental offsets (was Re: [canberrabirds] preservation of birds and the sale of Block 9, Section 64 North Watson)

 

I don't like the analogy.  

 

The Mona Lisa is unique and can't be reproduced (so perhaps is OK as an analogy for offsetting a fossil bed which can't be replaced).  With something like a patch of grassy box woodland its more like a Damien Hirst work, where with enough money and care (and waiting a while) the same (living) artist can produce an effectively identical replica.

 

The real problem comes when instead of getting Damien Hirst to reproduce the work in question (for a few million bucks) someone just ducks down to the fish market and comes back with a $10 Flathead.  And the 'decision maker' signs off on the deal.  IMHO that is a better analogy for what seems to have arisen in the case quoted on Background Briefing where an area of stringybark has been offered up as an offset to some high quality white box country.  

 

The real problem is not that the developers have tried to pull a swifty - that's just business as usual - but that the Minister has agreed to it.  Being extremely optimistic he will get punished for this in the next election.

Martin Butterfield

http://franmart.blogspot.com.au/

 

On 26 March 2014 16:31, David McDonald (personal) <> wrote:

Background Briefing 16 March 2014: The trouble with offsets http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-03-16/5320906
quote
I'll say it's a furphy. To me it is akin to some guy going into that art gallery and pointing at the Mona Lisa on the wall and saying sorry mate we need that bit ... so the Mona Lisa has to go. But we will paint you another one.
We run the risk of trading something irreplaceable for the short term development gains with the mirage of having a good conservation outcome in the future through the activities of the offset.
unquote

David