With the resignation of Professor Penny Sackett the Chief Scientist with effect Friday 4th March 2011 my attention was drawn to the post and the previous occupant Dr Jim Peacock AC. Under the auspices of the Howard Government Peacock was made responsible in 2007 for establishing an Advisory Panel of experts to assist him in compiling a report on the Gunns proposed Pulp Mill in Tasmania:
www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pulpmill
The Australian Government’s assessment of the pulp mill was carefully crafted to a set of defined environment matters “The Commonwealth marine environment and threatened and migratory species.”
Air quality, emissions, odour, transport and coastal marine impacts were exempted, being the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government. Lumber supply to the pulp mill and forest management issues were dealt with under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, being administered for the Australian Government by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; these matters were also exempted from the Terms of Reference.
It is completely wrong therefore for Tasmanian politicians to state that the mill is compliant; it is still critically non compliant as assessed by the RPDC but legal, thanks to Lennon, as none of these matters have been addressed in this State except by unqualified State Politicians.
The then Federal Minister, Malcolm Turnbull’s Terms of Reference for the Chief Scientist were:
“The Chief Scientist will undertake an assessment and review of the scientific aspects of the Department of the Environment and Water Resources’ recommendation report and relevant supporting documentation and public comments on Gunns Limited Pulp Mill proposal (EPBC 2007/3385) in Tasmania.
“The Chief Scientist will prepare advice to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. This advice will include the Chief Scientist’s opinion of the likelihood of significant impacts on the three areas of Commonwealth responsibility; listed threatened species and communities; listed migratory species; and likely impacts on the Commonwealth marine area.”
The Panel of experts appointed by The Chief Scientist found that aspects of the submitted preparatory biological and hydrodynamic assessments for the mill were inadequate and as a result, the construction and operation of the mill poses some residual risks and uncertainties in the areas of Australian Government jurisdiction.
These problems could be overcome by strengthening the conditions by the use of six additional elements encapsulated in the following way.
– An integrated Environmental Impact Management Plan (EIMP) that will strictly prescribe all actions relating to EPBC Act matters;
– An independent panel, drawn from national and international experts, to oversee the design, implementation and monitoring of the pulp mill;
– An independent inspector, appointed by the Australian Government, to monitor Gunns compliance;
– Extensive modeling and monitoring of the environment, including in sentinel species, to ensure any unforeseen impacts on the environment are detected quickly;
– Specific remedial changes to pulp mill processes and operation in the event specified trigger points to any part of the environment are breached; and
– A guarantee that, if maximum limits for effluent discharge are reached and cannot be reduced within stipulated timeframes, the pulp mill will cease to operate until tertiary treatment of effluent is installed
• The EIMP will cover all the requirements for the operation of the mill considered to impact on the matters of Australian Government jurisdiction.
• The terms of the EIMP must be met to the satisfaction of the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources.
• The EIMP will be set up in three categories dealing with the development of the pulp mill – pre-construction, construction and pre-commissioning.
• The actual operation of the pulp mill will be dealt with in two categories in the EIMP – ongoing monitoring and remedial and response strategies.
• In the EIMP Gunns must describe the specific changes to mill processes and operation they would undertake in the event that specified trigger points are reached such that unacceptable impact is likely. If necessary, the pulp mill will cease operation with the retrofitting of effluent tertiary treatment.
• Some conditions of the recommended EIMP will need to be fulfilled prior to any construction of the mill and the associated water supply and effluent disposal pipelines. Other conditions of the EIMP will require actions during construction but prior to commissioning.
• A monitoring regime must be established that includes baseline and ongoing measurement of pollutants in the water column, in sediments and in biota.
• The effluent discharge from the operation of the pulp mill must be continuously monitored and sampled on at least a daily basis for a range of key pollutants.
• All the trigger levels and maximum limits for effluent discharge, together with agreed response strategies and timeframes, must be approved in the EIMP before the pulp mill enters its commissioning phase.
Will the office of Chief Scientist continue to play any part in the supervision of these elements, or is that degree of independence now considered political dynamite?
With the recently implied suggestion that the joint venture partners are APRIL and APP supervision becomes important. PulpWatch.org lists worldwide only three critically non-compliant mills around the world, Hainan Jinhai (APP), Jambi (APP) and Riau Andalan (APRIL) all three are run and owned by these potential Gunns joint venture partners.
I ask, did the resignation of Dr Peacock’s replacement as Chief Scientist, Professor Sackett, occur as a result of a volte-face by the Federal Labor Government, for in this matter her Office went from hero to zero on the very day that the now delayed Commonwealth Gunns Pulp Mill Announcement was to be made?
For further reference see webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2008 An interview between Wooley and Prime Minister Howard over the pulp mill and the Chief Scientist. This puts in perspective the thinking of the Liberal Government and the place of the Chief Scientist in conducting the review of the Gunns Pulp Mill.
John Hawkins
cc: [email protected]
Matthew Denholm, The Australian:
GUNNS is offering new concessions to try to woo opponents of its $2.3 billion Tasmanian pulp mill, including an independent panel of experts and locals to monitor its operations.
The timber company last night told The Australian it would set up an independent reference group of Tamar Valley residents and mill experts to monitor the plant’s emissions and operations.
As well, a 40 per cent reduction of chlorine emissions and a guarantee not to feed the mill with native forest woodchips would be enshrined in amended federal permits likely to be announced on Thursday.
Gunns managing director Greg L’Estrange said the improvements — urged by green groups and mill opponents in private talks — were aimed at addressing local opposition to the project.
He pleaded with locals to give the company a fresh chance to prove itself.
“We can move away from some of the emotion that people have put out there . . . or we can stay anchored in the past,” he said. “We want to comply with the most rigorous environmental standards. We want to move forward.”
Mr L’Estrange, who has presided over a shift in Gunns’s operations out of native forests towards plantations only, said the mill community reference group would be funded by the company.
However, it would be completely independent, with access to information about the mill’s operation, and the company was open to suggestion about who should sit on it.
“It would have a balance of experts and locals and would provide a forum for transparency,” he said.
But the company rejected suggestions from green groups that the panel had powers to shut down the mill’s operations in the case of emission limit breaches.
He said this was the role of the regulator, the state Environmental Protection Agency, and that if this agency was not trusted, then this was a matter for the state government and Tasmanians. Gunns wants support for the mill to be part of an agreement being hammered out between green groups, unions and industry to end the 30-year conflict over logging of native forests in Tasmania.
The federal broker of the forest talks, former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty, yesterday met anti-mill groups in the Tamar, as well as leading mill opponent, gardening guru Peter Cundall.
Mr Cundall said they informed Mr Kelty that opposition to the mill at the current site was stronger than ever and that compromise was not an option.
“We left him with our even firmer resolve to carry on the fight,” Mr Cundall said.
Full Matthew Denholm story HERE
What Lara told ABC Radio …
No new approval process for Gunns mill
Tasmania’s Premier has ruled out a new approval process for Gunns’ proposed pulp mill in the state’s north.
Lara Giddings acknowledges there is a crisis in confidence in the process set up to assess the Tamar Valley mill by a previous Labor government.
But she said a new process would not sway some people’s opposition to the project.
“I don’t think their views would change, even if you started again,” she said.
“We’ve also had a process, a long process now, one that’s gone over many many years with a lot of checks and balances put in place.
“This is not just about the State Government, the Australian Government has had to approve this pulp mill as well.”
Lucy Landon-Lane;
Bill Kelty meets with representatives of local community groups
A number of representatives today met with the facilitator of the roundtable forest peace talks Bill Kelty. Members of Pulp the Mill, WAG (Wilderness Action Group), Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT), and Friends of the Tamar Valley met in Rowella to discuss various issues regarding the Pulp Mill and the Statement of Principles.
“We have met with Bill Kelty and had an open discussion, but we want to make it clear that this was not a conciliatory meeting and that we are still in total and complete opposition to Gunns’ proposed pulp mill,” said Lucy Landon-Lane of Pulp the Mill.
“We have made it clear to Mr Kelty that this pulp mill will never get a social license, and that we will not stop fighting this battle. The Tamar Valley community will not negotiate on this. We want cessation of all logging in high conservation value forests, but not at the expense of a pulp mill.”
Community concerns regarding the pulp mill and Statement of Principles are:
– the effect of the effluent on the marine environment and marine mammals, especially the protected Australian fur seal
– ongoing logging in high conservation value (HCV) forests despite the signed agreement
– the effect of a Tamar Valley pulp mill on tourism and business investments in the area
– the issue of threatened and protected species being affected by logging in HCV coupes, especially Tasmanian devils and quolls
– the fact that this pulp mill will never have a social license
– the issue of effluent and air pollution from the pulp mill negatively impacting on human health
Mr Kelty’s interim report on the forest peace talks will be released on Thursday.
EARLIER ON TASMANIAN TIMES
Richard Flanagan:
To agree to this mill is to say to everyone in Tasmania—every politician, every businessman, every citizen—that in the end might is right, that the only law is the dollar, and that the corruption of our public life is not only acceptable but the only way to get anything done in Tasmania.
If we are ever to escape the hopeless cycle of environmental destruction subsidised by our taxes leading into yet another financial crisis, we need government by politicians engaging with the very real issues that confront Tasmania with a sense of responsibility to the people, rather than servitude to Gunns bottom line as their only purpose.
Not the cake Lara Giddings, in a Marie Antoinette moment, described Gunns mill as, but the bread of real government.
Not the cake Lara, the bread of real government … HERE
Bob McMahon, The Key Questions for Gunns to answer:
b>Key questions:
1. Will you submit your proposed pulp mill project for a complete and independent assessment?
2. Will you ask the State Government to rescind Section 11 of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007?
3. Will you offer to buy out property and business owners affected by your proposed pulp mill as did Visy with its Tumut mill in New South Wales?
4. Will you publish the FSC Gap Analysis results including Corrective Action Requests affecting pulp mill plantation feedstock?
As you will be aware, two thirds of Tasmanians have consistently opposed your planned pulp mill and, unlike the State government, TAP research has documented the issues driving public opinion. Logging in high-conservation value forests is merely one of many issues. A short list of issues with your pulp mill proposal is given below for your information.
Plantations wood supply and forest management issues
• Sickness in rural communities caused by exposure to aerial spraying of plantations.
• Burning of high quality timber in coupes.
• Basic human rights overridden by Private Timber Reserves.
• Failure of self-policing of forest regulations and accountability.
• Impact of plantations on food production.
• Reduced water quality and quantity in catchments with large plantations.
• Community disenfranchised on forest management issues that impact on their health and jobs.
• Diversion of taxpayer funds to Gunns and forestry interests at expense of social services, e.g. health and education.
• Siltation of the Tamar river; approximately half of silt comes from forest operations.
• Harm to health and reduced life expectancy from forestry burnoff smoke.
• Habitat destruction; one of the highest in the developed world.
• Loss of landscape heritage due to logging.
Pulp mill issues
• Section 11 of the PMAA 2007 contravenes basic human rights to access the courts for compensation for harm caused by the pulp mill.
• Lack of independent assessment of Gunns’ proposal which was ‘critically non-compliant’ according to the RPDC.
• Failure to address issues of odour impact on health, businesses and amenity within the RPDC’s 55km wide odour impact zone.
• Loss of approximately $2 billion in property values in the Tamar valley.
• Safety risks from artificial pulp mill fogs enveloping the East Tamar Highway combined with ‘one a minute’ log truck and heavy vehicle movements.
• Loss of existing jobs and investments in businesses that will be displaced by the planned pulp mill and its plantation wood supply. These include tourism ventures, wineries, organic foods and fishing that depend on a clean green image.
