׉?ׁB!בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://-uiBetjiixWCSqVMW1XDyjXT1wElUKrPkhUaOQ04OXkݝ` ׉ 7cassandra://YLDj0dVVWPchv940ybayvDA3XorM82aRuV0yY1FolfA~`S׉ 7cassandra://0qqCTYQhRHqXkViJLvUMXhvtadWaIWzcLwI4mPMyirA%`̵׉ 7cassandra://wNRmVu-ksGx3_o5HDZkIktGtc4g38D9WiT9DoqwEFckH͠W[7kaט{u׈׈EW[7ka׉EFrom Paris with love REDD now the ‘Cinderella’ of the broader Sustainable Development agenda Inside EPBC Act Reform—improving our national environmental law Technical Contents See back page Bulletin Issue No 27, 2016 ׉ 7cassandra://0qqCTYQhRHqXkViJLvUMXhvtadWaIWzcLwI4mPMyirA%`̵W[7kaɁW[7kaȁ{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://2K7frITk1Je8c3kIWMYeEk-xo7ux7UrG4gn75Dku4cU` ׉ 7cassandra://Pnzk-yoTCvMOuOyiL3qzH9OF4dNoTrgbLjItk_qU3vc͇`S׉ 7cassandra://ON0kaiHpnpb4OXEtNsoQ0GdywFlnRKiNtRwMJgwQtGg%U`̵׉ 7cassandra://bvvWnWFMEsgHA-Sl4VEmxOIlqHEVh-fiewcCNfY_n9M,|͠W[7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://M1DeZIHNAtnZPEoj1scOWduBq_H2rKYdDtXvSRTuxAo;h` ׉ 7cassandra://qXiNldjRE6geD1xPATwzH5Zo1IkbpXUjGMchjBljm6gm=`S׉ 7cassandra://yNlFTPtOOro9qlMmqiQFen8Z673ZdrofsofzaZgA0CM`̵׉ 7cassandra://xf3m0_GOryof2imgEbKJYN19woFZ3GinwmoRnntE2lskG8͠W[7kaˑנW[Y7kaP 9ׁH"http://hsi.org.au/go/to/25/climateׁ ׁ Ј׉EwAs the climate change dust settles after the remarkable success of the Paris UNFCCC meeting at the end of last year that adopted a globally inclusive ‘Paris Agreement’, it’s clear that REDD has been overtaken by the broader sustainable development agenda. While all the elements needed to establish a REDD mechanism have finally been put in place by the meetings from Cancun in 2011 to Paris in 2015, it was a sustainable development mechanism—and not a REDD mechanism—that was established in the Paris Agreement. That sustainable development has now taken centre stage in the minds of the international community is a wonderfully positive thing for improving the lot of poorer people in poorer countries—but it does not bode well for the fate of the countless other species with whom we share this planet. REDD now the ‘Cinderella’ of the broader Sustainable Development agenda Following Paris, we’re trying to persuade the Turnbull Government to come up with a joint Environment/Foreign Affairs initiative that would keep faith with both the Paris Agreement and the original intent of REDD—to keep faith with Australian public support for saving tropical rainforests by seeking out and supporting those sustainable development initiatives that include elements of protecting intact natural forests. We’ve been suggesting that such an initiative would fit well into attempts to improve diplomatic relations with neighbouring Indonesia, especially by making more assistance available to help reduce forest peat fires—a huge air pollution problem of local, regional and global significance. ‘REDD’ stands for ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries’—the decision of the Bali UNFCCC meeting in 2007 to set up an international mechanism to facilitatepayments tocommunities within developing countries to support them in choosing low carbon development pathways that included keeping and protecting their remaining natural forests. Unfortunately, while ‘saving tropical rainforests’ was (and remains) publicly popular in many developed countries,makingithappenonthe groundindevelopingcountries remains a challenge. This comes asnosurpriseasestablishedvestedinterests, especially industrial wood users directly interested in continuing forest degradation, strongly resist such moves. stocks. This was formalised at the 2011 Cancun meeting where this broader scope became known as ‘REDD+’ covering all manner of land management to put carbon back in the landscape, not just protecting the carbon already accumulated in natural forests. The story of the rise and decline of the REDD mechanism is set out very well in a 2016 Guide for UNFCCC negotiators produced by the NGO, Vertic. The address for downloading the Guide is: http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/Publications/VB26.pdf See box for the Paris Agreement text of Article 5 and part of Article 6.Notethat Article5describesREDD+butonlyencourages individual states to ‘take action’ whereas Article 6 formally establishes ‘a mechanism to contribute to mitigation of green - house gas emissions and support sustainable development…’. Saving remaining intact forests is still an eligible activity under the new mechanism but it’s nobody’s priority. Shying away began as soon as the ink dried CIFOR, the Indonesia-based Centre for International Forestry Research (the forestry node of a major net - work of international agricultural industry research centres, CGIAR) has been one of the main drivers of this ‘old is new’ approach to forest management. They have just issued a new ten-year strategy, ‘Stepping up to the new climate and development agenda’, that seeks to interpret the UN’s As a result, it has become much easier to get broad agreement to restore degraded areas than to prevent degradation of remaining intact areas in the first place. Governments are thus open to charges of impropriety and hypocrisy—they allocate taxpayers money in the name of saving rainforests but actually spend it on something else. This process of shying away from the hard job of protecting natural forests began as soon as the ink was dry on the 2007 Bali decision such that, when the Copenhagen meeting rolled round in 2010, the scope of REDD had been expanded to embrace: not only a) Reducing emissions from deforestation; and b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation; but also c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks; d) Sustainable management of forests; and, e) Enhancement of forest carbon Sustainable Development Goals in line with its ambitions for the management of the developing world’s forests: “CIFOR’s research will assess the goals and scope of private sector-driven sustainability standards and commitments— including certification, zero deforestation and legal supply initiatives. Our main focus is on agricultural and tree-crop commodities whose expansion places significant pressure on forests (e.g. oil palm, sugar, soy, beef), and on those with the potential to improve smallholder’s livelihoods (e.g. cacao, coffee, rubber).” “We will work on three main research streams in forest landscape restoration: (i) increasing the sustainability of restored forests; (ii) balancing interests in multi-scale, multi-actor forest restoration and use; and (iii) enhancing ecosystem service supply using forest landscape restoration through better processes of prioritization and socioecological mapping. (p.25)” 2 ׉ 7cassandra://ON0kaiHpnpb4OXEtNsoQ0GdywFlnRKiNtRwMJgwQtGg%U`̵W[7ka׉EAnd their key performance target for ‘Forest management and restoration’ is “CIFOR’s research contributes to the restoration of 30 million hectares of degraded forests (including 1 million hectares in peat-swamp forests and mangroves)” (Our emphasis on ‘restoration’). Sadly, certified legal, deforestation-free logging is still as destructive as ever it was. This isn’t just CIFOR. There is a dangerous consensus emerging around forgetting about the impacts of industrial logging in degrading intact forests while priority is given to stopping deforestation and restoration. As we know all too well in Australia, at the landscape scale, clearfelling and re-establishment in the name of socalled sustainable forest management is all but indistinguishable from deforestationand restoration—leavingusfrustratedandbemused as to why folk aresohappy togoaftermajorindustrial commodities like oil palm, sugar, soya beans and beef but seem scared to similarly go after wood. Congress in Sydney later in 2014 which Australia then parlayed into the Global Rainforest Rescue Initiative launched in the margins of the Paris climate meeting. In response, HSI has joined an initiative called ‘IntAct—a small band of environmental NGOs trying to remind the world that there’s not much intact forest left in many parts of the world and holding onto what’s left is an urgent priority—for both biodiversity conservation and carbon store protection. Today, we’re but a small voice in the wilderness, but … People seem scared to go after wood As one would expect with this undue focus on deforestation at the expense of forest degradation, a 2015 FAO Report noted that, while emissions attributable to deforestation might have gone down by 25% from 1990 to 2015, emissions attributable to forest degradation (mainly logging of intact forests) have doubled. Meanwhile estimates by leading scientists on which the UK’s Prince of Wales’ International Sustainability Unit based its 2015 This reluctance to take on the industrial wood commodity trade, despite its destructiveness, has been emerging for some years. In 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests first clearly articulated this ‘stop deforestation—restore degraded landscapes —ignore protection of intact forests’ agenda. This refrain was then picked up by the Australia-led Asia-Pacific Rainforest Rescue Initiative adopted in the margins of the World Parks Report, ‘Tropical Forests—A Review’, indicate that emissions from tropical forest degradation, alone, are now more or less equal to emissions from deforestation—at about 1 gigatonne/year of carbon each. Remarkably, combined emissions from forest clearing and logging amount to an incredible 20% of total global emissions from all sources, including burning fossil fuels. It makes no sense to ignore such a big part of the problem. UNFCCC Paris COP Agreement, Articles 5 and 6 Article 5 1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests. 2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, noncarbon benefits associated with such approaches. Article 6 (part only) 1. Parties recognize that some Parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity. 2. Parties shall, where engaging on a voluntary basis in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity and transparency, including in governance, and shall apply robust accounting to ensure, inter alia, the avoidance of double counting, consistent with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement. 3. The use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to achievenationallydeterminedcontributionsunderthisAgreement shall be voluntary and authorized by participating Parties. 4. A mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development is hereby established under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement for use by Parties on a voluntary basis. It shall be supervised by a body designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, and shall aim: a) To promote the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions while fostering sustainable development; b) To incentivize and facilitate participation in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by public and private entities authorized by a Party; c) To contribute to the reduction of emission levels in the host Party, which will benefit from mitigation activities resulting in emission reductions that can also be used by another Party to fulfil its nationally determined contribution; and d) To deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions. Alistair Graham and Peg Putt represent HSI at UNFCCC negotiations, focussing on the finalisation and implementation ofREDD. HSI has been involved in climate and forest talks before and including the UNFCCC Bali Road Map meeting. Our work includes the establishment of the global Ecosystem Climate Alliance and production of eight climate change and forest Special Bulletins tabled at various UNFCCC sessions, downloadable at: hsi.org.au/go/to/25/climate-change 3 ׉ 7cassandra://yNlFTPtOOro9qlMmqiQFen8Z673ZdrofsofzaZgA0CM`̵W[7káW[7ká{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://biGPhOmLI9MYxULbZ3NBbA9hYxGdBtjce-ifC7jdEDw` ׉ 7cassandra://maMxVi13BJXjcq6th8e4dBqd_FXBU4w2HXmmii1yD8Az`S׉ 7cassandra://Y8Ow6I26drnNUzCw7vdhCCc5K6wIe2PBrZWGgSOQG2M `̵׉ 7cassandra://m-0VPVyE7K2Q8--BEgDyzQsYFF6SmtSgYACEineOae86͠W[7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://YxeXbBRY63-FsjXaM2KWa3RCjHrYaVCEG0f8gIp5QrA` ׉ 7cassandra://lYhfRLTy4q280GJz91HtRn4H76n5eScJ3ACzM7BWc5sv`S׉ 7cassandra://MqAWZkse9XsP0VO4z6J-e7dhHvOBDgLvbKaIWs9LgXo!`̵׉ 7cassandra://e8lfHS12rA5xO4YToiBPzj3ncLwG6uOTG9If18E2J1o P͠W[7kaϑנW[Y7kaA 9ׁHqhttp://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/265207/Tasmanian_Greenhouse_Gas_Accounts_Final_Report_2012ׁ ׁ Ј׉E9From Paris with Love continued HSI has prepared briefings for all political parties in anticipation of the coming Federal Election. In summary, some of our key ideas for incorporating into policy (by everyone—not just by Federal and state governments but by local governments and individual landholders, too) are: A comprehensive approach to emissions reduction is needed Action is required in all sectors to achieve the ambitious goal of restraining human induced climate change in line with the Paris Agreement to keep global warming well below 2 deg. C. This means that action in the land sector must be taken, additional to reducing fossil fuel use and to increasing the availability and use of clean renewable energy. HSI urges the reintroduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)—and we suggest that it be linked to the EU carbon price to start with. Pathways to ambitious targets start with fixing logging and clearing The land sector has a vital role to play in early action, offering substantial and immediate, once-off, emissions reductions for simply ceasing or restraining emissive landbased activities such as broadscale industrial logging and land clearing. Changes in the industrial and transport sectors are vital but take longer to swing into place because lots more resources need to be mobilised to make it happen. Therefore we urge governments, landholders, companies and the wider community—everyone—to find and choose emissions reduction pathways with explicit sequencing of actions, prioritises early action in the land sector, whilst complex transitions in other sectors are planned and executed. In this way, much more ambitious national targets can be met than if logging and clearing are not tackled first. The collapse of Gunns Ltd., the Tasmanian woodchipper, illustrates what can be done with this ‘early action in the land sector’ approach The Tasmanian carbon accounts show that, following the collapse of Gunns, the annual volume of native timber harvested in Tasmania dropped from 5.32 million m3 03 down to an estimated 0.63 million m3 in 2002in 201213, with the greatest decline experienced in the years since 2008-09 (the Gunns effect). There was a corresponding emissions reduction from 17.3 Mt CO2-e in 1990 to a mere 1.7 Mt CO2-e in 2013—an order of magnitude reduction. Aggregate emissions from the forest management sub-sector (emissions from logging minus sequestration from growing trees) decreased significantly, from a net emissions peak of 9.0 Mt CO2-e in 2002-03 to a net carbon sink of –7.9 Mt CO2-e in 2012-13. There’s more money in carbon trading than in industrial wood supply from native forests Had Tasmania’s emissions reductions from public native forests been planned and measures put in place to keep emissions below historical levels, the Tasmanian government could be making rather than losing tens of millions of dollars a year from forest management. It’s an eligible activity for the ERF, it’s just that no-one’s bothered to develop an approved methodology to support a proposal. And beware industry claims of significant carbon sequestration in harvested wood products to offset emissions from logging —they are dramatically overstated as only about 5% of logged Land clearing —undoing 20 years of achievement wood goes into long-lived product (with the lifespan for pulp and paper products estimated at about 3 year and at 15 years for medium-life products such as reconstituted fibreboards, plywood before stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere). Reduction of deforestation/landclearing also has an important contribution to make By restraining land clearing which is taking off again in many parts of Australia as States, especially Queensland, abandon earlier arrangements to reduce and restrain rates of clearance of woody ecosystems. These renewed clearances are currently adding substantially to Australia’s emissions while also destroying important, often threatened, terrestrial ecosystems. This resurgence of landclearing is undoing twenty years of good work since the original Kyoto Protocol was ratified by Australia and, unless fixed, will make it hard for Australia to adopt ambitious emissions reduction targets in line with global commitments. There’s a need for methodological development to support a ‘domestic REDD’ policy To make it clear and explicit that Australian landholders, municipalities or States choosing to adopt their own planning arrangements to reduce emissions by protecting native vegetation can receive carbon credits to sell into the current ERF—or into a reintroduced ETS. This requires a planning framework to be introduced that can transparently show that overall emissions have been reduced within the area controlled by the landholder, local government or State. This addresses the important issue of leakage (making sure emissions reductions in one place are not simply offset by emissions increases in another such that the landholder, municipality or State makes no net contribution to national or global emissions reduction). Biodiversity co-benefits are big Capturing the biodiversity co-benefits by requiring best practice conservation management will contribute to other important environmental goals and assist Australia to implement existing conservation strategies and to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Safeguards to ensure that actions taken for climate mitigation and adaptation do not damage ecosystems are also a requirement of the Paris Agreement. This is designed to ensure carbon conservation does no harm—but there are magnificent opportunities to get win-win outcomes. It is also important to note that intact natural ecosystems have greater resilience They are more likely to survive the climate changes we all face. Maintaining and restoring intact natural ecosystems is a key climate change adaptation strategy. This is an important contribution to the permanence of such gains in emissions reduction and ongoing sequestration— giving people confidence that payments given for maintaining carbon in the landscape are not going to be wasted should future degradation occur. 4 ׉ 7cassandra://Y8Ow6I26drnNUzCw7vdhCCc5K6wIe2PBrZWGgSOQG2M `̵W[7ka׉E>States and local governments should be encouraged to put aside any revenues from sale of any carbon credits they receive, as a result of any regulatory frameworks they adopt that deliver such emissions reductions, into trust funds for making long term stewardship payments to any landholders subject to that regulatory framework who adopt and implement management plans that include biodiversity conservation as well as emissions reductions. This is to help landholders meet the costs of implementing those plans. Those trust funds would be open to take additional contributions from any sources—government budgets, product levies, philanthropists or other private sources. Purchasing of ‘quality’ REDD foreign credits Australia should open its existing ERF—or ETS should it be reintroduced—to the purchase of quality REDD foreign credits. This can—and should—be done immediately. The idea of ‘quality’ REDD foreign credits is to ensure the focus is on proposals that reduce emissions by protecting intact forests and rewetting drained peat—inevitably identifying our neighbours, Indonesia and PNG, as a priorities. Indonesia desperately and urgently needs large-scale help to contain its peat fire problems while PNG landholders are probably up for buying out the entire logging industry if money distribution can be sorted out—and, here again, a trust fund could be key. TheAustraliangovernmentshouldstartapproachingdeveloping countries that are either already ‘REDD-ready’, or could become so readily quickly, witha viewtonegotiating bilateral arrangements to allow Australia to ‘recognise’ agencies issuing and/or entities selling credits in the other country. This is the other half of the process for identifying ‘quality’ credits —being confident that emissions reductions are really being made and maintained by the relevant landholder and jurisdiction. ALISTAIR GRAHAM AND PEG PUTT Burning wood for electricity is worse than using coal, oil or gas Burning native forest biomass should be removed from Renewable Energy Target eligibility It is to be much regretted that the Abbott government overturned the policy and practice of previous governments of all persuasions by adding native forest burning to the list of RET eligible energy sources. This was despite the Australian government’s March 2014 explanation of their then policy on excluding native forest bioenergy from the RET in their published response to the Climate Change Authority’s Renewable Energy Target Review: “Wood waste from native forests was removed from the RET as an eligible renewable energy source in 2011. This amendment was made to ensure the RET did not provide an incentive for the burning of native forest wood for bio-energy, which could lead to unintended consequences for biodiversity and the destruction of large intact carbon stores.” This rationale remains valid. Additionally, per unit of energy generated, emissions from burning wood are generally higher than those from burning coal let alone oil or gas. Just to be clear —burning wood for electricity is more polluting than burning coal, oil or gas. That wood is not a fossil fuel does not make it ‘good’. Burning wood derived from native forest logging does not belong in the wind and solar ‘renewables’ basket—it belongs in the ‘carbon emissions’ basket along with fossil fuels. Only dodgy emissions accounting rules can make it appear otherwise. Burning wood from a plantations can be regarded as ‘carbon neutral’ because today’s emissions can be offset against past sequestration in growing the crop for a net gain to the atmosphere—just like any other agricultural crop. Burning wood from native forests, however, is ‘carbonnegative’ because it involves destroying an existing carbon store and then having to wait decades, centuries or forever before ‘neutrality’ can be achieved. This time factor is crucial —if sequestration comes before emissions, there is a net benefit to the atmosphere, if emissions come before sequestration, the atmosphere suffers. Primary forest, Tasmania, Australia Photo: Kip Nunn Primary forest subject to clearcut logging, Tasmania 1Tasmanian Government, 2015, Tasmanian Greenhouse Gas Accounts: State Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2012-13 www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/265207/Tasmanian_Greenhouse_Gas_Accounts_Final_Report_2012-13.pdf 5 ׉ 7cassandra://MqAWZkse9XsP0VO4z6J-e7dhHvOBDgLvbKaIWs9LgXo!`̵W[7kaсW[7kaЁ{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://cLhJtlAwpxYb_rAnlp_iAm-Seh_bhZBDYOSLdvFJvnw` ׉ 7cassandra://DHIzXH7ubU0-iNJml9d9-uledIW6MBNwMZBF8zPte_k̈́`S׉ 7cassandra://qSHjubXm8O9Bn-SldcsJuEexBwgSbzt62SVM0UxjP7k% `̵׉ 7cassandra://q3dVC7_Ic8qN7UJFZUGEihw3pdT9-Qr1HNlqyxel_y0y!h͠W[7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://1E7JKEYmxLgzZz8KITtoTd4d_IPcsuIHxmTGn0-Y4CMM` ׉ 7cassandra://a-z0KoDuA8tcGP6nro6vfUU39NHADkEbsDfpPAo-Yng̀`S׉ 7cassandra://o_fb8n-vWXM3YufH3DYc1wD3vLLi8DuASqkcs9J1dw4$`̵׉ 7cassandra://bG6KjX7X___NXEuYLtUnUx1aRByBgel5BLUCHWU0PwEuk ͠W[7ka׉EpCOURT WASTED NO TIME BUT JAPANESE ARE TAKING NO NOTICE MINKE WHALE Balaenoptera acutorostrata November 2015, the Federal Court of Australia fined a Japanese whaling company $1 million for breaching an order requiring it to stop whaling in theAustralianWhale Sanctuary*. Despite this landmark win, the company announced in December that its shipswere headed to the SouthernOcean to start the 2015/2016 summer whaling season under Japan’s controversial new ‘scientific’ whaling program. It’s likely the company will kill whales in the Sanctuary. HSI’s legal counsel James Hutton and Jeremy Kirk SC with HSI’s Michael Kennedy and EDO NSW Solicitor Stacey Ella What is the significance of this case? How can the whaling continue despite the Court’s decision? And what effect does this decision have? About the case In November 2015, the Federal Court of Australia found that Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (Kyodo) was guilty of four counts of contempt of Court. Kyodo had breached a 2008 order of the Court requiring the company to stop whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary (the Sanctuary) off the coast of Antarctica. EDONSW, on behalf of our client Humane Society International Australia (HSI), presented evidence to the Court that Kyodo had whaled in the Sanctuary in four separate whaling seasons since it was ordered to stop in 2008. The Court accepted our evidence, and fined Kyodo $250,000 for each of the four seasons in which Kyodo breached the 2008 order. What is the significance of this case? This case is legally significant for a number of reasons. First, it is the first time that a fine has been imposed in contempt proceedings brought to protect biodiversity under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Cth). Second, it is the largest fine in any contempt proceedings in Australian history, and the largest fine ever imposed in Court proceedings under national environmental law. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the decision establishes a legal precedent for future biodiversity protection cases. Companies or individuals who might contemplate similar breaches of court orders under the EPBC Act or other environmental protection legislation will now be aware that the Court views such breaches to be very serious and will hopefully be deterred from committing such breaches. The Court imposed the fine on the day of the hearing. It was completely unexpected that the Court would find in our favour so quickly and deliver a decision on the spot. What effect does the Court’s decision have? In December 2015, EDO NSW arranged for the contempt orders to be served on Kyodo—this involved having the orders and evidence delivered in person and also by post to Kyodo’s offices in Tokyo, Japan. The court ruling in November was the result of an 11 year fight for HSI and EDO NSW. Now that this significant milestone has been reached, what happens next? Generally speaking, enforcing an Australian court’s decision outside of Australia is difficult. In this case it is extremely difficult for a number of reasons. *Japan has killed 330 minke whales this season so far in Antarctica. 6 EDO NSW SOLICITOR • STACEY ELLA Though the Australian government has a claim over territories in Antarctica, which allows it to make laws to protect whales in the Sanctuary, Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim over those territories. The Australian government has also signed an international treaty stating that it will not enforce its claim over its Antarctic territories against any other country, including Japan. As Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim over these Antarctic territories, it also does not recognise the Australian laws protecting whales in the Sanctuary. The effect of this is that Kyodo, as a Japanese company with permits for whaling issued by the Japanese government, does not recognise the Federal Court’s jurisdiction over the Sanctuary and is likely to continue to disregard the orders of the Court requiring it to stop whaling in the Sanctuary. Despite these difficulties, we are seeking further advice on behalf of HSI on possible alternative enforcement measures. The international context It’s important to note that the Federal Court’s fine is not related to a decision made by the International Court of Justice in 2014 that Japan’s whaling program is illegal. In purely legal terms, the whaling program is not illegal under international law. That’s because after the International Court’s decision, the Japanese Government simply changed the wording of its agreement on its obligations to theCourt—the agreementnowexcludes ‘any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea.’ It also relabelled its whalingprogram,though in substancethe programremained the same. This rewording prevents any further disputesonJapan’s whaling program from being brought before the International Court of Justice. A growing voice of condemnation Despite the whaling program continuing, the $1m fine is an important milestone in our long-running legal battle. The Federal Court’s decision sends a strong message to the Japanese Government and the international community—it reaffirms the Australian legal position in the ongoing international condemnation of Japan’s ‘scientific’ whaling program. Note: HSI has asked EDO to determine whether there are potential opportunities under international law to recoup the $1 million fine from Kyodo. EDO is in turn seeking the advice of experts in Admiralty law. HSI also continues to provide the Commonwealth with advice on opportunities to pressure the Japanese Government over perceived violations of CITES and IWC rules in relation to cetaceans. HSI will attend the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC-66) in Portoroz, Slovenia in October 2016 to pursue the Japanese Government and whalers. ׉ 7cassandra://qSHjubXm8O9Bn-SldcsJuEexBwgSbzt62SVM0UxjP7k% `̵W[7ka׉EVCLEVER SCIENCE REVOLUTIONISES WOOL INDUSTRY Photo: Dr Jim Watts Merino sheep were originally ‘plain-breeched’, with no wrinkles or wool on their buttocks. But the Vermont Merino Rams introduced from America in 1883 had folds of skin along their perineal region to increase surface area and yield more wool. Unfortunately, the arrival of a major new fly species (Lucilia cuprina) causing ‘fly strike’ which coupled with Australia's warm climatic conditions gave wool producers a serious, ongoing problem. Then in 1931 a South Australian sheep farmer named Mr John Mules developed the mulesing operation where wrinkly skin aroundthe breech area and tail is removed using a knife and usually no pain relief. Although many farmers were repelled by its apparent cruelty, the majority adopted the method due to its success at preventing strike. Cruel and illegal The procedure is not common in other sheep farming countries and illegal in most. In Australia it has become standard practice, but with hefty animal welfare implications associated with it, the wool industry is now under pressure to change its ways. Numerous studies over the years haved searched for alternative methods for fly strike prevention, but a cost effective solution is yet to be adopted. Sheep farmers are now finding themselves under pressure to produce wool from un-mulesed sheep as consumers are becoming more aware of the cruelty aspects and Australia is losing market share for not addressing the problem. Recently a petition has been backed by some 70% of the world’s wool processors calling for pain relief to be made mandatory when mulesing is carried out. Lower prices are also being offered for wool from mulesed sheep. Around 20% of Australian lambs are given pain relief (Tri-Solfen) however many are concerned this provides an inadequate level of pain relief. Farmers claim there are no alternatives for their sheep. Fortunately, there is a simple solution that could revolutionise the Australian wool industry following years of research by veterinarian and former CSIRO scientist, Dr Jim Watts. The fact that the typical wrinkly skin of Merino sheep are more likely to get struck than ‘plainbodied’ sheep means that through genetic selection, sheep can be bred which are resistant to fly strike. Genetic selection producing disease resistance Through careful genetic selection, animals can be bred that do not require mulesing—this approach has already been adopted in every Australian state using the Soft Rolling Skin or SRS system developed by Dr Watts. And contrary to industry criticism, this genetic solution can produce plain-bodied disease resistant sheep within five years, sometimes as rapidly as just three years. “These mules-free Merino sheep are already out there in largenumbers and are naturally resistant to all forms of flystrike, including the most severe and challenging body strike outbreaks during wet summers. Genetically there is not Buyers and retailers are voting with their order books a problem in reaching the five year goal. The problem I come up against is persuading Merino wool producers that genetically, there is not a problem,” said Dr Watts. Hecontinues, “There is no reduction in wool quality and quantity, in fact we have observed improvements, and definitely the environmental fitness and fecundity of these animals have improved.” Currently 7% of Australian wool is produced without mulesing and unfortunately the culture adopted by most Australian wool farmers to maintain mulesing as their go-to solution against flystrike is strong. However, if the wool industry does not act fast there’s a severe risk that buyers and retailers will go elsewhere in the world to avoid the welfare related issues associated with Australian wool. HSI is working with Dr Watts to develop Responsible Merino Sheep Standards specifically for the Australian environment. The techniques which are set to make up these standards have already shown impressive results— not only can they produce mules-free, plain-bodied sheep, they can also eliminate the need for tail docking, improve heat, humidity and cold tolerance, improve productivity and feed conversion efficiency, make for easier shearing and more. Ground-breaking Australian ingenuity These ground-breaking genetic techniques would revolutionise sheep farming by eliminating the need to perform any painful techniques, thereby advancing the welfare of Australia's Merinos immensely. HSI works directly with fashion houses to build the market 1,200 farms are already working with Dr Watts and their sheep are producing 2 million kilos of wool each year. We plan to work with him to get as many Australian wool farmers on board as possible over the coming months. HSI has also beenworking with high street fashion companies such as H&M to pursue industry-wide policy change such as national legislative bans on cruel farming practices, including mulesing, live-plucking and force-feeding. HSI will be bringing five major European wool buyers to Australia later this year to secure deals for this cruelty-free product that will enable them to put wool back on the catwalks. HSI PROGRAM MANAGER • GEORGIE STEWART 7 ׉ 7cassandra://o_fb8n-vWXM3YufH3DYc1wD3vLLi8DuASqkcs9J1dw4$`̵W[7kaՁW[7kaԁ{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://P2xo32IVKrWS-25yZXGqv_kc1lCQbmQ6_yWo8VtY064Dw` ׉ 7cassandra://YX__a1Lf9iKdLtTCph16ECGID8WOqwkElYlf8JxxInox`S׉ 7cassandra://PswGGk_YdOZhAa00kjUnhEvgel8l8mgm3ocV6UOBpQ8"`̵׉ 7cassandra://MLFk1VJzYvWdPij8KoUauLQ3uLePbjO9H88S_yoN6Es V͠W[7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://OkdlMBAumcSYWqobef0Famhp5Ycq_RWc7-f70w_nuTM` ׉ 7cassandra://4qutTG7EuEaydlvSoh8Qm8DmaXXLehxr2U11vr3GnoAn8`S׉ 7cassandra://xniKPCMkHR-F2wP-6IYZwfKQzZfrU3sVM8nPyO7Oido`̵׉ 7cassandra://JzumtQjdbSU4E3DgETvqil4G_XCZMelJsq5HLTubhaA-͠W[7ka׉EHSI SUPPORTING ZAMBIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: 500 BABOONS RESCUED YELLOW BABOON Papio cynocephalus In late 2015 HSI travelled to Zambia to visit three import wildlife conservation programs we have supported for some years. In particular, we were keen to see the Zambia Primate Program in action in Kafue National Park. Having committed resources to the project in 2012 in co-operation with the Born Free Foundation, we wondered how else we could help a program that has rehabilitated over 500 yellow baboons (Papio cynocephaus) and vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus). Cosmas Mumba and his team in Kafue National Park As their project briefing papers outline, ZPP was, “Established by and with on-going support of the Born Free Foundation (BF), the Game Rangers International (GRI) - Zambia Primate Project (ZPP) is one of Africa’s most established and successful primate release programmes. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate injured, orphaned and illegally held vervet monkeys and yellow baboons for release back to the wild. Primate survival rate 6 months post release currently averages a remarkable 95%. The great majority of primates that ZPP rescues are victims of the growing bush meat trade in Zambia. The mothers are slaughtered for their meat, and their babies sold into the illegal pet trade. As the babies grow and develop sharp canine teeth they are held captive using short, tight ropes tied around their waists and tormented and harassed by people and village dogs. Others are found injured in poachers’ wire snares or stoned when they come into conflict with people in the villages. Dr Cheryl Mvula, ZPP Senior Technical Advisor says “Our project is achieving outstanding success in returning rescued ex captive primates back to the wild. All but one of our 2013 vervet release troop survived 6 months post release, which is really heartening”. Deep into Kafue With colleague and wildlife artist David Southgate (who taught rangers and local school children how to draw baboons and painted two school huts with giant baboons for an upcoming field crew visit) HSI’s Michael Kennedy travelled to the remote bush fly camp deep in Kafue NP, where they were greeted by ZPP Project Manager Cosmas Mumba. From this very wild and spectacular location, ZPP, together with a Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) armed scout, they have continued to monitor a sub-group of rescued baboons that were released in 2014 into Kafue NP. To facilitate the radio-collared monitoring program, ZPP set up a temporary fly camp far into the bush close to the baboon troop territory, enabling the primates to be reached each day on foot when the project vehicle was not available. Cosmas Mumba tells us that, “At least one member of our team and a ZAWA armed scout have been permanently based at this fly camp 24/7 throughout the last 3 months to conduct daily health checks and collect focal research on individual troop members, recording their behaviour and successful adaptation from captivity to a truly wild life.” Cosmas also said that the team was “especially delighted” that the sub-group had now attached itself to a wild group and were now fully integrated, with all the baboons in great condition, and he was confident that the troop will continue to thrive when ZPP monitoring ceases at the end of October 2016. 8 Last year, Cosmas was one of three finalists in the prestigious Tusk Conservation Award in the UK and travelled to London for the event, where he met with HRH Prince William who supports the award process. We congratulate Cosmas for the international recognition of his world-class conservation success. Running with free-roaming baboons in one of Africa’s biggest wilderness parks is quite an experience, and HSI has been very pleased to provide resources to the ZPP to buy new tents and equipment* for staff and rangers to make their lives a little more comfortable as they continue to protect Zambia’s remarkable wildlife heritage. HSI also visited Sport Beattie, CEO of Game Rangers International at their very impressive ZAWA Special Anti-Poaching Unit Head - quarters, and Rachel McRobb, CEO of the South Luangwa Conservation Society (now Conservation South Luangwa) based at Zambia’s famous South Luangwa National Park. This highly effectiveNGOworks with the Zambian authorities to protect the Luangwa Valley undertaking a wide range of anti-poaching activities. HSI has been providing modest financial support to the Society for the past few years. It was also planned to visit with Robin Lines, working with the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (University of Kent) on their ‘Landscape Connectivity Program at the Kafue-KAZA-TFCA Interface’ (Okavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area) but time and distance got in the way. The program, with some support from HSI, is seeking to expand wildlife managed areas, combatting risks associated population isolation, while promoting sustainable and resilient wildlife-based land uses across vast landscapes increasingly impacted by climate change. The project is providing critical evidence-based management support on the status and species level response of large carnivores to human disturbance between Kafue National Park and adjacent wildlife managed areas in Namibia and Botswana, at the heart of KAZA-TFCA. VERVET MONKEY Chlorocebus pygerythrus Equipment purchased 5 x Tentco Senior W (one for each ZPP staff member + the ZAW 1 x dining shelter (to serve as an office); 1 x lar (storage for food and non-weatherproof equipment); gr bases enclosed by wooden plank edgings, slightly ele protect against flooding; sturdy ground sheets t life; shade cloths to cool tent interiors. Remaining r to be used for solar panels to charge camp equipment. HSI DIRECTOR • MICHAEL KENNEDY ׉ 7cassandra://PswGGk_YdOZhAa00kjUnhEvgel8l8mgm3ocV6UOBpQ8"`̵W[7ka׉EPROTECTING A GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT QUOKKA Setonix brachyurus December 4, 2015: Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt signed off on the final—and arguably most significant —Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) to be listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) in 2015. The Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt became the 7th EPBC Act TEC listing or uplisting made in the year, with HSI playing a key role as the nominator of all but one. The woodlands’ Critically Endangered listing, proposed by HSI in 2011, saw our successful legislative habitat protection campaign become responsible for more than a third of the TECs listed under the EPBC Act—a figure set to increase with eight of the 13 communities currently under assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) triggered by HSI nominations. The Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt are one of the most severely battered habitats in Australia, a condition which, while concerning anywhere, is more so when considering they fall within one of just 35 global biodiversity hotspots identified by Conservation International (based on the pioneering work of Professor Norman Myers*). Largely fractured and largely gone Over 950,000 hectares of the woodlands exist in a largely fractured state across three key wheatbelt subregions totalling 13.5 million hectares of land in Australia’s southwest—an area where, pre-European settlement, they are thought to have covered an astonishing 6.35 million hectares. This estimated clearing rate of 85% has been primarily driven by agricultural industries and is so severe that the TSSC assessment of HSI’s nomination found that the woodlands met four of the six criteria for a threatened listing with two at the Critically Endangered level. Only 8% of the EucalyptWoodlands oftheWestern AustralianWheat - belt are protected to some extent within formal conservation tenures, while nearly another 150,000 hectares are under ownership of private conservation organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and Bush Heritage Australia. Formerly unprotected now formally secure This demonstrates a clear and urgent need for greater legislative protection and means that HSI’s scientific submission, prepared with Dr Judy Lambert of Community Solutions, has resulted in around 725,000 hectares of formerly unprotected Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt significantly benefitting from this EPBC Act Critically Endangered listing. The heavy historical clearing of vegetation for agriculture, which occurred over several decades, directly contributed to the highly threatened status of many endemic plant species and additionally led to a rising saline water table, creating a huge salinity problem. Much of the region has been geologically undisturbed for tens of millions of years, over which time ocean salt accumulated in the soil of the landscape after being deposited by rain. When native vegetation was cleared and replaced by crops, the saline water table rose leading to salt scars in the landscape and threatening remaining vegetation. Located in a landscape with a stable climate, a rich biological diversity has thrived in Southwest Australia and the evolution of an astonishing range of highly unique species has been facilitated. This has led to the EucalyptWoodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt providing umbrella protection for at least 87 species already recognised as nationally threatened through EPBC Act listings. Benefitting all The woodlands’ gazettal will lead to a number of recovery actions that benefit all of these species being identified and implemented. Among the threatened species are iconic animals such as the greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis), numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus), quokka (Setonix brachyurus), chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii) and woylie (Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi), as well as birdlife including malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and forest red-tailed (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso), Baudin’s (Calyptorhynchus baudinii), and Carnaby's (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) black cockatoos. The Woodlands also provide habitat for the tiny nectar and pollenfeeding honey possum (Tarsipes rostratus), which is the only member of its Family. The astounding range of species that inhabit the EucalyptWood lands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt underlines the critical need for their protection and the importance of this EPBC Act listing. With the impacts of new threats such as urbanisation ongoing, focusing on protecting and restoring the woodlands’ remnants is essential and fortunately well-suited to a range of current Government initiatives. This latest HSI-prompted listing will help support the conservation intentions of farmers in the region and see funding for the community’s recovery prioritised—it is an essential, landmark step to fixing the damage of the past and securing the future of the region’s incredible fauna and flora. Page 11 features a table outlining current HSI nominations for species, habitats and Key Threatening Processes under the EPBC Act. *The Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt form a part of the global South Western Australia Biodiversity Hotspot. Professor Norman Myers first wrote about the Biodiversity Hotspot concept in The Environmentalist in 1988, with a revised analysis published in the journal Nature in 2000. 35 areas currently qualify under this definition with the Forests of East Australia recently designated as the 35th global biodiversity hotspot by Conservation International (in co-operation with CSIRO). In 2001, HSI gained a new biodiversity hotspots policy commitment from the Commonwealth Government that led to the identification of 15 national biodiversity hotspots (4 of the 15 within the SW-WA hotspot) and contributed to the purchase of 7 high conservation value properties covering some 1.3 million hectares. HSI SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER • EVAN QUARTERMAIN 9 ׉ 7cassandra://xniKPCMkHR-F2wP-6IYZwfKQzZfrU3sVM8nPyO7Oido`̵W[7kaفW[7ka؁{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://GdFIvEVGaZcTy59fHejM_nOa2YmHarPe8TRV5QVqto8` ׉ 7cassandra://QnbMB3CzdNpyHvCJeTvtSM-w1dsQ5BJl48_lUybmrhgYL`S׉ 7cassandra://QzGmq4P_4uiH_NnaOJ4AqW7F_SoVoFjgJ2PHaJhZhjQ`̵׉ 7cassandra://uemVeQHHpPe1SayYuUJ1B_XN8JdwienRVlXH9ePVoqQ͠W[W7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://DZn9LkdqTyRiXVN6KvZTV9TGe3iW5hNjWBPfLIiZ91w` ׉ 7cassandra://fYvnII85GOYOlu20HwlEILEoyjK1fhvEYTebKu5pddsR`S׉ 7cassandra://LqS9xLQ4BWncLeFeE3jooy3zTeK8Tf_XFMBXIyxoUnIy`̵׉ 7cassandra://wZE7RHvhkLsPERxh9oyKvNN0R-3JV7xqPOalXh6olGoG͠W[W7ka׉E #116°0'E 118°0'E 120°0'E 122°0'E ● Mount Magnet Mullewa ● ● Dongara ● Eneabba ● Morawa ● Three Springs Image: Matt White Jurien Dalwallinu ● Moora ● Wongan Hills ● ● Yanchep Beach ● Perth ● ● Kwinana ● ● ● Mandurah ● Rockingham Pinjarra ● ● Pingelly Corrigin Beverley Northam ● York ● ● Quairading Image: Brian Furby collection Norseman ● Kellerberrin ● Goomalling ● Wyalkatchem Merredin ● Southern Cross ● ● ● ● ● Margaret River ● ● Augusta ● Manjimup Mount Barker ● Denmark ● 0 25 50 100 Approx. kms ● Albany This map represents likely occurrence of the ecological community. At this resolution and scale many of data points blend together to give an artificial impression of larger intact areas than actually remain. In addition, when the quality of the vegetation is taken into account, the areas of protected ecological community will be fewer and even smaller. Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt ecological community Method: Likely to occur:Mapped 45 selected Beard Vegetation Associations and related System Associations map units from NVIS Source Codes (1). May occur:Comprises the IBRA sub-regions of Western Mallee, Avon Wheatbelt P1 and P2, Northern and Jarrah Forest (2); including the area east of the 600mm/yr isohyat (3) to these subregions. Legend Ecological community 'Likely to occur' Ecological community 'May occur' 116°0'E 10 118°0'E Source: Localities, 1:10,000,000 © Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia Roads, 1:10,000,000 © Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia Coastline and State Borders, 1:100,000 © Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia, 1990. (1) National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) Version 4.1, NVIS data and Major Vegetation Groups and Subgroups were compiled by ERIN, Department of the Environment, based on NVIS data provided by the State and Territory and Commonwealth organisations responsible for vegetation mapping and management, 2011. (2) Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) Bioregions, 1:250,000, contributed by State/Territory nature and conservation agencies, SEWPaC, version 7, 2012. (3) Mean Annual rainfall data, Bureau of Meteorology, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003. 120°0'E Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything containing herein. The map has been collated from a range of sources, with data at various resolutions. as received from the data suppliers. Produced by: ERIN (Environmental Resources Information Network) Department of the Environment Australian Government, Date mapped: January 2016 © Commonwealth of Australia, 2016 . N Ù 1:3,000,000 Projection: Geographic Datum: GDA 94 122°0'E Data used are assumed to be correct ● Kojonup ● Gnowangerup ● Jerramungup Bunbury Busselton Harvey Lake Grace ● Collie ● ● Wagin ● Katanning ● Ravensthorpe Esperance ● ● Newdegate 36°0'S 34°0'S 32°0'S 30°0'S 28°0'S 36°0'S 34°0'S 32°0'S 30°0'S 28°0'S ׉ 7cassandra://QzGmq4P_4uiH_NnaOJ4AqW7F_SoVoFjgJ2PHaJhZhjQ`̵W[W7ka׉E HSI species and habitat nominations currently under EPBC Act assessment or awaiting decision FPAL* Name Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) Coastal Floodplain Forest NSW, QLD Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest NSW Eucalyptus ovata woodland and forest TAS Mallee bird community of the Murray Darling Depression bioregion VIC, NSW, SA Poplar/bimble box grassy woodland on alluvial plains NSW, QLD Ridged plains mallee woodland SA, VIC, NSW The community of estuarine species dependent on salt-wedge estuaries of southern Australia SA, TAS, WA, VIC, NSW Warkworth Sands Woodland, NSW Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) Spectacled flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) Beekeepers-Lesueur-Coomallo Area and Nambung National Park WA Fitzgerald River Ravensthorpe Range Area WA Coral Sea Townsville Field Training Area QLD * Finalised Priority Assessment List Category Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Species Species Species National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage Commonwealth Heritage List Year 2014 2011 2013 2015 2013 2015 2012 2014 2012 2012 2015 2007 2007 2012 2009 Assessment Deadline 31/07/2016 30/09/2016 30/04/2016 31/10/2018 31/10/2016 31/07/2017 30/09/2017 30/04/2016 30/09/2017 30/09/2017 30/03/2017 30/06/2017 30/06/2017 30/06/2017 30/06/2015 HSI species, habitat and KTP nominations awaiting inclusion on EPBC Act FPAL, 2016 round Category Name Australia’s Antarctic Territory (AAT) / Australia’s Antarctic Whale Sanctuary (EEZ)* Barrow Island and the Montebello / Barrow Islands Marine Conservation Reserves* WA Cape York Peninsula** QLD Daintree Lowland Rainforest** QLD Great Western Woodlands of Western Australia*** WA Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre National Park and Elliot Price Conservation Park*** SA Simpson Desert (Dingo values)** SA, NT, QLD Banded Ironstone Formation (mallee and shrubland) Vegetation Complex of the Yalgoo, Coolgardie and Avon Wheatbelt bioregions WA Darwin sandsheet heath NT Tuart Woodlands in Western Australia Tasmanian Eucalyptus viminalis Wet Forest on Basalt Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) Dingo (Canis dingo) Spotted Wobbegong shark (Orectolobus maculatus) Border Ranges lined fern (Antrophyum austroqueenslandicum) The cascading effects of the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian landscapes Alteration to the natural flow regimes of watercourses and their floodplains and wetlands Death or injury to marine species following a capture in the lethal shark control programs on ocean beaches Originally submitted: * 2005; ** 2006; ***2007 National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage National Heritage Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Ecological Community Species Species Species Species Key Threatening Process Key Threatening Process Key Threatening Process 11 ׉ 7cassandra://LqS9xLQ4BWncLeFeE3jooy3zTeK8Tf_XFMBXIyxoUnIy`̵W[W7ka݁W[W7ka܁{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://jGsGzTWezOK7-3Jcn4Jba_SbVFWrVOqbeZAD-E3Ocisu` ׉ 7cassandra://Pot_alXg4xiQcTaBFgjhSUWhUqh7P1UieHQD3n90EH0a_`S׉ 7cassandra://lkKV1s_6gssrW1fkoRWZegnigrVc9Nuhda-WgjefxOo$`̵׉ 7cassandra://mjOAOBUSZMrKSmrjEGIBDiXu3bjU-y3edJGi1BZLa9U;͠W[W7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://-YLn9hgzzTAw0Sa-E0TlQfnAqc5ZZBSotI0n-TaOMX4Cw` ׉ 7cassandra://ngxsj6xe9lKzsWtHmqiZOElOOxfhLvQi75rQbNDceiEc`S׉ 7cassandra://nGCx23jrvslfiZsqMmuS3-3aRsWgY9pqwrErDb4hgJ0`̵׉ 7cassandra://O083D1d3y0UXLtpfoS2MBbwOG2oUdkc6G1m5UCf31BA͠W[W7ka׉EwEPBC Act Reform: Improving our national environmental law The Problem The Australian Government’s regulatory reform agenda (to hand over federal environmental approvals to the States) has dominatedAustralia’s environmental policy narrative for the last 5 years. This complex and controversial reform has come to be known as the ‘one stop shop’, but would actually involve eight states and territories trying to do the Commonwealth’s job. Outsourcing approval powers for national environmental impacts has no clear public benefit, and potentially involves significant environmental risk. As the State of the Environment Report 2011 concluded: Our environment is a national issue requiring national leadership and action at all levels…The prognosis for the environment at a national level is highly dependent on how seriously the Australian Government takes its leadership role. Accordingly, Humane Society International (HSI) commissioned EDO NSWto suggest the key reforms needed to strengthen our national environmental law. The Solution Australia’s environment policy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) needs strengthening to better protect matters that are of national environmental significance. These recommendations provide a positive alternative to the entrenched negative policy agenda of recentyears. They also drawonseveral balancedandconsultative recommendations of the Independent Review of the Act in 2009 (Hawke Report). Our Top 12 Proposals for EPBC Act Reform The Australian Government should abandon the controversial policy to hand over approval decisions to state governments for impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). This is consistent with a large majority of expert and public opinion on federal responsibilities. Dropping the final and most concerning approval stage of the so-called ‘one-stop shop’ need not necessarily affect the assessment bilateral agreements already in place. Those allow states to assess impacts on MNES. But it is crucial that: • State laws are amended to require equivalent or better standards for assessment and public scrutiny (verified by independent review); • the Commonwealth retains the power to approve or refuse national impacts; and • the Government re-engages with stakeholders to consider alternative improvements to the Act. An independent statutory National Environment Commission should be established to: • Oversee the adequacy of assessment bilateral agreements and strategic assessments (see below) • Advise on national environmental policy priorities • Conduct and consult on State of the Environment Reports every two years, and • Work with government agencies to deliver national environment accounts by 2020. Strategic assessment processes under the EPBC Act should be strengthened. A recent increase in the use of strategic assessment (Part 10 of the Act) continues to emphasise ‘streamlining’ of project approvals, without the additional safeguards recommended in the Hawke Review. We support implementation of Hawke recommendation 6 to make strategic assessment processes ‘more substantial and robust’, including a ‘maintain or improve environmental outcomes’ test, and mandatory assessment of cumulative impacts of past, present and likely future activities. Enact a new trigger for federal oversight of major greenhouse polluting activities. Given the increasing need to bring Australia’s greenhouse emissions within a national carbon budget, the EPBC Act should require federal approval (or refusal), assessment criteria and conditions on projects with major greenhouse footprints. Enact a listing process and trigger for ecosystems of national significance. The Hawke Review (recommendation 8) proposed specific criteria for listing nationally significant ecosystems. These included high biodiversity and habitat values, critical ecosystem functions, connectivity between ecosystems, and resilience-building to landscape threats such as climate change. This is consistent with protecting biodiversity at a landscape-scale, promotes climate resilience, and allows nationally important ecosystems (such as wetlands) to be protected before they are threatened. Enact a new trigger for protection of the national reserve system by creating a federal safety net to assess significant impacts on national parks. 12 EDO NSW SENIOR POLICY AND LAW REFORM SOLICITOR • NARI SAHUKAR ׉ 7cassandra://lkKV1s_6gssrW1fkoRWZegnigrVc9Nuhda-WgjefxOo$`̵W[W7ka׉EHEnact a comprehensive land clearing trigger to conserve biodiversity, carbon and other benefits for landscape health. This could include 3 elements: • a trigger for clearing a certain scale of native vegetation (e.g. 100+ ha) in any two year period; • a trigger for clearing any native vegetation that is habitat for listed threatened species or ecological communities (at a minimum, listed critical habitat); and • a schedule of activities that would trigger the Act regardless of the hectares proposed to be cleared (for example, major coastal resort developments). The regulatory gap in relation to vulnerable ecological communities needs to be addressed. A central function of the EPBC Act is to require approval of significant impacts to threatened species and ecological communities. Sections 18-18A currently include offences to protect species that are vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered and extinct in the wild; and ecological communities that are endangered and critically endangered (but not vulnerable). The aim of listing is to prevent further decline and to promote recovery. While ecological communities can be (and are) listed as vulnerable, the current EPBC offence provisions do not in fact protect them from harm. Protecting vulnerable ecological communities is the missing piece in these offence provisions. This was identified in submissions to the Hawke Review (recommendation 14). A range of further measures are needed to update and strengthen processes and outcomes for threatened species, ecological communities and their habitats. This includes, but is not limited to, measures recommended in the Hawke Review. Renewed emphasis is needed on critical habitat protection for all listed species and ecological communities to promote climate resilience and avoid extinctions. The five-yearly review of Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) is a timely opportunity to improve the rigour, performance assessment and oversight of forestry. Conservationists and the Courts have documented significant under-performance of state forestry management accredited under the EPBC Act, and in some cases, ‘exceedingly low’ state penalties. The Hawke Review proposed that if independent RFA reviews are not completed in time, demonstrate serious non-performance, or reveal inadequate information, then the full range of EPBC Act protections should apply to those forestry operations (see recommendations 28-29). A hallmark of good environmental laws is access to justice, including public rights to seek review of decisions in independent courts or tribunals. The EPBC Act protects the national environmental assets of all Australians. It should therefore provide ‘open standing’ for any person to bring judicial review of decisions—to ensure that decisions are made according to the law. Conservation groups and other interested persons should also be able to seek merits review of certain decisions. For example: • whether a proposed activity is a ‘controlled action’ under the Act (and if so, the assessment method required), • the issuing of permits affecting nationally-protected species, • international movement of wildlife, and advice about whether an action would breach a conservation order. Finally, the EPBC Act should be updated to provide a range of protective costs orders for public interest cases. As the former High Court judge, Justice Toohey noted, there is little point in opening the doors of the court if litigants cannot afford to come in. The risk of adverse costs remains a significant barrier to the community bringing public interest cases under the EPBC Act (as distinct from cases protecting private interests). The Hawke Review also supported new protective costs orders and other access to justice improvements (see recommendations 48-53), but these have not been implemented to date. These 12 recommendations provide a positive reform agenda for any Australian Government that takes its environmental leader - ship role seriously. Enacting these reforms will demonstrate good faith in restoring national environmental policy to an even keel. The proposals would improve public confidence and stakeholder engagement for more efficient and effective national environmental laws. This is part of the solution to ready Australia’s environment and economy for inevitable change, now and in the decades to come. Note: EDO NSW provided HSI with comprehensive briefing notes on ‘Priority EPBC Act Amendments’ and ‘Improving Access to Justice, Community Engagement and Public Confidence’ (under the EPBC Act). These briefings were presented to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, the ALP Shadow Environment Minister, Mark Butler, Greens Leader Richard Di Natale and selected Independent Senators. All political parties were urged to support the introduction of an EPBC interim amendment Bill which would see the Commonwealth maintain approvals powers over Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and include a range of strengthening amendments suggested in the EDO briefing documents. The ALP has said that it will proceed with an interim EPBC amendment Bill and retain Commonwealth powers if it wins power at the coming Federal election. HSI also worked with the Places You Love Alliance (PYL) to prepare briefs on immediate legal reform needs and the shape and nature of required “Next Generation” national environment laws. 13 ׉ 7cassandra://nGCx23jrvslfiZsqMmuS3-3aRsWgY9pqwrErDb4hgJ0`̵W[W7kaW[W7ka{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://L876Yiq_vvr4j3xJz3sCy0b2RpHrlxXyOQf4FedByus(` ׉ 7cassandra://ihAyg0c3OCk9HeC0klFU3IgdT1WQ7CtUwwBpmQxDzq8Q `S׉ 7cassandra://BZxN48XkOxG6gIg9nUue3XbUfEM0pb8qiQAZUh8BoUkt`̵׉ 7cassandra://iHFWgdiEgUbdn4gnGvYNLhuE6usLPcc967HnfIaqn3oͤ ͠W[X7kaט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://sBOiCFlDzu5I3Fmq4GwFK75T6qzzvDeXV6_64-V5-eYb` ׉ 7cassandra://d6WmZD6t-T8RN6Z6FGcXN56nbgzuyp7aJhAUkPGCk1Mp`S׉ 7cassandra://N3YW2CHOJcMfXvUbMK-MDP0StR1OolUZvMWuUmQ5CJY"t`̵׉ 7cassandra://1hpDNlqa8BHToV5nbhTAf3HiBoWW0jIoIaGQuTf73cAv͍<͠W[X7kaנW[Y7ka\̭ 9ׁHhttp://wildlifelandtrust.org.auׁ ׁ Ј׉ESome of 2015’s Campaign Achievements Wheatbelt Woodlands Listing of the Eucalypt Woodlands of the West Australian Wheatbelt as a TEC under the EPBC Act (1 million hectares) Ironbark Forest Listing of Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Region as a TEC under the EPBC Act Sydney Woodlands Listing of the Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodland of the Sydney Basin Bioregion as a TEC under EPBC Act Hunter Woodlands Listing of the Central Hunter Valley Eucalypt Forest and Woodland as a TEC under EPBC Act Seagrass Meadows Listing of the Manning-Hawkesbury Posidonia Seasgrass Meadows as a TEC under EPBC Act Hunter Valley EPBC Act up-listing of the HSI-nominated Hunter Valley Weeping Myall TEC to Critically Endangered Sydney Shale EPBC Act up-listing of the HSI-nominated Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion TEC to Critically Endangered Coolac-Tumut Final listing of the Coolac-Tumut Serpentine Shrubby Woodland in the NSWSouth Western Slopes and South Eastern Highlands Bioregional as a TEC under TSC Act Hectares Ahead Expanding the Wildlife Land Trust program to 341 sanctuaries across Australia (added 50 during the year) Going International Addition of two Wildlife Land Trust sanctuaries in Peru and New Zealand Dollars Hard at Work Allocated approx. $300,000 to 51 wildlife sanctuary conservation projects (with colleague NGOs in the NSW Private Lands Conservation Grants Scheme) Humane Choice Continued expansion of Humane Choice accredited farm network Raising the welfare bar Further cemented national free-range egg and pork (Humane Choice) standards throughout Australia Caught telling porkies Following an HSI/Humane Choice complaint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) investigated misleading claims by pork producers Primo, Otway Pork and KR Castlemaine. The ACCC found that these companies were guilty of deceptive labelling and must now rectify their behaviour with labelling enforced to represent production standard. Working with Regulators Worked with ACCC to see successful outcomes to their court actions against egg/pork producers (including public admissions of guilt from major producers) No Fans of Fur Ensured all chain and department stores maintain their fur bans UNFCCC/REDD After a decade of work with colleague NGOs and governments, HSI played a key role in achieving successful forest outcomes from the UNFCCC/REDD+ agreement in Paris Ape Aid Maintained on-ground great ape conservation work in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Democratic Republic of the Congo protecting organgutans and Eastern Lowland gorillas Australians to a Fault Funded Australian vets to aid animal rescue efforts during the Nepal earthquake, in conjunction with the HSI global disaster teams International Oceans Progress After a decade of work with colleague NGOs and governments, HSI* helped action United Nations decision to begin negotiations for a new implementing agreement on Global Oceans Governance (*advisor, Aust. delegation) Protecting Birds and Fish Participated in global tuna and albatross treaty meetings and workshops promoting mandatory line weighting measures for seabird by-catch mitigation Whale of a Fine Federal court action (with EDO) against Japanese company for breaching court injunction against whaling in Australia’s Antarctic sanctuary. First time a fine imposed in contempt proceedings under EPBC Act; largest fine in a contempt case under environmental law Anti Trophy Hunting Successfully opposed approval of a Northern Territory proposal for export program based on trophy hunting of saltwater crocodiles Cecil Lives On Following killing of Cecil the Lion, HSI produced You-Tube video that went viral in Australia, helping keep Commonwealth firm on its lion trophy import/export ban Farming Threat Funded an EPBC Act challenge by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (with EDO) against farmer planning to destroy EPB-listed habitat/species (including HSI listed TEC) Sea Bird Protection Ongoing progress with albatross/seabird mitigation measures in Australia, particularly in trawling industry Protecting Sharks Keeping a lid on government responses to a number of shark attacks in NSW and elsewhere—avoiding a political shark culling program and highlighting environmental damage by shark nets and drum lines Opposing Fishy Plans Continued opposition to Fisheries Environmental Assessments under the EPBC Act being returned to Australian Fisheries Management Authority Fruit Without Firing Final implementation of a NSWGovernment flying fox no-shooting policy for fruit growers Flying Fox Protection Nomination of spectacled flying fox under the EPBC Act successfully accepted on the EPBC Act FPAL No Kangaroos in California Worked with HSI colleagues (Washington D.C. and California) to help prevent lifting of ban on kangaroo product imports into California Essential Predators Submitted an EPBC Key Threatening Process nomination for “the cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo cross hybrids from Australian landscapes” (await Commonwealth decision on prioritisation) Stopping One-Stop-Shop As a member of Places you Love Alliance, stalled implementation of Commonwealth’s ‘one-stop-shop’ environmental policy Final Trade Chapter Worked with HSI Washington and colleague NGOs in Australia to see finalisation of enforceable environment chapter in Trans Pacific Partnership agreement Must Try Harder Published a report card on governments’ performance with implementing Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010—2030, and prepared new conservation goals No Shark Culling Submitted EPBC Act Key Threatening Process nomination for “shark control programs” (await Commonwealth decisiononprioritisation) Dam Threat Submitted EPBC Act Key Threatening Process nomination for “dam building” (await Commonwealth decision on prioritisation) Vital for Victoria #1 Commonwealth EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Community nomination for Ridged Plains Mallee (Victoria) listed on FPAL Vital for Victoria #2 Commonwealth EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Community nomination for the Woodland and Heathland Bird Community of the Murray Mallee Bioregion (with Birdlife) listed on FPAL Around the World Continued to support projects in Indonesia (Sulawesi and Bali), India, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Tanzania; including for lemurs in Madagascar and freshwater turtle/tortoise in 12+ countries Major Project Support Allocation of nearly $700,000 to HSI-supported projects and major donor-preferred projects around the world. EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act TEC FPAL TSC Act 14 Threatened Ecological Community Finalised Priority Assessment List Threatened Species Conservation Act ׉ 7cassandra://BZxN48XkOxG6gIg9nUue3XbUfEM0pb8qiQAZUh8BoUkt`̵W[X7ka׉EThe Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) is Humane Society International’sglobalnetworkofprivatelyconserved lands. Initiatedby the Humane Society of the United States in 1993, it was launched in Australia by HSI in 2007 to preserve and protect our vital native habitats and the animals that depend on them. Working under the guiding principle of humane stewardship,theWLTprotectsbothvast, impressive landscapes and smaller, humbler places providing for wildlife, rare and common alike. Complementing HSI’s other habitat protection initiatives such as our Threatened Ecological Communities nomination program, Australia’s WLT network is thriving with more than 350 member sanctuaries and some 45,000 hectares. The program is voluntary and simple to join as there are no costs or legal obligations. Becoming a WLT member effectively just augments any arrangements landowners have on their properties, legal or otherwise. An exciting range of WLT initiatives are in store this year, including two focusing on assisting wildlife rehabilitators and helping promote sanctuaries that offer accommodation. We invite everyone with an acre or more of wildlife-friendly land and an interest in conservation to join our burgeoning network. Benefits of Wildlife Land Trust membership include: • The opportunity to talk about the invaluable work undertaken to protect important wildlife habitats through feature pages on our website and in our biannual Wildlife Lands newsletter; • Complimentary for-sale advertising on the WLT website and social media profiles to assist in finding a like-minded buyer for your property; • Free Wildlife Land Trust signage for your sanctuary to declare your membership; • Conservation funding opportunities through the annual Private Land Conservation Grants program (only available in NSW at present); • Lobbying assistance and advice on biodiversity issues should your refuge come under threat; and • Guidance on covenanting options throughout Australia to help further your conservation commitment if desired For more information or to apply for WLT membership visit wildlifelandtrust.org.au If you have a question or would like an information pack please call HSI on 1800 333 737. 15 ׉ 7cassandra://N3YW2CHOJcMfXvUbMK-MDP0StR1OolUZvMWuUmQ5CJY"t`̵W[X7kaW[X7ka{בCט{u׉׉ 7cassandra://lvcBE2cGyLVTZPI_EqphPvhTvSFq_YEqd8wuYcHIxJEC` ׉ 7cassandra://GyWnOmhq1fSvNay44tDNSdyMccFKNLYgKuX4LdelDlkZ%`S׉ 7cassandra://E3972je1idREC3ZJT_Wg7tEGOyF3PPnzGQBJ28J6Fqk`̵׉ 7cassandra://9skzGfQw04NqiuQjIr_8VC9j8n4zQ7x6IU5qGrjTQdA ^o͠W[X7kaנW[Y7kacc 9ׁHmailto:admin@hsi.org.auׁ ׁ ЈנW[Y7kac̉ 9ׁH http://twitter.com/hsi_australiaׁ ׁ ЈנW[Y7kacҁ̘ 9ׁH http://facebook.com/HSIAustraliaׁ ׁ ЈנW[Y7kacT 9ׁHhttp://www.hsi.org.auׁ ׁ Ј׉E'Technical Bulletin Technical Bulletin No. 27, 2016 Published by Humane Society International Australia PO Box 439, Avalon, NSW 2107 Australia www.hsi.org.au facebook.com/HSIAustralia twitter.com/hsi_australia admin@hsi.org.au +61 (02) 9973 1728 ISBN: 978-0-9944687-1-0 Printed on recycled paper ׉ 7cassandra://E3972je1idREC3ZJT_Wg7tEGOyF3PPnzGQBJ28J6Fqk`̵W[X7ka׈EW[X7kaW[X7ka{,%wlt_au: HSI-Technical-Bulletin-27.pdfWZ.