Any matter that has relevance for referral to the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act 1999, is referred to as a Matter of National Environmental Significance (NES), and this triggers the need for an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

The flow chart as to the process after lodgement of the EIS, can be found here 

Why do mainstream economists still insist on using out-dated and highly flawed methodologies to value non-market goods, namely the environment, when in many cases there is market evidence, such as the many Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes conducted around the world? (see previous post Tasmania Forest Conservation Fund).

One of the recent developments in this field has been the use of ‘benefit transfer’, which uses economic data captured at one place and time to provide inferences about the eco-value at another place and time. Mainstream economists claim proprietary rights over Continue reading →

Curtis NRA was a member and the convenor of a consortium including KPMG and SEMF Tasmania, to deliver the Tasmanian Forest Conservation Fund on behalf of (DEWHA) Australian Government in 2006-2007. The program was a market based incentive (MBI) program, by open tender (reverse auction), and was widely advertised and communicated to landowners in all of the 9 bioregions of Tasmania.

Results were initially suppressed, but have recently been made public by a joint private sector/Government presentation. 28,900 hectares were secured under covenant, at a cost of $35 million. The gross median unimproved capital value (UCV) of land in all of the 9 bioregions in 2006-2007 was $2620/ha.The money paid by the Federal Government represents $1211 per hectare, or just over 46% of the UCV, which was very cost effective for Govt. However, the value of the ecological goods and services provided by the forested land secured, and protected, would be in the vicinity of AUD$5.45 million per annum ($189/ha/pa). This figure represents a net social benefit of 15.6% per annum to the taxpayers of Australia, or nearly three times the average 10YR Australian Government Bond Rate.

IF, perchance just IF, Australians haven’t yet woken up to a full understanding of their Fracking future, and an understanding of what the full extent of the possible calamities of being fracked over by a number of multi-national corporate household names, read on here

In brief, fracking has been most vigorously criticised for the damage caused by its waste water, which contains carcinogens such as benzene and radioactive elements such as radium. Some of these chemicals are in the secret cocktail of liquids injected in the well; others come up naturally from underground. These toxins have regularly polluted rivers, streams and lakes. Some are endocrine disruptors, and have been scientifically shown to stunt growth and human reproductive capacity.

SO TELL THE MINERS TO FRACK OFF. IT IS YOUR CHOICE, GO TO ARBITRATION. IF EVERY LANDHOLDER GOES TO ARBITRATION IT WILL CLOG UP THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR DECADES.

When is a dedicated Nature Refuge in Queensland not a dedicated Nature Refuge? When it can be devastated by open cut coal mining. But only so long as a commensurable offset is put in place and dedicated as a Nature Refuge, which could then also be mined, if another offset is put in place and dedicated as a Nature Refuge. Which could also be mined, but only provided a commensurate offset is put in place and dedicated as a Nature Reserve! And so on, and so on. Er, are you following me? Check out the Queensland Governments Offset Policy See

‘Ecocide’ is a new term to describe the willful destruction of natural assets, such as forests, landscapes, habitat, native flora and fauna. It includes the introduction of threatening processess such as hydraulic fracking. The concept has been the subject of a mock trial in London. See here

Under this scenario, the clearing of any native habitat for whatever purpose, would constitute ‘ecocide’ and the offender (including the CEO) could be convicted of a crime against the Earth.

Michael Roche, Executive Director of the Queensland Resources Council pointed out on ABC RN Breakfast this morning the problems with open cut coal mines on floodplains, namely the sedimentary basins on the east coast of Australia, as all the voids are left open after mining ceases. Floodwaters end up in the pit, and become highly saline. The sedimentary basins also represent by far the majority of the best farmlands on the East Coast. Recent heavy rain in the Central West of NSW including road closures is a case in point, where coal miners have no choice other than to pump it out into the creeks and rivers. High nutrient levels in rivers causes eutrophication, growth of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and the excessive growth of plant life, thus reducing the available oxygen available for other life including fish.

ABC Radio National ‘Breakfast’ discussed the worth of the Travelling Stock Routes in NSW and Queensland this morning (14th December 2011), which  are a valuable conservation resource, quite aside from their practical use. Comment was made that the price of agisting cattle on these routes is commonly 3% of the UCV (unimproved capital value). However, this author maintains that the value of the flow of ecological services provided by the 3.2 million hectare ‘Long Paddock’ is more like 9% of UCV, or $236 million per annum based on the contribution (%) provided by an open forest.