Polly Higgins, a London Lawyer, has devoted her practice to only one client: The Earth!
Her process diagram to the left establishes credibility for a derived value approach to ecosystem goods and services, which are the ‘commodity’, of the ‘inert thing’, being Real Property (LAND).
See here
All states in Australia, and the Commonwealth, operate their reserve systems under the CAR principle (Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative), that is to say that the selection of nature reserves, National Parks, and State Conservation areas, are made on the basis that the ecosystems and species types selected are NOT already Comprehensive, Adequate or Representative in the Nature Reserve System.
Loss of ANY reserve for individual financial gain, or Govt royalties, is SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE, as they can be neither replaced nor replicated.
The SLOSS debate emerged in the mid 1970s and continued into the mid ’80s (SLOSS is an acronym for ‘single large or several small’), referring to the choice preference of one large conservation area over several small fragmented conservation areas, for long term viability and of preservation of genetic stock . Unfortunately the current policies of the State governments over the minerals rights on private and public land is causing increased fragmentation of both conservation areas and adjoining land. Read about the SLOSS debate here Continue reading
I guarantee, after reading this, you will be scratching your head: What the …..?? Is nothing sacred?
Case Study: The Galilee Coal Project (known as the First China Coal Project), located near the town of Alpha in Central Queensland.
Environmental Impact: If it proceeds, the project will result in the virtual destruction of Bimblebox Nature Refuge in the Galilee Basin, Central Queensland.
Preamble: ‘Bimblebox’ was purchased with funds amounting to $286,000 provided by the National Heritage Trust of Australia (NHT), as a grant; with the condition in the Agreement that the land be dedicated in perpetuity as a Nature Refuge under both State and Federal law. See Continue reading
Boggabri Coal have got an open-cut pit full of water, stopping mining for a considerable period. Accordingly, they have applied for a permit to pump it out to the Namoi River.
Clearly, if they go ahead, this will need close monitoring, as sulphidic minerals are found in nearly all geological environments, including sedimentary rock (and associated with coal seams). Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is the greatest negative impact of any disturbance of the subsoil and regolith. Sulphidic minerals (notably Pyrite FeS2) are oxidised on exposure to air, and then rainfall causes acidification of the oxidised pyrite to form sulphuric acid (H2SO4). In its simplest form, this chemical reaction is as given here: Continue reading
And it is about time we had some evidence of this. The customary landowners in the Middle Fly region of the Western Province of Papua New Guinea were awarded PNG Kina 225.2 million (about Aus/US $95 million) for the degradation of their traditional land, and trespass. The tribes and villagers rely completely on the ecosystems goods and services extant for their livelihood, lacking any social security system in PNG. Curtis NRA expert evidence was critical in the final award of damages. See
Depending on your point of view, hydraulic fracturing of natural gas is either a blessing that will help provide new sources of energy for the coming century, or an environmental curse that threatens water and air quality in communities across the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. Both sides in the debate agree on one thing — natural gas reserves stored in subterranean shale formations are extensive. But beyond that proponents and opponents of fracking hold widely divergent views. See
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 to the OECD. 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.