17/9/01

Hi there,

             Well the world has had a shake up this last week after the

events in the US.

Some of our latest news is we will be gradually bringing politicians and

others up to date with discussions from  News and Views in the next few

weeks, and

we will soon send everyone an article on how species in ecosystems work as a

basis for deciding what a landholders duty of care should be for biodiversity

for you to think about and reply to.

This edition has

(1) Walgett landholders withdraw from native vegetation planning

(2) Land clearing conditions to be attached to NHT Funding in Tasmania?

(3) Water rights in WA

(4) SA Weed expert says we need more funding to control weeds

(5) New national body hopes to help manage our rangelands

(6) Barrier Reef pollution must stop

(7) No harvesting overland flows in Central Qld

(8) Excerpts from Ian Mott`s viewpoint on ABC radio

(9) WA Politician is hoping a Landholders "Duty of care" position can be

addressed

(10) DRAFT AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY STANDARD SEEKS SUBMISSIONS

(11) More comments on Hill`s Firewood Strategy

(12) Costa Rica Pays incentives to protect forests for ecosystem services

(13) Deputy Prime Minister’s Address to the National Press Club

(14) Two email virus`s to look out for and delete without opening

======================================================

(1) Walgett landholders withdraw from native vegetation planning

There's a revolt underway in Western NSW, against the State Government's

handling of Native Vegetation management. After years of tortuous

negotiations, Walgett community members involved in the local committee to

develop a native vegetation policy, have resigned enmasse. Just a fortnight

ago, farm lobby groups demanded at a State Cabinet meeting in Dubbo, that

land and water management policies be overhauled. This follows threats from

the Bogan Vegetation Committe at Nyngan, to flout state government

regulations. Mr Amery is disappointed with the resignation saying that he

would prefer to see a majority/minority report rather than none. Mr Amery

says he will have to ultimately make a decision anyhow and would prefer the

input from the community.

(*In other words Mr Amery is saying the community can have any input view it

likes as long as it is the governments view)

=========================================================

(2) Land Clearing Conditions to be attached to NHT Funding in Tasmania?

Tasmanian environment and Landcare organisations are eighteen million dollars

wealthier today, with another round of Natural Heritage Trust grants. The

grants have just been announced on the banks of the Tamar River by

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr

Sharman Stone. Dr Stone used the occassion to criticise the Tasmanian

Government's failure to enact legislation to curb land clearing, and

suggested future federal funding could be tied to the passage of such

legislation

(* Senator Hill has also made similar veiled threats to Qld in the past and

the reaction by many central Qld Landcare members was that the loss of any

NHT money would not worry them at all especially since good timber management

will improve grass establishment, ground cover, the water cycle, and control

tree thickening and do far more for the environment than any NHT money will.)

==================================================

(3) Water rights in WA

A conference in Mount Barker today has just finished wading through the

complex subject of water rights. The Pastoralists and Graziers Association

conference has heard from a range of perspectives this morning, including

government, industry and international views. The PGA's Geoff Gare says they

have some concerns over the access and ownership arrangements in terms of

private property title. The organisation responsible for allocating water

rights is the Water and Rivers Commission and they were also invited to speak

at todays conference in Mount Barker. Manager of Resource Allocation Jeff

Camkin says the Water and Rivers Commission would like to move to longer term

licences. However Mr Camkin says it's important to ensure sustainable levels

of useage are known.

=====================================================

(4) SA Weed expert says they need more funding to control weeds

Animal and Plant Control Boards in SA are suffering from a lack of government

funding for weed control. Riverland Board Officer Phil Reddy has just

returned from a national conference on noxious weeds where he noticed a stark

difference between the amount of funding for weed protection in SA to that in

New South Wales. He says this lack of government interest in the weed

situation and greater focus on the more vote-popular salinity problem is

causing headaches in our regions. Mr Reddy says it's obvious that weeds are

not sexy and salinity is the big issue and the moment. He says there are 2.4

billion hectares affected by salinity and 3 billion hectares affected by

weeds in Australia and salinity gets 20 times more funding than weeds do. He

says it is harder to turn back the tide with weeds, but with salinity you can

come up with strategies to turn it around, even though it may be 100 years

before we see the benefits of it occuring in some situations.

===========================================================

(5) New national body hopes to help manage our rangelands

A newly formed national body is working to secure a vibrant future for

rangelands communities across the country. The group, Rangelands Australia,

is this week holding two workshops in Qld to work out what education and

training skills are going to be needed to help people manage the rangelands

in the future. Rangelands make up between 75 and 80 per cent of the country.

Among others, Rangelands Australia is an initiative of Meat and Livestock

Australia, and the University of Queensland. John Taylor, and Chair, Don

Blesing say there are a broad range of investors involved. John Taylor says

they are challenging people to think about the future and with that in mind

what will be the education and skills needed to make a difference in the

rangelands in 10 years time. He says they are focussing on rangeland

management and they are talking about 75 to 80% of Australia and that

includes grasslands, shrublands and some of the wooded areas of Australia

that are currenlty used for livestock production, but people are now looking

more at diversification with less impact on these areas of Australia.

========================================================

(6) Barrier Reef pollution must stop

A ten year deadline has been set to stop the pollution of the Great Barrier

Reef from agricultural land uses. In Brisbane yesterday, Federal Environment

Minister Senator Robert Hill released a scientific report that reveals land

use activities in catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef are affecting

the quality of water flowing into the World Heritage Area. The report shows

more than 80 percent of the Great Barrier Reef Catchment supports some form

of agriculture, and the run-off of sediment, fertiliser and chemical residues

are threatening the Reef, and its associated tourism and fishing industries.

Based on the report findings, the Commonweath wants to see a 30 to 60 percent

cut in the phosphorus, nitrogen and other pollutants flowing into the Great

Barrier Reef.

(* We would expect it is very important there is monitoring of sub catchments

as part of this situation so landholders can be given good information about

what sort of pollution (if any) comes from their sub catchment, so any

pollution sources are correctly discerned and false accusations are not

thrown around)

======================================================

(7) No harvesting overland flows in Central Qld

In what's been described by some as legislation by media release, the State

Government has introduced an overnight moratorium on overland flow water

developments in the Fitzroy Basin. The moratorium takes affect today, and

relates to the construction of dams, weirs, ring tanks, excavations,

diversion banks, channels, drains and pump installations. Initial reaction

from landholders in the region has been mixed, with current water users

pleased to see overland flows will be included in the overall water

management plan, while those with plans for development are concerned about

the likelihood that those plans will be realised.

=======================================================

(8) Excerpts from Ian Mott`s viewpoint on ABC radio  (*radio National invites

views from rural people as a way of communicating to the city about who we

are and what we think)

My Pop selected a hundred and thirty hectares at Mullumbimby NSW in 1922, but

it was no prize. It had 120,000 tonnes of timber which, today, would be worth

7.2 million dollars, but the compulsory clearing policy ensured that he got

nothing for it.

That young couple with 5 kids had to clear 80-thousand tonnes within 15 years

or forfeit their home and the entire product of their best years’ work.

The great depression came soon after.

His eldest son, my father, left school at the age of 14 and took the only job

available, scrub chopping. He lived alone in the bush in a canvas shack. His

job was to stay alive while felling one six foot giant before lunch and

another by sunset.

Since then we have regenerated native forest onto 70% of the property. Some

of it is now "old growth", but to us, it has always been just "our forest", a

family forest.

Family forestry is not a cause or a policy issue. It is a family destiny for

which sacrifices are made, in which loves triumph and wounded spirits recover.

(* I would love to see a TV program on the loads of stories like Ian Mott`s

family history. - In a similar vein two of my great great uncles spent their

whole working lives digging drains by horse and a half a yard scoop. These

drains are about thirty metres wide and 3 metres deep and total hundreds of

kilometres in length. They drained the excess swamps in the south east of SA.

Their contribution might be controversial today but in anyones terms their

efforts were awesome.)

=================================================

From Bernie Masters (WA MP)

(9) Hoping a Landholders "Duty of care" position can be addressed

Thank you for including me on the email address list for your

"Landholders for the environment" newsletter. I am learning a lot from

the various articles and you are raising many very important issues that

need to be resolved.

As a member of Parliament for the WA Liberal Party which is now in

opposition, I personally support the need for government to clearly

state what are the rights of landowners in terms of what they can and

can't do on their land. Furthermore, when government (i.e. the

community) decides that some of those rights need to be restricted or

removed, full, fair and prompt compensation must be paid in every case.

However, with rights come responsibilities. I am therefore keen to read

in a future newsletter your members' thoughts on what responsibilities

they have in terms of  protecting that part of the planet on which they

live. I believe that all land owners have an unwritten responsibility to

hand on to their children a world (soil, air, water, biodiversity) that

is at least as healthy as the world they are living in right now. So the

question of land stewardship must be debated and landowners need to

develop a position with which they are comfortable and which will be

broadly accepted by the Australian community.

As well, there is a need to address the 1960s hippy position of "do

whatever you like so long as you don't hurt anyone else". What

responsibility does a landowner have to use his or her land in a way

that does not have a negative impact on neighbours, especially

downstream neighbours, in respect of salt, water volume, dust, shade,

shelter, etc? Landowners are coming to the understanding that their

actions have impacts throughout the landscape, with adverse impacts

possible on farmer neighbours, nearby urban dwellers and others. How

well accepted is the belief that you must farm your property not just

for your benefit but also for the benefit of the other farmers who

depend on you for clean water, etc.

I hope that you are able to address these issues in further editions of

your newsletter.

Bernie Masters

Member for Vasse

=========================================================

From LAWN (land and water news)

(10) DRAFT AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY STANDARD SEEKS SUBMISSIONS

The Australian Forestry Standard Steering Committee and Technical Reference

Committee are seeking public comments and submissions on the recently

released

draft Australian Forestry Standard.

The standard has been sponsored by the three main industry bodies, the

national

Association of Forest Industries, the Plantation Timber Association of

Australia

and Australian Forest Growers.

Deadline for public comments and submissions is October 19, 2001. The draft

code

can be accessed at www.forestrystandard.org.au  or  click here

=============================================================

From Bill Sims (SA)

(11) More comments on Hill`s Firewood Strategy

Dear Leon

I would like to make some comments which result from interpreting the

application of the "Firewood"strategy.  

There are two parts to the strategy:    Firewood supply,  Air quality

The firewood strategy is already in place - see page 4 of "Hill's Views"

Note that :" State Governments have agreed to ensure that :  Firewood will

only be sourced from collectors who conform to the statutory codes of

practice that control forest management practices on public and PRIVATE  

land",

and

"The code of practice aims to:

* regulate the type of timber sold for firewood

* promote improved burning practices

* inform consumers about the type of firewood they buy

IN OTHER WORDS

State Governments will legislate (without compensation) as to where firewood

can be sourced, how it is collected then cured, and what type of timbers can

be burned (or sold for burning).

Inevitably this will translate to wood coming only from woodlots specifically

grown for firewood (with the corresponding time lag forcing up prices and

creating a "black market" and costly, supervised post harvest treatment prior

to sale).

In the press release by Senator Hill on September 2 about air quality

monitoring in concert with the EPA, monitors will be worn by people to detect

the prescence of pollutants from wood fires, internal combustion engines and

industry.  (It will be interesting to see how tha blame is apportioned.)  It

is well known that there is a body of people the South Australian EPA who

would prefer the banning of wood fires for heating.  With the "evidence" in

hand (despite the tiny sample sizes and questionable scientific approach),

they will act to ban wood heaters, not immediately, but in a time span which

falls short of the maturity of the woodlots.

The long term outcome is more bloody trees without a purpose.

This way Hill is supposed to achieve two of his goals

*  "better land management, the conservation of native wildlife and help

reduce our reliance on greenhouse gas polluting fossil fuels"  (Aren't trees

living fossil fuels which are renewable?)

* reduction of greenhouse gases by the amount of firewood not burnt.

but in doing so actually:

* increases reliance on non renewable fossil fuels

* puts a number of businesses out of business - wood merchants and

harvesters, heater manufacturers

* increases costs for farmers wanting to keep paddocks clear of fallen trees

and branches

* removes another, albiet small, plank of the rural economy

* increases the rural fire risk, so compromising rural safety further

Bill Sims (SA)

===========================================================

(12) Costa Rica Pays incentives to protect forests for ecosystem services

This is part of a transcript from a recent ABC radio program Earthbeat  

(Gretchen Daily, is an environmental science and policy analyst at Stanford

University CA, USA)

Alexandra de Blas: What are some of the more recent examples where the

cutting edge research is happening, and we’re starting to get other sorts of

decisions informed by ecosystem services and understanding them better?

Gretchen Daily: Costa Rica is a nice example there. The Costa Rican

government actually changed their forestry law a few years ago in 1996 to

create an incentive for landowners to protect forest for the supply of

various ecosystem services, so they’re actually, the government is paying

landowners about $50 per hectare, per year of land that is either being

retained in forest or is being converted from some agricultural or other use,

to forestry. So they’ve zoned the country in terms of which land is providing

which ecosystem services best, you know, carbon, watershed protection,

pharmaceutical or biodiversity prospecting values, and finally eco-truism

value, scenic beauty and that kind of thing, and they’re paying landowners

that fall within these important zones, the $50 per hectare a year, and have

seen instant turnaround in deforestation rates in the areas that are

receiving these payments.

Alexandra de Blas: How well are these ecosystem services understood when it

comes down to a more micro level?

Gretchen Daily: Some ecosystem services are quite well understood now in the

scientific community. We do understand very well that forests play an

important role in retaining carbon, keeping a lot of the atmosphere, and

maintaining climate stability. We also understand very well the role that

forests play in purifying water, but then there are other ecosystem services,

things that are much less appreciated like pollination, that we’re just

beginning to scratch the surface on without the transfer of pollen from one

plant to another by little insects, we wouldn’t have much of our agricultural

production that we have today.

Supposedly about two-thirds of our crops depend on some level of animal

pollination and important crops in that category include many of our fruits

and nuts and vegetables like squashes and things like coffee are

self-pollinated but when you have an animal pollinator you get a higher yield

and higher profit for farmers. So we’re just undertaking the studies now to

determine what are the trade-offs for a farmer if he or she were to allocate

a bit more land to pollinate our habitat - how would they see their profits

change?

========================================================

From QFF

(13) Deputy Prime Minister’s Address to the National Press Club

The Deputy Prime Minister addressed concerns about the impact of National

Competition Policy on rural and regional communities at the statement he made

on ‘Stronger Regions, A Stronger Australia’ to the National Press Club.  

Points he raised included:

The public interest test is to be ‘enhanced to ensure that the interests of

rural and regional communities are properly addressed.’

Amendments to the Competition Principles are to be sought ‘to require

governments to commit to public consultation where a reform is proposed and

public education when a reform is implemented’

The NCC ‘should be required to assess whether governments have consulted and

communicated properly as part of its recommendations on competition payments.’

One member of the NCC is to ‘be designated to consider rural and regional

interests’.

In response to questions re water property rights, the Deputy Prime Minister

referred to the constitutional limitations on the Commonwealth Government as

the states have responsibility for water and land management as the licence

holders. He committed the Federal Government to championing the rights that

are written into the Commonwealth Constitution and acknowledged by the

Government in programs like the National Action Plan.  He confirmed that ‘the

1995 COAG Water Agreement obligates the states to properly define

compensatable water property rights’ but the Commonwealth had ‘to pursue the

fair and reasonable leverage’ that was available.

============================================================= And Finally

this has just been sent to us about two virus`s to look out for. Cheers

PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

  WORST EVER VIRUS (CNN announced)

      PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR CONTACT LIST !!

      A new virus has just been discovered that has been classified by

      Microsoft as the most destructive ever! This virus was discovered

      yesterday afternoon by McAfee and no vaccine

      has yet been developed. This virus simply destroys Sector Zero

      from the hard disk, where vital information for its functioning

      are stored.

      This virus acts in the following manner: It sends itself

      automatically to all contacts on your list with the title "A

      Virtual Card for You." As soon as the supposed virtual card is

      opened, the computer freezes so that the user has to reboot. When

      the ctrl+alt+del keys or the

      reset button are pressed, the virus destroys Sector Zero, thus

      permanently destroying the hard disk. Yesterday in just a few

      hours  this virus caused panic in New York, according to news broadcast

      by CNN. This alert was received by an employee of Microsoft

      itself. So don't open any mails with subject: "A Virtual Card for

      You." As soon as you get the mail, delete it. Please pass this

      mail to all of your friends. Forward this to everyone in your

      address book.

      I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all. Also: Intel

      announced that a new and very destructive virus was discovered

      recently.

      If you receive an email called "An Internet Flower For You," do

      not open it. Delete it right away! This virus removes all dynamic link

      libraries (.dll files) from your computer. Your computer will not

      be able to boot up !!