Students Against the Pulp Mill

Tasmanian based student organisation that was created for the Nov. 1 student strike that was held in Hobart . This group now exists in Launceston also. DON'T PULP OUR FUTURE!

http://stopthemill.blogspot.com/

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Lawyers For Forests Case is now open

This summary was released on 16 June 2008 by Lawyers for Forests as general information for the public. It does not constitute legal opinion or a view as to the merits of the case. The trial started on 18 June before Justice Tracey in the Federal Court in Melbourne.

Case Summary
On 4 October 2007, the then Federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, approved the construction and operation of Gunns’ pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, Tasmania, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (“the Act”). The decision imposed 48 conditions on the approval of the mill.

LFF is concerned about the significant impact that the mill will have on the environment, including on the marine environment, native forests and the species that rely on those habitats. LFF is also concerned to ensure that the decision to approve the mill complies with the law.

LFF is challenging the Minister’s decision on 9 grounds, many of which relate to the Minister approving the mill without knowing its environmental impacts. The conditions attached to the decision require further scientific testing to determine the impact of the mill’s toxic effluent (dioxins and furans - which are the most toxic known to science). LFF believes that this testing should have been part of the assessment before the approval decision was made.

The conditions allow the mill to produce a volume of toxic effluent that is simply that set by Gunns, which is absent any proper scientific measurement.

There have been previous proceedings brought by The Wilderness Society and The Investors for the Future of Tasmania relating to the Minister’s earlier decision about the assessment process for the mill. The case brought by LFF is the only case challenging the approval decision.

If the LFF challenge is successful, the approval decision will be set aside. Gunns’ pulp mill would not have Federal government approval and Minister Garrett would need to consider and decide the issue again.

After LFF launched its case in December last year, Gunns Ltd applied for an order that LFF pay “security for costs” (estimated to be in the order of $100,000) before the case be allowed to proceed. If Gunns had been successful in that application, LFF would have been forced to discontinue the case as it did not have the money. On 30 April 2008, Justice Marshall ruled against Gunns, deciding that, in the circumstances, to make the order for security for costs:

“would stifle the litigation and prevent an applicant ... from agitating a matter which it considers to involve questions of public importance and which seems, on the material currently before the Court, to be made bona fide and raises arguable questions of law.”
This was a welcome precedent for public interest cases, and for access to justice. Gunns was ordered to pay LFF’s costs for that hearing.

Gunns and the Minister also sought to prevent LFF from introducing expert evidence from Professor Andrew Wadsley. On 4 June 2008, Justice Tracey ruled against introducing evidence by affidavit, allowing instead some of the evidence to be put by way of submissions from LFF, avoiding the need for Professor Wadsley to attend Court to give evidence.

Summary of Grounds
Lawyers for Forests is seeking judicial review of the Federal Environment Minister’s decision to approve Gunns’ Tamar Valley pulp mill. The judicial review process challenges the way the Minister made the decision to approve the pulp mill. It does not review the merits of the decision. It reviews whether or not the decision was made lawfully on the following grounds:

1. The Act does not allow the Minister to impose the conditions that he did, as the conditions create a scheme that is outside that allowed by the Act.

2. The Minister did not take account of the “precautionary principle” in that he used lack of scientific certainty as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the environment when there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.

3. The Minister did not have enough information to make an informed decision as to whether to approve the mill, when the Act requires that he have enough information.

4. The Minister did not seek further information before making his decision, when the Act requires that he seek further information before making the decision.

5. The Minister made the decision before assessing all of the relevant impacts in circumstances where information about those impacts was available, which is inconsistent with the Act.

6. The Minister improperly exercised his powers under the Act because no reasonable person could have made the decision that was made by the Minister in the circumstances in which he made it.

7. The Minister improperly exercised his powers under the Act because the result of the decision was uncertain.

8. There was no evidence before the Minister to justify using a Canadian guideline to set maximum limits for the concentration of toxic chemicals in sediments (Condition 42).

9. The imposition of Condition 42 setting a maximum limit for toxic chemicals in ocean sediments based on a Canadian freshwater guideline was irrational.

http://stopthemill.blogspot.com/2008/05/compo-for-gunns-if-supply-fails.html

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Compo for Gunns if supply fails

This is another dodgy deal by the Tasmanian government. So if we vote this government out because we don't approve of the pulp mill, the next government will be forced to continue supplying timber to Gunns, even if most Tasmanians don't agree to it. How undemocratic.

The Australian - Matthew Denholm | May 06, 2008

TAXPAYERS will pay timber company Gunns up to $15 million if further forest protection affects the supply of wood to its proposed pulp mill.

The compensation is promised to Gunns in a 20-year deal signed four months ago but only made public late yesterday by the Tasmanian Government.

State Treasurer Michael Aird said the compensation, part of a "sovereign risk" agreement between Gunns and the state-owned Forestry Tasmania, was "accepted practice".

However, conservation groups said the deal was "dodgy" and would make it harder for federal and state governments to protect further forests as national parks or as carbon sinks.

Wilderness Society pulp mill spokesman Paul Oosting said: "This reeks of the continuation of dodgy deals that have gone on with the Government using taxpayers' money to try to get this project up.

"There is a huge groundswell of public support for further protection of Tasmania's public forests, and now the Lennon Government has ensured that, should that occur, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be going to Gunns."

Mr Aird said the agreement - providing for a maximum of $15 million over the 20-year life of the deal - was standard for investments "of the magnitude" of Gunns's $2billion pulp mill, proposed for Long Reach in the Tamar Valley, north of Launceston.

"It is highly unlikely that any compensation will be paid under the agreement," he said.

2006

http://tamarpulpmilltalk.blogspot.com/

2007

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/07/1998431.htm

New water rules put Penola pulp mill at risk

Posted Tue Aug 7, 2007

Plans to build a $1.5 billion pulp mill at Penola in the South-East of South Australia have hit a major snag.

The State Government has introduced new water allocation rules for forestry plantations.

The mill's proponent, Protavia, says the rules will make it difficult to proceed with the project.

The project director, John Roche, says water allocations would affect the company's ability to write long-term contracts with timber suppliers.

"From our point of view it seems incredibly unfair that the forest industry has been singled out in this way," he said

Everything that grows in the ground intercepts water, so singling out forests just seems wrong."

Mr Roche is seeking urgent talks with Environment Minister Gail Gago to try to convince her to reverse the rules.

"It's an incredible concern to us and we found it very, very disappointing," he said.

"We're making such a large investment in this state and indeed I think you have to recognise that the forest industry has made a huge investment in South Australia over the past you know 100 years."

INFORME DE RIESGOS A LA SALUD

                        http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/iis/V10/V10_A22.pdf

http://www.bluetier.org/articles4/pulpmill.htm

PULP MILL OBJECTIONS

Theme - a 'world scale' mill = 'world scale' damage!

▶ A 'world scale' pulp mill means 'world scale' logging and pollution which means' world scale' damage to the tourism industry, Bass Strait and fisheries, agriculture, recreational pursuits and our water catchments. Does the Prime Minister wish to create 'world scale' damage?

▶ The economic case presented by Gunns takes no account of the very high costs of the mill to Tasmania eg. losses in agriculture, tourism, fisheries, fine foods, wineries, etc. Until the economics of the situation are independently studied, no approval should be given.

▶ The conversion of more farms to plantations will deplete our water supplies and suppress agricultural cash flows in rural communities. The conversion of good farmland to tree plantations at taxpayers' expense is a federal responsibility and should be stopped. If we lose 10% more of our farms (Gunns wants at least another 50,000 ha of farmland for plantations) then we lose 10% of our farm income and 10% of our downstream processing income worth over $300 million per year. Don't let it happen.

▶ Fishing grounds in Bass Strait are sensitive to pulp mill pollution. Fish markets are rightly concerned about a proposal that does not offer rigorous protection for the fishing industry. The Tasmanian industry is worth around $450 million per year (DPIW and industry figures), much of it easily lost if we get a reputation for pollution. There should be no mill without rigorous protection, independent monitoring and effective enforcement.

▶ Noxious and offensive odours are the usual the result of pulp mill activities. Even the RPDC process had no effective standards to prevent odours.

▶ Particulates, particularly micro fine particles, are already high in the Launceston air shed. A community survey in Launceston 2006 found that 81% consider air pollution a very important issue. A pulp mill will make this situation significantly worse. Don't approve a mill without assurances that no further micro particulates will be tolerated.

▶ Tourism is worth nearly a billion dollars a year to Tasmania and employs around 30,000 people. Massive forest clearance, multiple log trucks and bad smells could repel tourists from visiting the North. That could cost our economy 10% or more of tourism income. It's not worth the risk.

▶ Fine food and wines. 80,000 bottles of wine were returned to Chile when they opened a pulp mill. Consumers don't want to drink wine that might be tainted with pulp mill effluent. Don't take the risk with our industries.

▶ Recreation activities in our forests will be impaired by the proposed rates of logging by Gunns. Most of our tourists come for natural scenery and natural recreation opportunities. Don't risk these industries.

▶ The Federal Government has based federal approval on the outcome of the RPDC process and without that process, the Howard Government under the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 must refuse to grant a licence to operate.

Finish with a question eg:

Theme - not enough water!

This is how the water situation looks given all the available information.

Water consumption in Tasmania's north and east from 1975 to 2020. (Data collated from Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Water reports, pulp mill proponent's Integrated Impact Statement to the Resource Planning. Developed by SAS for TAP .)

The diagram below, courtesy of tapvision, shows how the water hungry plantations, the highest percentage coverage of any State, has created a demand that Tasmania cannot now supply. The cross over point on the water supply & demand curve has already been passed as indicated by existing water shortages across the State.

▶ The increasing demand for water in Tasmania already exceeds available supply from rivers, groundwater, dams and lakes. Rivers and lakes are drying up. Low river flows eg. South Esk, allow blue green algae blooms to develop and become a serious health risk. People and local industries need protection from mill impacts and activities.

▶ Our water supplies risk being over-allocated for decades to come by uncontrolled expansion of plantations. We seek guarantees from the RPDC process that our water will not be over-allocated.

▶ Rainfall is expected to decline 10% in the north and east Tasmania over the next 3 decades.

▶ Thirsty fast growing tree plantations require large amounts of water for decades. Supplying nearly seven million tonnes of pulpwood per year to feed the proposed pulp mill and chip export markets will require about 1,100 Gl/yr (based on data from DPIW, Gunns IIS, TasLUCaS hydrological model). Committing to that amount of water at a time when demand already exceeds supply, would be disastrous.

▶ Although domestic consumption in the central north is only 16 GL/yr, local councils are worried and are considering a requirement for home-owners to install water tanks to save water. Councils appear unaware of the enormous effect that plantations have on their water supply catchments.

▶ Water used by plantations cannot be directly measured. It is lost before reaching streams and rivers and is unavailable to downstream users - agriculture, industry and towns.

▶ Plantation and mill operators should be charged a commercial rate for water used. Rain falling on plantations is a common resource but owners pay nothing for the water that they use which gives them another unfair advantage in any competition with other users of that same resource eg urban residents and agricultural irrigators.

▶ Forestry MIS schemes have a high impact upon the sustainability of overall water supplies and those who rely upon it. The pulp mill proposal is unsustainable without the promise of MIS subsidies and preferential and free access to water.

▶ The mill will lock in both a 'world scale' rate of logging and 'world scale' water use with consequent risk of decades of poor river flows in Northern and Eastern Tasmania.

▶ The value of Tasmania's water resource will rise eg. for irrigated crops, but the water consumed by plantations threatens the livelihood of thousands and the economy of the State. Over 15 years, the potential value of 1100 Gl/yr of irrigation water used to grow crops, is about $8 billion but only $2 billion if used for growing trees and sold as pulpwood. One ML of irrigation water adds $500 to the value of crops at the farm gate (DPIW).

http://www.bluetier.org/

SAVE THE BLUE TIER

The George River - Northeast Tasmania - a(nother) catchment in crisis ...

The George River is the largest river that flows off Tasmania's east coast. With a total length of approximately 50 km the George rises on the slopes of Mt's. Albert and Victoria, Rattler Range, Star of Peace and the Blue Tier and flows into Georges Bay just north of St. Helens. The entire catchment area is roughly 40,000 hectares - this area includes the farming settlements of Pyengana, Goshen, Goulds Country and Priory. The major tributaries of the George are the North and South George which meet in the middle of the Pyengana Valley, forming the main branch of the river, the Groom and Ransom which flow from the Blue Tier and join the George at Goshen, as does the Powers Rivulet which rises from Billy of Tin Tier and Littlechild's Creek which has its catchment area between the Blue Tier and Mt. Pearson and joins the George at Priory.

The early settlers mined tin in much of the George River catchment area between about 1880 and 1930 ... but for the past 100 years beef and dairy farming, small sawmills and cheese making have been the mainstay of the communities.

Almost 15 years ago the first farms were converted to plantation (E. nitens) in the headwaters of the North and South George River ... at the time the local community expressed concerns about the use of chemicals in the catchment ... a concoction of herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, wetting agents and fertilisers were aerially sprayed and contaminated many of the small water courses which form the headwaters of the river system. Community concerns have gone largely unheard and the problem has continued to this day. It is not known what the long-term effects of the ongoing chemical contamination will be on the community or the wildlife. In addition, chemicals that are no longer used by the plantation industry are still present in the soil for many years - and wash into the watercourses with each heavy rain.

Since plantations came to this area we have learnt that not only are they chemical dependant but also draw up to 40% more ground water than a mixed age native forest - plantations that replace our forests and farmland take water away from downstream users - farmers, fishers and domestic water supplies. It is believed that plantations use an estimated 2-Mega litres/hectare/year rising to 3 Ml/ha/yr for pasture conversion. Decreased flow rates also effect the minute aquatic life that maintain river health, with the chemical contamination endangering all species. Combined with the effects of climate change this spells disaster for the George River. There is absolutely no planning of this, or of the implications.

Today vast areas of the George River system have been converted from either native forest or farmland to plantation.

In the North George catchment an estimated 25% (1,600ha) of the private land has been converted to E. nitens plantation with a further 1,500 hectares of State Forest either already in plantation or unprotected and therefore available to the logging industry ... this could eventually mean that half of the catchment area ends up in plantation ... as well, the remaining 1,900 ha of private land - made up of pasture and remnant native forest - is not protected against plantation establishment. Clear-felling (and conversion to plantation) of native forest has been occurring recently in the North George catchment on the slopes of the Star of Peace - some of the last unprotected rain forest in the northeast.

The South George catchment is in a similar state with an estimated 1,700 ha of plantation on private land and 3,200 ha of unprotected State Forest.

Of the approximate 40,000 hectares an inadequate 7,200 hectares is in Reserves in the entire George River catchment with 32,800 hectares unprotected. The total plantation estate, on private land, within the catchment area, is estimated at 4,400 hectares with many other properties holding Private Timber Reserve status, but not yet converted. This river system is clearly under stress - and as the flow rate decreases the chemical contamination becomes more concentrated.

Community groups throughout the northeast have lobbied for the protection of the entire George River catchment for many years but the fragmentation of the native forest is worsening and the plantation establishment accelerating at an alarming rate.

The Northeast Highlands National Park proposal seeks to safeguard the water catchment of the George and other major river systems, preserve biodiversity, stop fragmentation of native forest, recognise the significance of glacial refugia, recognise the role of intact forest as a carbon sink and store and the role it plays in producing clean air and water, conserve valuable historical and culturally significant sites and protect the native wildlife and their habitat.

The National Park document may be downloaded from link above.

http://daniecuyer.com/2008/01/21/funding-for-the-gunns-pulp-mill/

http://daniecuyer.com/2007/11/13/media-watchpreferencesclimate-changepulp-mill/

Media Watch……Preferences,Climate Change,Pulp Mill

This is an election about Climate Change and the pulp mill. We all have a choice when we vote to express our concern over the lack of positive climate change policy and our disapproval of the pulp mill, which must be stopped. It will destroy our valuable carbon stores and decimate bioviersity and wildlife in Tasmania. It benefits few and stakeholders are the only ones who will reap any rewards.

http://daniecuyer.com/2007/11/22/the-real-pulp-mill-story/

The Real Pulp Mill Story

Also worth a look at the pro pulp mill rally YouTube. Last count there were two people, the protester and the person holding the camera, versus 15,000 people who rallied last saturday against the pulp mill.

Pro pulp mill movement gathers momentum ->  http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22796850-921,00.html

Gillard backs pulp mill build Today's News - The Mercury - The ...
Gillard backs pulp mill build ACTING Prime Minister Julia Gillard has backed the
approval for construction to begin on the Gunns pulp mill.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/07/48385_todays-news.html

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/07/48385_todays-news.html

Gillard backs pulp mill build

SUE NEALES

January 07, 2009 04:00am

ACTING Prime Minister Julia Gillard has backed the approval for construction to begin on the Gunns pulp mill.

Ms Gillard confirmed timber company Gunns was free to start building, following final approval of nine key environmental permits on Monday.

"The construction works are considerable, there's been environmental assessment of those and they've been given the all-clear, so Gunns can start the construction," Ms Gillard said in a television interview yesterday.

Ms Gillard's clear confirmation that Gunns can start building its mill followed strong criticism of Environment Minister Peter Garrett's original announcement concerning the pulp mill's future.

Mr Garrett created confusion on Monday when he played up his refusal to give three environmental permits to Gunns that would have approved the company's discharge of 64,000 tonnes of effluent from the mill daily into Bass Strait.

Mr Garrett said the pulp mill could not operate unless these three permits were issued within the next 26 months, after extensive extra hydrodynamic and ocean dispersal studies.

The Environment Minister did concede Gunns was free to begin construction after the nine other permits were approved, but said the company would "risk" going ahead without any guarantee the mill would ever be commissioned.

Gunns corporate relations manager Calton Frame said Ms Gillard's comments removed any uncertainty over the mill's approval and welcomed the confirmation of support for a project that would "create 2000 jobs in the Tamar Valley north of Launceston".

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/06/48191_tasmania-news.html

Mill decision divides debate

MICHAEL STEDMAN

January 06, 2009 08:10am

MILL opponents and the forest industry were divided over what Peter Garrett's decision meant for the pulp mill.

The federal and Tasmanian Greens condemned the Environment Minister for keeping the project alive.

They are considering yet another legal challenge against the extension of the assessment period to March 2011 announced yesterday.

"There is legal advice to say that Gunns can't have another extension and yet here we have the federal minister condemning Tasmania to another two and a half years of uncertainty," Greens senator Christine Milne said yesterday.

Tasmanian Greens leader Nick McKim said it was a dark day for Tasmania.

"This is a very disappointing decision, not only for Tasmania's forests, but for Tasmanians who have fought so hard against this toxic proposal," he said.

The decision allows Gunns to start construction of the $2.2 billion mill almost immediately.

Wilderness Society campaigner Paul Oosting vowed there would be mass protests at the Long Reach site if construction began without the project receiving the final tick of approval.

But prominent anti-mill campaigner Geoffrey Cousins believed the mill would never receive finance and would never reach construction stage.

"The coffin was already nailed shut on the mill," Mr Cousins said yesterday.

"Garrett's decision screws it down forever."

The Forest Industry Association of Tasmania welcomed what it said was "conditional" approval for the project.
 
Body:  "Although most of the modules have now been approved, and this is a positive, the conditions placed on the final three modules will cause continuing doubt and delay," chairman Julian Amos said.

Timber Communities Australia spokesman Barry Chipman said it was a "Clayton's approval" which did nothing to reassure timber families.

"Timber-dependent families have been waiting five long, torturous years for this major step down the job-creating and value-adding path, but now it appears the Commonwealth is asking these families to endure another 26 months of uncertainly -- it brings more pain," Mr Chipman said.

The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said while construction of the mill was still in the state's best interests, it should be environmentally sustainable.

"While the minister has every right to seek further evidence, it should not be a cause for celebration that a $2 billion investment is still at risk to an approval process that takes years to complete," TCCI chief executive Damon Thomas said.

Liberal leader Will Hodgman said the pulp mill had been the victim of a poor planning system and State Government bungling.

"The importance of ensuring that the mill meets stringent environmental guidelines cannot be overstated but, by the same token, what message does it send to potential investors in this state when an approvals process can turn out to be so tortuous, ham-fisted and long?" he said.

Treasurer Michael Aird described Mr Garrett's announcement as another "important step" in the approvals process.

VER COMENTARIOS AL PIE: 

                    http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/06/48191_tasmania-news.html