National Parks Journal, DECEMBER 1998, pages 13 to 17
Well, as predicted, there was no win for the environment in the Federal election. Both the Howard Government and the Beazley Opposition avoided the `E' word and conservation groups largely avoided the election. There were close results in a number of seats eventually lost by the ALP, even though the seats had strong conservation constituencies. This may give the ALP, both Federal and State, cause to reflect on their attempts to take for granted the support of an environment movement which has demonstrated that it can influence outcomes in key seats and is nobody's servant.
The environment movement's approach and commitment to the March '99 State election has now become clouded with uncertainty as the Carr Government has mishandled the Eden decision on the South East Forests (see separate report p. 10), the first of the major forest assessments to be completed. The government has also failed, at this stage, to create interim national parks for the South Coast forests (from Narooma to Nowra), despite postponing the completion of the southern regional assessment until after the election.
The scale and conservation value of the decision on reserves for the North East Forests is undecided at this moment but it is clear to our negotiators that, as with Eden, the government is reluctant to deliver anything like the scale of the reserves required by its own scientific assessment. This decision is due within days, but is already overshadowed by associated resource-security legislation for the timber industry.
Leaked documents show that the government is seeking to roll back 20 years of hard work by conservationists who have argued for the operations of the State Forests agency to be made subject to the same environmental planning and protection laws as any other developer of land or natural resources. The legislation also seeks to abolish third-party public rights to prosecute breaches of the environment protection laws.
Almost unbelievably, given that Bob Carr introduced the Wilderness Act in 1987, it also proposes to amend the Wilderness Act so as to prohibit any further protection of wilderness values in the assessment areas, notwithstanding serious problems over the assessment of wilderness in the north-east.
On the other hand, the Collins Opposition appears to have failed to capitalise on the Carr Government's present problems with its forest commitments. Indeed, Liberal Party Shadow Minister for the Environment, Ms Kerry Chikarovski, and National Party Shadow Minister for Forests, Mr Don Page, have both publicly raised the prospect of dozens of national parks created by the Carr Government being revoked - because the Federal Government had not agreed!
The Shadow Minister for the Environment was actually encouraging a loggers' rally in Eden at the time. Her other major contribution in the role appears to have been to support orchardists who wish to continue to shoot bats as a means of pest control.
Against this backdrop, NPA and other peak conservation organisations have been moving to formulate a common position on major environmental and conservation issues to put to the parties and their candidates, as well as a review of the environmental performance and policies of the parties. We are seeking responses from our branches and members on the critical local environmental issues in their electorate, as well as their views on issues of statewide importance.
A range of direct election action by environment groups is planned, including street stalls, slideshows, lobbying of local candidates, letterboxing and handing out of "How to Votes" on the day.
But in the end conservation supporters will only organise and support candidates and parties whom they feel are genuine in their concern for the environment and will honour their commitments. Without trust and motivation, neither Bob Carr's Government nor Peter Collins' Opposition can expect exceptional support from conservation voters.
Noel Plumb
Executive Officer
NPJ December 1998 P13
p14 DECEMBER 1998
Community consultation: A Clarence perspective
In the Clarence Valley in northern NSW a proposal for a regional water scheme, serving both the local area and the rapidly growing city of Coffs Harbour to the south, has almost reached the stage of exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement.
The pre-construction stage of the project has cost $4 million. $800,000 - 20% of the total - has been spent on "extensive" community consultation.
Since its announcement in 1994, the scheme has been strongly criticised on a number of grounds, including the lack of proper and meaningful community consultation. From a period where public scrutiny was discouraged, the proponents (the Lower Clarence County Council) moved reluctantly to agreeing to the establishment of a Community Advisory Group more than two years later.
Conservationists believe the motive for improved consultation was the proponents' belief that this was a prerequisite for State government funding for their project.
At that stage the community could do little to influence the scheme. Consultation continued to be largely a one-way process, a selling of the scheme to the community - in particular the Clarence community, which was concerned aboutt the potential for long-term impacts that an everincreasing rate of withdrawal of water to fuel the growth of Coffs Harbour would have on the health of the Clarence River system.
Although the government may be convinced that community consultation has been "extensive" as the proponents claim, it has been an expensive faade, an example of how the community may be effectively excluded. True community consultation obviously should be very different.
Leonie Blain
Clarence Valley Branch
Improving the health of the Hawkesbury Nepean River system Ken Roberts*
| Everyone who lives or works on the river, who uses its water or enjoys it in some way, must share in the costs of its better management. |
The NSW Healthy Rivers Commission has released the Final Report
of the Commission's Independent Public Inquiry into the
Hawkesbury Nepean River system. The report makes more than 60
recommendations to the NSW Government on action needed to protect
and restore the health of the river system.
The purpose of this Report is to help the Government and community to make informed decisions about the river system and its health; to understand current pressures; and to devise strategies to deal with them. The Hawkesbury Nepean River system was chosen as a subject for an Inquiry by the Healthy Rivers Commission because of a number of issues, including pressure of Sydney's urban development, existence of major dams, water extraction, effluent disposal, extractive industries and recreation.
Some of the major recommendations of the Inquiry cover the areas of:
The Healthy Rivers Commission was formed in early 1996 (as part of the NSW Government's package of water reforms) to conduct independent public inquiries into selected NSW rivers. It has now completed inquiries into the Williams and the Hawkesbury Nepean river systems, and has also commenced inquiries into the Shoalhaven, Clarence and Woronora rivers. In the next two years the Commission will conduct inquiries into the Bega, Hunter and Tweed rivers.
The Commission's findings in the Hawkesbury Nepean River Inquiry are based on information gathered from a wide range and number of individuals, interest groups, government agencies and councils. It held dozens of informal meetings, received over 80 submissions, and heard over 70 presentations at eight public hearings.
The Healthy Rivers Commission has audited what is happening on the ground and why significant problems remain unresolved, or are growing worse. Some of the responses and strategies being recommended to the NSW Government would be easy to implement, but some of the critical ones would be difficult.
The Commission reports that we all place demands and pressure on the river. Everyone who lives or works on the river, who uses its water or enjoys it in some way, must share in the costs of its better management. We need to use its water in more sustainable ways, and we all must contribute to restoring its health. The Healthy Rivers Commission does not see its central role as making recommendations for further study or additional monitoring. While some of the recommendations are associated with interim steps, the Commission has accepted the need to devise management strategies now, that will deal with long-standing problems, and allow all concerned to move forward.
A central theme of this Report is the need to manage the river as a total system. This is the key to a healthier Hawkesbury Nepean River system. There are many influences which together determine catchment and river health. If we fail to recognise this, we run the risk that, in trying to fix one problem, we actively create others.
The Commission believes that there are many situations where finding more money need not be the central problem, if management and planning were better focused on the total system and outcomes from the start.
The Report aims to provide a constructive blueprint for the sustainable use of the river. It does not present a picture of `gloom and doom' but neither could it be described as a `panacea', because there are hard decisions to be made at all levels, and tradeoffs between several important goals will be necessary.
In managing the river, the accountability for achieving goals has to be made much clearer. There are countless situations which the Commission has identified where the power exists to deal with the problem, but there are too many players, not enough leadership and a failure on the part of most players to meet reasonable tests of accountability. In these situations, there is no agreed strategy and, not surprisingly, little progress.
As a result the Commission has found that many past decisions have undervalued the river. The real costs of using the river and its resources are poorly recognised and not costed into plans and decision making - whether we are referring to design of towns, management of stormwater, sewerage, agriculture, boating, or invasive weeds.
The recommendations closely reflected the views on river health advanced by the community during the Inquiry. They address the physical things that contribute to river health, like the water quality, sufficient flows in the river, the nature and amount of vegetation, and the stability of the bed and the banks.
As well, because this river is a working river surrounded by people and their activities, approaches for assuring its health must also deal with issues of access and equity, and the way water and river resources are used and treated.
The Commission has also made a number of recommendations which focus on what needs to change if better planning and management of the catchment and the river system are to occur. The Report pays particular attention to the role and contribution of local government in managing river health.
The Report therefore recommends ways of making the responsibilities of councils clearer. The Commission argues that, if councils are to be held accountable for key aspects of river health and for the health of river locations, they need assistance from government agencies and the skills and resources to plan and manage.
The Commission found during the Inquiry that many people are concerned that numerous agencies are partially responsible but no one agency is really accountable for the river. The Commission has recommended that a `River Manager' be created which would represent the river in the vast array of government decisions that have implications for its health.
The Healthy Rivers Commission has not attempted to find solutions that represent a consensus view, or even a majority opinion. Rather, it has attempted to provide objective and transparent assessments of the issues of concern to the community, and to make clear the logic underpinning its recommendations. The Commission does not expect unanimous endorsement of all its recommendations. Nevertheless it hopes that the objectivity of the analysis, and the transparent logic underlying the recommendations, will lead to both government and community endorsing and acting on them.
Copies of the Hawkesbury Nepean Report are available from the Healthy Rivers Commission on: 02 9231 2977; 1800 818 369 (free call outside Sydney); e-mail (rivercom@ozemail.com.au); or by writing to Ken Roberts at Level 18, 15 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000. NPA's Hawkesbury-Cumberland Branch may also be able to help.
* Ken Roberts is an Executive Officer with the Healthy Rivers Commission.
NPJ December 1998 P15
16 DECEMBER 1998
Protecting our forested catchments Susie Russell*
Landslips such as those in Wollongong and water contamination such as Sydney has experienced will become commonplace in the State's forests and catchments unless proposed new logging and roadworks are limited and tightly controlled.
There is plenty of available evidence from international and Australian sources that land clearing, logging and roadworks on steep land adversely affect local water tables, destabilise slopes and diminish water quality. Unfortunately, we have learned too late, in both our forests and our cities, that our public authorities have ignored the evidence, believing that "it cannot happen here".
Concerns about landslips, mass movement and water contamination due to forestry activities are grounded on facts obtained on field inspections, during research and in legal proceedings.
Catchment catastrophes
In 1992 a Department of Land and Water Conservation report found the Forestry Commission and its contractors had repeatedly breached the soil-erosion control guidelines, creating several major landslips on Catbird Road in Oakes State Forest. DLWC estimated that 90,000 tonnes of soil had been mobilised towards the headwaters of the Bellinger River near Mt Killiekrankie on the NSW Mid North Coast.
In places whole sections of land and vegetation moved en masse as the foundation rocks sheared. The river's tributary creeks downslope of roadworks and logging operations were choked with spoil and rubble six feet deep in places. Downstream the creeks ran red with sediments.
In another disaster in 1993, a landholder's drinking water supply - Jasper's Creek in the Nambucca River catchment - was polluted following roadworks for logging operations. The creek was discoloured for months; the pumping hole in the creek filled with sediment; and the water was unfit for human consumption.
It should be noted in relation to these events that turbidity (suspension of solids in water) and sedimentation of waterways adversely affect fish and aquatic invertebrates, as well as human users of water (Impact of Timber Harvesting and Production on Streams: A Review, Campbell, IC & Doig, TJ; Aust J Marine & Freshwater Research, 1989, 40, pp 519-539).
A study of Melbourne's water supply, the Thompson River catchment in Victoria, showed that maximum volumes of clean water are supplied by catchments which have very low levels of disturbance and contain good quality old growth forests. The older the forest, the better the water in purity (and volume).
The forests of Melbourne's main catchment areas are not only unavailable for logging, they are fully protected from all human disturbance. The resulting water quality is so high that water does not need additional filtration or treatment before use (An Evaluation of the Wood and Water Resources of the Thomson Catchment, Read Sturgess & Associates, for Melbourne Water, 1992).
Need for action
Urgent action is required to protect catchments and water supplies across the State and to prevent impacts on threatened species, as well as people. Impending decisions by the Carr Government on the forest reserve system offer opportunities to integrate catchment protection and conservation.
While the regional forest assessments have not included adequate studies of the value of forests for water, recent work by NSW government agencies has confirmed the public demand for steady supplies of water safe for drinking, swimming and fishing.
Catchment protection should include rehabilitating forested water catchments and excluding grazing, logging operations, roadworks and plantation developments from areas upstream of water supply catchments.
Guaranteeing the long-term security of our precious clean water supply is the kind of project that should attract strategic investments, for the benefit of all Australians.
Old growth forests are not only beautiful, rich in biodiversity and a source of clean air, they are also a natural filter and source of clean water. They will always be there if we look after them. The true value of undisturbed forest is yet to be measured. If we turn these ancient forests into timber, woodchip or cardboard boxes, we lose more than we ever knew we had.
These water-related disasters are typical of what happens when forest and land management decisions are short-sighted and motivated by a desire to make a quick buck. The outstanding conservation and environmental values of NSW catchments should not be further compromised.
Failure to ensure effective catchment protection in both our cities and our remote forests will see more land slippages and water contaminations in the immediate future.
* Susie Russell is a coordinator for the North East Forest Alliance.
DECEMBER 1998 p17
The Sydney Water saga Jeff Angel*
The battle over Sydney's water catchments has been epic. For a very long time conservationists campaigned to have the catchments made into national parks and managed solely for catchment values. However, in the Greiner years, the catchments became freehold property of the Water Board as a swap for the Government's $200 million raid on environmental levy funds. In 1995 when the Water Board was corporatised into Sydney Water, better catchment regulation was promised and a clause in the Act anticipated transfer of catchment lands to the national parks service, "at no cost" (that is, to the NPWS). Unfortunately the new corporate managers interpreted "at no cost", as no cost to them and they demanded payment!
This episode dramatically demonstrated how business principles were superceding environmental stewardship. Over the same period the organisation placed its faith in the techno-fix, with billion-dollar new water treatment plants commissioned to attack contaminated water coming from the catchment. At the same time a regional environmental plan to control development in the outer catchment was sidelined.
But then came the drinking water crisis with the breaking of the drought that sent vast amounts of polluted water into the reservoirs. Sydney Water was under siege.
The inquiry
The appointment of Peter McClelland QC to the Sydney Water Inquiry was the last nail in the coffin. He has recommended, and the Government fully accepted, an array of measures including the breaking up of Sydney Water with the establishment of a Catchment Commission; concurrence powers over development; and national park designation for the catchment lands.
His third report lays a failed system bare, with revelations that will haunt Sydney Water and the regulators for many years.
A review of the possible sources of contamination by the Inquiry found:
"It is apparent that Sydney's catchment is seriously compromised _ The state of the Outer Catchment and its planning and regulation is of particular concern and requires immediate attention," reports the Inquiry (p116).
The regulators
It has been claimed the benefit of corporatisation was the separation of operator and regulator. Sydney Water, with its vested interests in dividends, would no longer be its own master. Certainly at the time the corporatisation legislation was being debated, environmental groups constructed a reformed regulatory regime, including an independent Licence Regulator. However, Sydney Water was still a very powerful force inside government.
Then came the boil-water alerts which galvanised community concern. For the first time, and due to the efforts of the Licence Regulator, the secrecy on Sydney's drinking water quality was lifted.
The McClelland Inquiry assessed the success of regulation. Its comments confirm environmentalists' worst fears:
"There is no coherent planning framework in place for the Outer Catchment areas ... It is clear that government of both persuasions have found it difficult to progress effective planning because of pressures from rural and development interests ... I am not satisfied that there is either the resources or the will between those agencies [EPA, DLWC] to cooperate to ensure that there is an effective regulatory framework for the management of Sydney's drinking water catchment." (p127,133) McClelland recommends the Licence Regulator undertake an independent audit of the operations of the proposed Catchment Commission and the activities of the primary regulators, namely the EPA and DLWC.
The future
The Government's quick acceptance of the recommendations of the Inquiry is to be commended. Legislation should be passed during the current session of Parliament, otherwise nothing will happen for over six months until after the next State election. Voters will want to know that everything that could be done to protect Sydney's water catchment has been done.
A single focused Commission will give much-needed priority to managing one of the most crucial ecological services a city can derive from the catchments.
A revolution has taken place but, as is always the case, environmentalists will have to maintain the role as watchdogs over Sydney's environmental infrastructure.
* Jeff Angel is the Director of the Total Environment Centre.
| NPANSW home page | Table of contents for this issue | Read on to the next page. |