Poor governance a result of poor process

All citizens of NSW have been affected by the May 2010 passing of legislation to create new national parks in the state's Riverina.

The legislation contained a $97m implementation package for which all NSW taxpayers will foot the bill. This is despite the fact there has been no cost benefit analysis to assure taxpayers that any actual benefits will accrue to the state and local communities from the creation of these parks.

Taxpayers have subsidised a Labor Greens preference arrangement for next year's state election.

The one-off $97m package will finance the closure of a $72m PER ANNUM timber industry to replace it with tourism income of $4.4m per annum according to the latest government study.

Notwithstanding this package is a very poor financial deal for local communities and all citizens of NSW, the government has not been able to produce any evidence of environmental advantages of national parks over the current Ramsar management of the Millewa forest.

This appalling process overseen by Environment Minister, Frank Sartor has had a number of low points:

•Previous premier Nathan Rees pre-empted his own NRC study report and unilaterally announced the creation of the parks in December 2009 to shore up his position ahead of a hostile cabinet meeting that saw him ousted as leader anyway

•New premier Kristinia Keneally had the opportunity to review the decision, but failed to do so and repeatedly refused to meet with community representatives at anytime during the following six months. Obviously there is no point meeting with stakeholders when you have already made up your mind what is good for the government

•The three month time frame for the NRC report to inform the government was hopelessly inadequate. This was highlighted after the report was presented to the government with timber yields slashed to 'protect the forests' and the NRC forced to revise their timber yields upwards by 60% due to errors. The upward revision in timber yields did not however deter the government from sticking to their much reduced quotas for timber harvesting. This is tantamount to: don't show us the data, we have already made up our minds!

•Repeated requests for validation of claims that national park status would deliver more biodiversity benefits than the current Ramsar listing were fobbed off

• Repeated requests for validation of claims by Minister Sartor that tourism would be a bonanza for local communities when the parks were established were fobbed off. The subsequent release of a report prepared for Minister Sartor shows these claims of a tourist bonanza to be baseless. Expected total revenue from tourists to the affected communites will be $4.4m per annum - $1.8m of which they already receive from existing tourism.

•Concern for the harsh effects of the legislation on local communities was manifested in the five year transition period for timber harvesting, which would end in 2015. This concern was trashed, along with the local communities when this provision was removed from the legislation after public statements from Greens MP's that they would oppose the legislation


This whole process, which has no financial or environmental integrity, is a blatant example of environmental protection being used as a political tool at the expense of local communities.

Govt imposed economic decline will cost region $105m per year, every year

Figures contained within this study that the government has kept to itself for the last five months show a very small gain of $2.8m per year is forecast from additional tourist visitation to the region, once new red gum parks are implemented.

If the same multiplier effect as used in the study is applied to the cost of timber industry reductions, the flow-on costs to the community will be in the order of $108m per year. Deduct $2.8m per year gained from extra tourists and the region is left with severe economic consequences of a reduction in the economy of $105m per year.

More now than ever a full cost-benefit study of the value, if any, to all NSW taxpayers of the implementation of this project that has a stated cost to taxpayers of $80m is needed without delay. The Alliance has queried the touted tourist claims from the start and called for a cost-benefit study. Why will the government not commit to such a study to prove their case?

As there is clearly a negative economic impact from these proposals for the region and the state, and no obvious biodiversity benefits of national park tenure over existing or expanded Ramsar reserves, it begs the question:
Why is the government doing this?

Answer: Perceived political advantage in Sydney electorates in the 2011 state election.

Result: Taxpayer funded project that delivers negative economic impacts, very questionable environmental benefits and leaves local communities as "road-kill" on the way to the next election.

Getting answers to community concerns is like drawing teeth

Minister Sartor finally produced answers in parliament on April 20th to six simple questions put to him in January.

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson asked the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment:
With reference to your 2 March 2010 announcement of the declaration of Red Gum National Parks and Reserves along the Murray River Valley:

(1) Did the Department for Climate Change and the Environment conduct a cost benefit analysis of the Natural Resources Commission recommendations that the State Government has decided to accept?

(Answer 1) No. The analysis by the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) included consideration of the economic, environmental and social values associated with the River Red Gum forests. As part of this they had prepared a socio-economic impact assessment. The reports can be found on the Commission's website at www.nrc.nsw.gov.au


(Alliance comments) No cost-benefit analysis of the effects to the whole community for an $80 million project. In private business a project manager would be sacked for such an omission.

(2) If so, will the Minister provide me with a copy of this analysis?

(Answer 2) The reports are publicly available on the NRC website.

(3) With reference to the Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia, has the principle of imposing the least cost on the community when creating reserves been observed?

(Answer 3) The NRC considered this principle in developing its recommendations.

(Alliance comments) But without the data available from an independent cost-benefit analysis on this rushed assessment the NRC would be unable to establish least cost of various models, such as expanded Ramsar reserves.

(4) If this principle was observed, will the Minister provide an analysis of the other land tenure options that were considered before making this announcement?

(Answer 4) The NRC's analysis is available in the reports.

(Alliance comments) If it is in the report it is well hidden or very thin on the ground. The NRC provided plenty of opinion, but little documented analysis.

(5) What additional biodiversity benefits are expected from National Park status that cannot be delivered by the current Ramsar listing of the Millewa Forest?

(Answer 5) The reservation of lands under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ensures that the forests will be managed for their conservation and recreational values rather than for resource extraction. It increases the capacity for the application of environmental flows from State and Commonwealth water holdings to RAMSAR and the Living Murray assets. It is anticipated that forest health will be maintained or improved over time, particularly in core areas, and that key biodiversity attributes, such as mature habitat trees, understorey and coarse woody debris, will be maintained at a greater level than would occur under management for timber production. It is anticipated that the change in tenure will assist in meeting obligations under the Ramsar Convention.

(Alliance comments) There is no evidence to date in NSW or Victoria that national park status increases the likelihood of environmental watering. The minister has a fixation with timber harvesting, who, by the way are not interested in mature habitat trees, understorey or coarse woody debris. These values were protected in the Barmah forest for the last 28 years under Ramsar protection, to the extent environment groups described Barmah forest as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of red gum forests. Does the minister infer that the state government has not met its obligations under the Ramsar Treaty, under which these forests have been managed since 2003 and can only do so with national park tenure?
The Millewa forest is already managed for conservation and recreation as well as timber growth and regeneration. Where is the evidence that these outcomes can be improved with NP&WS management? We are not expected by the Ramsar Treaty to prevent drought!

(6) Will the Minister provide me with the data used to assess that economic growth from tourism will occur following implementation of National Park status for red gum forests?

(Answer 6) Yes. My office will provide you with a copy of a report prepared by the Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics for the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water in November 2009. The report estimates the economic benefit to the area from the creation of new River Red Gum National and Regional Parks.

(Alliance comments) We will be pleased and surprised if this study shows economic growth from tourism that will off-set the government decreed economic decline in the Murray and Riverina regions, as no other data sets show the likelihood of this occurring.

No analysis underpins new red gum park legislation

While Green MP's want to end timber harvesting immediately in the Riverina forests the transition period is based on the only analysis the government undertook in the whole assessment process. This analysis showed that the timber industry would be decimated by the reductions in harvestable area and this would have a strong negative effect on the regional economy. The government has decided to blunt the heavy blow they have delivered to local communities by phasing out harvesting over five years.

No matter what side of the argument you sit, it is hard to imagine that forests that have sustained forestry for 150 years cannot sustain the much reduced quota over the next five years until all harvesting ceases, to allow people and communities some time to adjust. This is obviously too much for the Greens to bear in their haste to drive people out of the forest.

If the Green MP's really wanted to make themselves useful as reviewers of legislation they could ask:
Where is the full analysis of all the economic impacts these parks will have on the regional economies?


Where is the analysis of the alleged tourism benefits that are used to justify the decimation of these communities?
The government has committed $80 million of NSW taxpayer funds to the creation of these parks. Where is the cost benefit analysis to justify the expenditure of this money?
Where is the analysis of the biodiveristy benefits, if any, of turning the current Ramsar listed forests into national parks?

What is it exactly that we are getting for our $80 million?
Taxpayer funded shoring up of Labor votes in ten Sydney electorates?

Hasty and ill informed process rushed through at breakneck speed

After a very rushed three month assessment by the Natural Resources Commission, a process that took over three years in the Victorian red gum assessment, Minister Sartor confirmed the pre-emptive announcement by ex Premier Nathan Rees that regional communities would be sacrificed for Green preferences in Sydney electorates.

Bullying by Greens MP Ian Cohen [see link below] seems to have had the desired effect, only confirming suspicions held by many in the community. The fact that Premier Keneally would not even discuss these major reforms with the Alliance or any of the mayors representing these communities did not fit well with her commitment to listen.

While the need for some change was accepted by many, the adoption of a proven failed land management regime in the current form of national park management over a successful model of management under the Ramsar Convention will lead to poor environmental outcomes.

This failure of a 'once size fits all' approach to land management has already been demonstrated at Hattah-Kulkyne, Murray Sunset and Yanga National Parks.

Nevertheless, the Environment Minister has made his decision and stated in his March 2nd media release:
"The river red gum forests and industries and social systems they support are in decline due to river regulation, over allocation of water and drought."

So the stated problem is water and the remedy is more national parks - which do not provide any water!!

Following the ministers logic that water is the problem for the forests and that they are adopting the "key NRC recommendations", why then did the Minister slash the NRC recommendation for 1200GL of water to the forests to 265GL? The Minister has cherry picked the politically acceptable recommendations and ditched those that do not suit, despite a strongly made statement by NRC Commissioner John Williams at community meetings that his recommendations were a package that needed to be adopted collectively to be effective for the environment.

These decisions however have little to do with the environment and nothing to do with the welfare of Riverina and Murray communities.

The removal of active management of an invasive eucalypt, red gums, with an inadequate water regime as proposed will lead to environmental degradation that serves neither communities or biodiversity.

However, by the time that manifests itself, green groups who play no active role in the management of the forests will have moved on, to leave the communities who have managed the forests for 150 years to suffer the consequences. They have every other place green campaigners have been.

In the dying hours of his leadership, on December 3, former NSW premier Nathan Rees made the surprise announcement that a national park would be created out of the Barmah-Millewa state forests, in the Riverina, to preserve the giant river red gums.

The Keneally government is still struggling with the legacy of Mr Rees's announcement and that its implementation remains a live issue.

The community resolve to stay and resist is hardening.

Federal MP for Farrer comments on NRC consultation at Deniliquin

By SUSSAN LEY
January 29 2010
Deniliquin Pastoral Times

THE 16 recommendations put forward by the NSW Natural Resources Commission to the people of Deniliquin on Wednesday are nothing but an impossible dream.

For Commissioner John Williams and his colleagues to recommend what they did was shameful and irresponsible, given that they all freely admitted it was nigh on impossible that Governments would accept their recommendations.

About half of the recommendations in a report being presented to the Premier of NSW are out of her jurisdiction and can only be made a reality by the federal government which has not been a direct party to this process.

But Dr Williams told the meeting that the recommendations were a suite that should be accepted all together in order to work.

The NRC may as well have written a fairy story for all the good it will do our communities as we battle the distorted arguments of the environment lobby in our capital cities.

We have a recommendation that says that 1200GL or 54% of every drop of water that flows out of Lake Mulwala must be allocated to the central Murray red gum forests. Not only is this technically unachievable from the perspective of running the river to meet all the stock and domestic and irrigation needs in three states, the Murray Darling Basin Authority would have to re-write its entire rule book and change federal government legislation in the process!

Just consider the bunfight governments are having over a mere 148GL of floodwater from northern NSW and Menindee Lakes and you can see how this NRC fairytale becomes more and more fantastic.

Dr Williams said he did not know how much it would cost to achieve his grand vision of ecotourism, together with structural adjustment to close existing timber mills and make everyone feel good about this brave new world.

He therefore has no specific request for funding from Government, just a long wish list and an unreachable goal.

I have no idea how much the total package will cost either, but I can assure the NRC of one thing - Governments will not provide even a tiny fraction of this pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

I expect that Premier Keneally will accept the recommendation about handing over control of our sustainably operated, revenue producing world class forest to the NSW National Parks Service.

And then she will handball the rest to Peter Garrett and Penny Wong, who will say that this is a state issue and while of course they agree with the recommendations, it is not their responsibility to fund them.

We will be left with the worst of all possible worlds. A national park that will be a fire, weed and feral animal risk with no budget to run it, a dying timber industry and more dying red gums.

NRC Meetings in the Riverina commencing Jan 27th

The link below will provide all the details of the meetings to be held in Riverina communities starting on January 27th.

If you are not happy with the recommendations that have been released, come along to the meetings and have your say. It may be your last chance to convince the NRC that these recommendations are not balanced and therefore will not serve the community well.

Meeting confirms decison on parks made in haste

It was fairly clear early in the meeting there was not a good understanding of the issues that faced Riverina communities or recreational visitors to the area from the recommendations to turn all state forest with the exception of Koondrook/ Perricoota into protected areas.

Not one area in the eastern side of the large investigation area remains as state forest, imposing unreasonable restrictions on some recreational users of public land.

Questions as to what biodiverstiy benefits would be gained from turning the existing Ramsar listed Millewa State Forest into national parks went unanswered. Questions on the implementation costs, which the NRC report repeatedly said would be substantial, remain unanswered.

Discussion on the benefits of alleged increased tourism revealed a poor understanding of the demographics of the people who currently visit the red gum forests, many of whom bring the family dog on their camping trips. This would immediately preclude these visitors from returning to any area that becomes a national park. The fact that many current visitors come to these forests, because they are NOT national parks, apparently had not even been considered.

Asked to provide data showing the benefits to be gained from a changed tourist base demonstrated there was no such data. The Alliance has data from Tourism Research Australia that shows a significant long term decline in tourist numbers to the Riverina area. Further research from Tourism Victoria shows a decline in visitation to one of the last areas in regional Victoria turned into a national park and a very small increase, 1.5 per cent, after the Great Otways Park was declared in 2002. This is despite assurances from then Premier Bracks that increased tourism would offset any negative economic outcomes from the declaration of a larger national park. Publicly available data shows this is not so.

The same claims of economic growth through increased tourism were made at the meeting, but there is no data to substantiate the claims.

There was no rationale provided at the meeting to justify an expectation that increased biodiversity benefits could be expected, or that economic growth would be obtained through a change from Ramsar declared wetland to national park status.

No rationale, no data and no analysis despite reputed implementation costs to the NSW taxpayer of well in excess of $100 million.

The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council took three and a half years to investigate and present their recommendations on the Victorian red gum forests. Ex premier Nathan Rees did not even wait for the final NRC report after a three month investigation in his haste to declare national parks in the NSW forests.

An ill informed and hasty decision that will have a long term negative impact on NSW taxpayers and interstate visitors if implemented in its current form.

Environment plays second fiddle to politics

Once again we see decisions on the environment being made for political reasons rather than on the basis of science and evidence with the premature decision by Nathan Rees to declare new red gum national parks.

Rees acted without the final report of the NRC by not allowing it to present its report on December 21st as he agreed.

The ex-premier was the person responsible for initiating the extensive community consultation under the independent NRC investigation, a process he has now abused with his premature decision.

New premier, Kristina Keneally must now restore the integrity of the NRC and the faith of communities in that process by rescinding this decision without delay.

Failure to do so will only taint the new cabinet and her premiership with a politically opportunist label.

Campaign deceit now par for course

The points made in the article [see link below] by Mark Poynter published at Online Opinion highlight more than ever the need for land management decisions to be founded on science and evidence.

Decisions for political reasons will never produce good environmental outcomes as we now see in the case of Victoria's newly created national parks where the scientific evidence continues to pile up supporting the now banned practice of controlled grazing in the forest to reduce fire fuel loads.

The theft of 14,000 megalitres of environmental water from the Wimmera - Mallee pipeline, promised for the drought affected red gum forests, but now allocated to Melbourne, confirms this creation of four new parks was never about the environment, but only about appeasing city based environmental groups.

Meetings well attended except for Sydney!

Interested and concerned members of the community - the people who look after the forests - turned out in force for the NRC meetings in Balranald, Barham and Deniliquin.

They listened to the the NRC panel, asked questions and took an interest in the welfare of the forest - as they have always done.

By contrast, the meeting held in the largest city in Australia, the bastion of the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, National Parks Association and mulitudes of other 'green groups' who are only heard of when they wish to impose their ideology on other communities could only muster a few dozen supporters.

Do they have no faith in the process they lobbied for? Do they not care that much they could not bother to attend? Here was the golden opportunity to influence the NRC panel, ask questions, tell the panel they got the Preliminary Assessment wrong - if that was their view, but they stayed away in droves.

Or did they? Maybe that is all the support they can muster? Much is made of the opposition to the continued multiple use of the forest, but it only mainifests itself through a handful of activists. Same people write the same letters and turn up in the media.

If a few dozen is all that can be motivated to take part in the democratic process, one can only assume that is the extent of their support.

Govt hypocrisy on grazing is hard to bear in the heat of the fire season

As the article in the link below acknowledges, grazing is a crucial part of the ACT fire prevention strategy. It is amazing that the ACT government utilises grazing as a useful fuel reduction tool whilst the Victorian government hides behind the VEAC report to ban cattle grazing in the red gum forests.

Neither the VEAC report, nor the government, acknowledged several government commissioned reports that supported grazing as a management tool for red gum forests.

Why did VEAC not cite the reports that supported grazing?

Why did the Community Engagement Panel, appointed by the government to listen to community concerns, only talk about commercial cattle grazing and the need to ban this practice when the Alliance made it clear in person to the panel that the Alliance support for controlled cattle grazing was on the basis of fuel reduction and weed control? The panel were silent in their report on the ecological benefits of grazing, even though they were given access to the grazing strategy prepared by the DSE red gum ecologist, which supported controlled cattle grazing.

Why does the Victorian government continue to allow cattle grazing on the fragile coastal environment that is the Snake Island nature conservation reserve? Is it because they see value in controlling the vegetation on the island via controlled cattle grazing?

Parks Victoria have a lot to say about cattle grazing, but nothing to say about the grazing that occurs on Snake Island, which they manage.

The greens silver bullet for forest improvement

In all of the pronouncements on how to improve the state of red gum forests, of all the different tools available to land managers, only two are put forward by green groups as the answer to 'protecting' the forests - cessation of timber harvesting and change of land status to national parks.

No confusion here, ideology will save the forests!

Never mind that it has not worked in Victoria where some red gum forests have been locked up for decades and gone backwards.

Never mind that the Barmah forest is described by green groups 'as the jewel in the crown of red gum forests', which it is, because it has been managed with selective timber harvesting and controlled cattle grazing under the Ramsar Convention for the last 27 years and done very nicely thank you.

The greatest challenge facing the red gum forests in both states is the availability of water and the application of active forest management principles - something that will not happen under passive park management.

Draft Assessment Report reinforces community views on active management

The report outlines the current state of the forests in the bioregion and the challenges faced by management of those forests given "the scale of landscape modification and the need for active management of forests."

The report clearly notes the changes in forest structure from floods of the 1870's that saw an increase in the forest density which was further enhanced with the Hume and Dartmouth dam construction. These changes saw "seedling invasion of the grass plains and regeneration that established...full forest cover on areas that were previously native grass plains.

It is noted by the NRC that the condition of the forest "is likely to continue declining and the forests are in need of water and possibly active silviculture to survive the current drought." This situation will not be altered by a change of land tenure.

"An adaptive approach to sustainable forest management has allowed the forests to continue to support social, economic and community interests, and to protect and promote environmental and heritage values." The Alliance agrees - this is commonsense.

The NRC report also notes that the "only region in Victoria where the majority of river gum stands were in good condition was the Victorian Riverina area." An area that has been managed with sustainable timber harvesting and controlled cattle grazing for 150 years. The most degraded Victorian red gum stands were located in national parks according to the government funded study by Cunningham et al in 2007.

Greens cant handle the truth

Two independant assessments of the red gum forests have been handed down in the last three months and green groups can't abide by the fact that these reports do not conform to the narrative the green groups have been imposing on the community.

Media reports in late September gave examples of flourishing populations of squirrel gliders and other threatened species in managed red gum forests, an outcome which was supported by National Parks Association research.

All of this was bad news for greens, which is probably why they were so unhappy by weeks end.

People are coming from everywhere to tell us how to look after the forest

Forest campaigners we have never seen before and who we will not see once this issue is settled, have come from Northern NSW and Melbourne to tell us how the forest should be looked after. Ex premiers who write nonsensical fairytales in The Sydney Morning Herald that bear no relationship to the reality of life, cant see the wood for the trees.

None of these people have ever been around to help manage the forests or contribute. Riverina communities have been managing the forests for 150 years to the extent that in many places there are more red gums than ever before.

This is the very crux of the problem - there are too many trees in the forest. Red gums need space to grow properly. If ex premiers and forest campaigners knew the first thing about managing forests they would encourage more thinning of the forests to reduce water stress.

But cutting down trees does not fit the narrative they have built up over decades, even if it is good for the environment.

The Yorta Yorta spokesman featured in the link below should familiarise himself with how red gums are 'protected' in Victoria as the story mentions. The most degraded red gum forests in Victoria have been identified by government funded study to be located in the Hattah-Kulkyne National Park. Then there is the 840 hectares of dead red gum forest in the Murray Sunset National Park, then there is Nyah-Vinifera forest.........
Ask Bob Carr about them.

Locals join up for the fight

About 180 people attended a meeting called by Balranald Shire Council in support of the campaign to keep red gum forests accessible to the community.

The meeting heard from federal member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, state member for Murray Darling, John Williams, Balranald Shire Mayor Ron Mengler, Swan Hill Rural City Mayor, Greg Cruickshank, Alliance secretary Max Rheese and chairman of Balranald Inc. Jock Campbell. Balranald Shire general manager, Chris Littlemore summarised prior to closing the meeting.

The sentiment of the meeting was that the community must fight changes to land management that will not improve the environmental outcomes for the red gum forests. Numerous instances were given of forests that were open to the public for a range of activities and for sustainable timber harvesting being in better condition than forests now being managed for national parks - such as the former Yanga Station.

Recent tours of the area by the Natural Resources Commission, hosted by the Alliance and by the timber industry were discussed. The NRC saw first hand the damage from years of passive management at Nyah-Vinifera forest on the Murray as opposed to some well managed forests that are still being selectively harvested.

72 locals joined the Alliance as Associate Members on the day of the meeting with another 46 member applications arriving by post a few days later, some with welcome donations attached.

Consequences of poor policy now becoming self evident

The decimation of the 150 year old red gum timber industry piece by piece and the consequences of that are becoming clearer by the day. The media release [see link below] distributed by the Victorian Environment Minister on Friday August 28th boasts of having created just eight jobs from the destruction of an industry calculated by La Trobe University to be valued at $98 million per annum to the Victorian economy.

Well done Minister! We can hardly wait for the official declaration of the new national parks and the count down to the degraded environment that we see in all the other red gum national parks along the Murray River.

Rural communities shafted again.

$10,000 offered to charity over claims on Browns Camp burn

Alliance chairman Peter Newman has challenged the Environment Minister, Gavin Jennings to prove the damage to habitat trees, as claimed by the Alliance, did not occur [see Media Release page]. Mr Newman has called on the minister to visit the forest and count the fallen and burnt trees that cannot be used by superb parrots as nesting sites.

If there are only 12 trees or less as the minister claims in his letter to Paul Weller, Member for Rodney then Mr Newman will personally donate $10K to a charity of Mr Jennings choice.

However, if there are more than 12 trees [the Alliance has counted at least 38] then we call on Mr Jennings to donate $10K to the Royal Childrens Hospital.

Claim and counter-claim has been going on for months about the damage caused at the superb parrot nesting site and this challenge to the minister will hopefully resolve the issue.

Others in the community also think the minister and his department cannot count - they certainly cannot tell the season - as the burn was scheduled for the sensible time of autumn but was actually carried out in mid-spring.

See Link below

Why is it that people who call themselves ‘ conservationists’, who live in the city with their green ideology think that they are the only people who love the bush, the country and the red gum forests.

Bob Carr’s Opinion Piece in the Sydney Morning Herald 24/7/09 which is nothing more than an emotive and selective presentation of reasons to create more national parks in Riverina forests, is enough to make one physically ill when the effect of national parks on rural people is considered.

Mr Carr infers that only those who want to lock up state forests into national parks appreciate their beauty.

Forest workers consider themselves some of the most fortunate people in this country to be able to spend each day in such magnificent surrounds. They work under very strict government legislation to make sure the forests remain healthy and sustainable. People who work with these trees are very much aware that although beautiful, an invasive species like the River Redgum requires active management for the forest to remain viable.

The best areas of red gum forests are those that have been actively managed by controlled grazing and selective timber harvesting, such as Barmah forest, as opposed to forests that have been ‘locked up’ and are now biodiversity deserts because of over-crowding with too many stems per hectare.

It is interesting to note Mr. Carr’s comment that in some stretches 75 per cent of trees are dead or dying â€" this is indeed true! What he fails to also convey is the fact that these trees are located in the Hattah- Kulkyne and Murray Sunset National Parks as disclosed in a 2007 CSIRO study. History shows us red gum forests that are passively managed are doomed to failure and the most degraded red gum forests are those located in national parks.

The Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance has based its recommendations for the future of red gum forests on science and fact rather than emotion and ideology, an extremely important difference if these great trees are truly to be conserved for future generations.

What science and evidence may we ask does Mr. Carr base his call for new national parks on or is it just that he likes the idea?

The link below is an interview with Bob Carr on ABC World Today.

This interview includes comment by Carmel Flint from the National Parks Association who was arrested in a forest blockade near Deniliquin whilst interfering with legal timber harvesting operations.

How ironic is it that at the time Ms. Flint and Friends of the Earth were blockading timber harvesting in Deniliquin, which was being implemented under world’s best practice regime, Jamie Durie, well known landscape gardener and Greenpeace were in Sydney lobbying for a ban to be put in place restricting the import of timber from S.E. Asia where it is harvested illegally. Well done Jamie and Greenpeace!

Which would you rather Carmel, desecration of forests being harvested illegally or forests being harvested under world’s best practice. You can’t ban both imports of illegally harvested timber and locally produced timber and still provide timber and paper products to the Australian community.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2635505.htm

We laugh at Sir Humphrey Appleby and his colleagues in the BBC comedy ‘Yes Prime Minister’ but the disturbing fact is that bureaucratic mismanagement is so much closer to the truth than we imagine.

Again, the Victorian government and their bureaucratic minions have managed to make a decision for the people, about the people without actually listening to the people.

Mistrust and frustration ran deep in the people of the Barmah community in late 2008 after their proposal for limited short term grazing on Barmah Island, to reduce the fire risk to Barmah township was rejected by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Early in 2009 the Rivers and Redgum Environment Alliance requested DSE to provide them with the briefing notes to the Minister for the Environment regarding the communities view on controlled cattle grazing in the Barmah forest. DSE would not supply this information.

The information was subsequently released to RRGEA under the Freedom of Information law in March 2009 and has confirmed suspicions that no serious consideration was ever given to reducing fuel loads in the Barmah forest.

Freedom of Information details supplied show that DSE and PV staff acknowledged the arguments put forward by the Alliance that limited cattle grazing on Barmah Island would have offered some fire protection to the Barmah community.

These briefing notes also show that the community proposal regarding grazing in the forest was not conveyed to the minister in any form nor was he made aware of the community concerns. DSE did not support the introduction of cattle to reduce the fire risk although they acknowledged in their report that grazing would offer benefits from an ecological and fire protection perspective.

Information supplied to the minister contradicts the departments own studies and Forestry NSW studies on ecological grazing in the forest. It is interesting to note that these departmental studies supporting grazing in the forest have been removed from the DSE website.

DSE clearly recognised the fire risk in the forest in early summer (some grass and weed species reaching a height of 1.4m) when teams of DSE staff descended on the forest to repair tracks and re-establish a fire break on the north side of Barmah township. This was their response when threatened with legal action by the local community for not adequately addressing fire issues prior to the fire season. DSE failed to notify the minister of this risk in their briefing urging him to ban controlled cattle grazing in the forest.

The briefing notes to the minister, in the community’s view are a manifestation of a pre-determined agenda to see cattle excluded from the forest no matter what fire or ecological benefits may result from seasonal grazing.

Complete disregard for the law and other people's rights

In early May the NSW National Parks Association tried to use the Auditor General's report on the timber industry to show that the industry was a drain on state finances and was impacting on environmental values. This failed when it was pointed out that Forests NSW operated at a profit despite being required to provide environmental and tourism services as part of its duty of care in forests. It was also pointed out that the Auditor General made no adverse findings in his 54 page report.

Forest protestors next tried to blame timber harvesting for a decline in the superb parrot numbers. That failed when independent surveys showed the numbers of parrots are in fact increasing.

Next they tried to convince the federal environment minister and the NSW Primary Industries minister that the timber harvesting was illegal and should be banned. Neither minister supported this stance as has been made clear by Peter Garrett in the parliament on June 18th.

With no other stunts bringing any joy they moved into the forest in early June and illegally occupied a harvesting coupe. They did not have the support of the community or the police and were removed.

It was noted that most protestors came from northern NSW and that most visited the Centrelink office in Deniliquin to receive taxpayer funded support for their activities that were disrupting taxpayers lives!

Meeting decides on campaign to retain free access to forests

A meeting of the Alliance and supporters occurred in Tocumwal on May 21st, only a week or so after the announcement by Peter Garrett that would cost Riverina towns hundreds of jobs.

Garrett issued a stop work order to ban harvesting of red gum timber on the grounds this was having a detrimental effect on superb parrot numbers. Data collected in fact shows that parrot numbers are increasing steadily. The stop work order was issued without any study or consultation and at the urging of the National Parks Association [NPA].

As with recent NPA claims about the NSW Auditor General's report on timber harvesting in red gum forests, the claims about threats to superb parrots from harvesting of red gums have shown to be without merit.

It was decided at the meeting to enlist the help of the Alliance and the supporting groups in the Riverina communities to reject the unsubstantiated claims of minority green groups such as the National Parks Association.

Garrett blunders again!

While the NSW government is spending $2M on an Environmental Impact Study to ensure red gum timber harvesting continues in a sustainable manner, Federal Environment Minister blunders on to the scene ordering all timber harvesting to stop.

The purpose of the stop work order was to save the Superb parrot which is more abundant now than some years ago.

The NSW Auditor General released a report on timber harvesting on April 29th which highlighted the many restricitons the timber industry operate under to comply with environment legislation.

There were no adverse findings in the report which took many months to compile.

Follow the plight of Deniliquin - another rural town in the sights of the Green movement. CLICK the link below for A Current Affair

Community angry at being let down again

Dozens of residents and supporters attended the Barmah Muster Yards on April 22nd for a pre arranged meeting with the Environment Minister to discuss grazing issues in the forest.

The Minister failed to arrive. Read what community members thought of this in Letters to local papers. LINK below

Minister swallows department line- Hook, Line and Sinker

DSE and Parks Victoria were required to provide advice to the Environment minister following the annual assessment on whether to allow grazing in the forest. The cattlemen and the community recommended a small number of cattle for Barmah Island to reduce the chest high weeds and grass. 70 cattle, over 1500 hectares, for up to 8 weeks - hardly the stuff of a commercial grazing operation, more trouble than it is worth for the cattlemen. It is however, a useful fuel reduction exercise in areas close to Barmah township.

This was noted in internal DSE documentation, but never conveyed to the minister, as far as we know - certainly not included in the 20 dot point briefing note of 2/11/08 from DSE to the minister - where they urge him to ban grazing without telling him the Alliance arguments for fuel reduction in the forest for community safety have merit.

DSE however, do not neglect to advise the minister that should he contemplate allowing the cattle back into the forest this would "draw considerable critiscism from the Victorian National Parks Association, Goulburn Valley Environment Group, other environment groups and the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority". Never mind what might be good for the enivironment - just make sure the 'environment' groups are happy.

This surely represents a low point in the provision of supposed impartial, unbiased advice by public servants to a minister of the parliament in the name of public service and public good.

A second government study supporting the Rivers and Redgum Environment Alliance's stance on controlled, seasonal grazing being used as a vital land management tool was received by RRGEA late in April 2009.

This study supports our belief that poor environmental outcomes for the forest are going to be the end result of the decision to ban grazing.

View the RRGEA media release on the relevant page and Professor Kemp's grazing study on the publications page.

Tiny Barmah community rebuffed over offer to fire victims

A week after the Black Saturday fires the Alliance wrote to the Premier on behalf of its members, the Barmah Community and the Barmah Cattlemen's Association to offer to transport free of charge upto 400 cattle to the Barmah forest and to look after those cattle for up to 12 weeks while fire affected pastures recovered and fences were rebuilt.

In the weeks after the fires, despite repeated phone calls to the Premier's office, no response to the community offer was given.

There may not be much commonsense in Spring Street, but Frances provided some in this letter to The Age

Ministerial Communtiy Engagement Panel ignores DSE Ecological Grazing Strategy

The Community Engagement Panel [CEP] appointed by the government after the VEAC Final Report was handed down, had the job of bridging the gap between what VEAC had recommended and the aspirations of the community. They looked at many of the VEAC recommendations and reported back to government after their review. They met with many unhappy forest users, visited sites in the study area and recommended some changes to the VEAC report.

The Alliance met with the panel in Echuca to discuss grazing in the forest and to stress that the Alliance sought a continuation of controlled grazing on the grounds of fuel reduction and as an ecological management tool for the land manager in the forest. It was made crystal clear that the Alliance was not arguing for commercial grazing propspects in the forest. The panel were shown a copy of the DSE Ecological Grazing Strategy which supported the Alliance stance in using controlled grazing in the forest.

It is therefore surprising to read the CEP report [link below] which makes no mention at all of the fire mitigation values of grazing or the ecological benefits mentioned by the departmental red gum ecologist who wrote the report. The panel report states "The panel met with the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance and considered the social and community arguments put forward". We do not know what arguments they are talking about - we put forward evidence pertaining to fuel reduction and ecological benefit.

The Alliance consistently presented these arguments verbally and in writing based on these two points. Not once in their report have the CEP made any mention of how fire prevention will be addressed in the forest. The explanation for the recommended removal of cattle is superficial and does not address the problems caused by their removal. This indifference to the concern of the community on fire prevention undermines the credibility of the CEP report and recommendations.

Victorian public duped over new national park declaration

The Premier announced four new national parks covering approximately 90,000 hectares of red gum forest. This decison "would help to secure the Murray's future" said the Premier. "The Victorian Government has taken action to protect the ancient red gum forests...." "As many as 75% of trees on some stretches of the Murray are either dead or dying".

The Premier's comments can be seen via the link below to the government media release.

Anyone hearing these comments, in isolation from the facts, would think this was courageous and decisive action.

Some points however, should be taken in consideration to weigh up the value to the environment of this decision.

1. 55% of Victoria's public land is already 'protected' by national or state park or nature conservation reserves, yet green groups and politicians continually tell us that biodiversity conservation in Victoria is failing. How much of our public land will need to be reserved before we will be successful in maintaining biodiversity?

Is it that the amount of land reserved is not adequate or is it that the management model that is not adequate?

2. In 2008, 840 hectares of of red gum forest on LIndsay Island in the Murray Sunset NP was declared dead- this was widely reported. Thousands of hectares of red gum forest are dead and dying in the Hattah-Kulkyne NP on the edge of the Murray. Hattah-Kulkyne NP red gum forest was designated as in the worst condition of all red gum forests by the DSE funded study of Cunningham, McNally et al in 2007. Lindsay Island has been national park for 20 years and Hattah for 48 years. Clearly, park status offers no protection for red gum forests.

3. If national park status is so important to protect red gum forests and the forests at greatest risk have been identified as being downstream of Swan Hill - Why would the Premier declare FOUR new national parks, 250 kilometres upstream, in forests that are in relatively good condition?

4. The Yorta Yorta tribe lost a Native Title case for lands in the Barmah forest in the High Court in 2002. In 2004 the State of Victoria entered into an agreement with the Yorta Yorta to provide a framework for indigenous management of public land in traditional Yorta Yorta areas. There are no Yorta Yorta lands near the Murray Sunset or Hattah-Kulkyne parks. Two new parks, one at Barmah and one at Nyah, will be managed by indigenous people.

5. Barmah forest has been actively managed for decades utilising controlled grazing and selective timber harvesting. In 1982 the Barmah forest was declared a Ramsar wetland under the international Ramsar Convention. For 26 years the Barmah forest has been managed under the wise use principles of the Ramsar Convention. The forests of the Murray that have been actively managed are in better condition than those that have been protected. Cases in point are the Murray Sunset, Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks and the Nyah-Vinifera State Forest [grazing and thinning excluded from this state forest] as all being in poorer condition than Barmah state forest. However, we can now look forward to 'protection' under national park status for Barmah state forest!!!

Nothing the Premier has said in his announcement makes a case for Barmah state forest to be now put under a demonstrably failed system of land management to protect biodiversity. The worst areas of decline that he speaks of are already national parks. He knows as well as the rest of us that national park status has nothing do with environmental water allocations. Turning these red gum state forests into national parks will not solve the chronic water shortage they suffer.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from this announcement are that this whole exercise has had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with giving public land to indigenous people to manage and appeasing minority, city based green groups. Good luck to the indigenous people - but please don't tell us these areas are being protected to 'save' their environmental values.

The forests of the lower Murray that really need some help have been given nothing.

The Alliance put forward a new paradigm in public land management that provided for biodiversity protection and sustainable multiple use of red gum forests in 104,000 hectares of Ramsar Reserves. No-one has yet explained why this solution will not work when we have the 26 year working model of the Barmah forest.

Foolishly, the Alliance and river communities thought the VEAC process and government consultation was about science and evidence, when it was all about grubby deals and green politics.

'Cool heads fail to prevail' in fire risk fiasco

Earlier in the week the DSE Land and Fire Manager expressed the view on ABC radio that he hoped "that cool heads would prevail" and that cattle in the Barmah forest would be removed by the community. Less than 48 hours after some works started in the forest to belatedly address the community's concerns, after months of inaction, the community was served with a notice asserting illegal action had taken place and cattle would be impounded.

No time was given to assess whether the DSE works had removed the fire risk and a request for time to do so was refused.

It appears that 'hot heads' have inflamed the situation unnecessarily in an attempt to bully the community into toeing the line.

The department appears to have missed the clearly stated point: The community will not suffer the high fire risk over the holiday period from departmental mismanagement of the fire risk in the forest. The Barmah community has stated that when the fire risk is removed - either by the department or by the cattle - the cattle will be removed. See notice below- Remove cattle

Community driven to illegal action

On the first day of summer the Barmah community felt compelled to take action to reduce the serious fire risk from adjoining public land. That they were forced into this position through continued inaction of the land manager in addressing fire issues or even communicating with the community is a disgrace. Click on the link below for more.

General Stuff Ups

1. 7.30am on October 17th on ABC Radio the DSE Land & Fire Manager told the world that the prescribed burn at Browns Camp the day before had been conducted to regenerate Moira grass. Moira grass does not and never has been present at Brown's Camp. A fact that he later admitted to journalists but did not publicly retract. The Fire Management Plan actually shows that the purpose of the fire was a fuel reduction burn.

2. At 11.40am on October 17th the DSE Land & Fire Manager told the Alliance secretary that three habitat trees had been destroyed by the Browns Camp fire. On the previous evening the Alliance chairman had counted 38 habitat trees on fire. Subsequent inspection of the burn area revealed more than 38 trees destroyed by the fire.

3. On television news on October 17th the DSE Land & Fire Manager insisted that the objectives of the burn plan had been achieved. The Fire Briefing Notes handed to the Alliance secretary that morning clearly stated in the Incident Objectives that "the integrity of the old growth trees must be maintained"

How is this possible when they are laying on the ground burning?

4. In the Shepparton News on 5/12/08 the DSE Fire & Land Manager is quoted several times as saying graziers have put cattle into the forest. This is a false statement as the community, not graziers, had purchased and put the cattle into the forest - a fact made widely known. If DSE have evidence to the contrary that will support their statements, they should make it available. If they do no have such evidence, these comments could be construed as a deliberate smear on the integrity of the cattlemen.

5. In a radio interview on 2/12/08 the DSE Fire & Land manager stated the department had a 'duty of care' but we are not sure what that applies to. Is that to the forest or the people of Victoria?

If the duty of care is to people, under the Forests Act the department is obliged to undertake fire prevention works in the forest, this clearly has not happened within 10kms of Barmah township. This puts people at risk.

If the duty of care is to the environmental values of the forest, then, mate you better take another drive into the forest. In parts, the forest is a sea of purple where Paterson's Curse [thats a declared noxious weed you know] has proliferated since the removal of cattle grazing just two years ago. Scotch thistle and wild oats cover considerable areas with no signs of control. Duty of care - stop talking and start doing.

6. The Barmah community was labelled as irresponsible by DSE in the Weekly Times 3/12/08 for trying to protect itself and "distracting DSE and Parks Victoria staff from fire risk management". We are not distracting them as they are not doing any fire risk management within cooee of Barmah - that's the whole point!

7. DSE is quoted in the Shepparton News on 2/12/08 as having "begun a fire protection plan for the township" in conjunction with CFA and Parks Victoria. This is news to the residents of the township. No fire plan was mentioned until the Alliance wrote to the Minister and advised that cattle would be put into the forest to reduce the serious fire risk.

The Alliance spoke with Dr Tolhurst in the forest

Click on the links below to hear about the value of grazing as a fire reduction tool for the land manager and the detrimental effects of increasing the fuel load in the forest.

VEAC recommendations fail the test of scrutiny

Already it is self evident that four areas of the VEAC process have failed.

1. The original proposal for a 4000GL overbank flood every five years has been abandoned. The Premier thought it was so ill conceived, he ruled it out before VEAC even presented their final report.

2. The economic study and conclusions undertaken by VEAC have shown to be flawed by a comprehensive review by Ernst Young & Associates. The costs put forward by VEAC did not even include any allowance for the indigenous proposals that they recommended! The Pricewaterhouse Coopers report released by the Victorian National Parks Association confirms what the Alliance has been saying for over 12 months when it says that only 23 jobs will be created by tourism opportunities. The PWC report undermines the VEAC position on tourism as a panacea for the region.

3. The current state of the Nyah-Vinifera forest, which is being overtaken by parasitic dwarf cherry, following the removal of grazing about six years ago confirms what the Alliance has been saying about removing grazing from these areas. The Nyah-Vinfiera forest does not have grazing or thinning and is going backwards at a fast clip. Go and have a look for yourself. This is a glimpse of what the natural enviroment is going to look like when five new national parks are declared in the red gum forests of the Murray.

4. The VEAC recommendation for the build up of coarse woody debris to 50 tonnes to the hectare has taken a massive credibility blow in mid October. DSE conducted a fuel reduction burn at Browns Camp in Barmah State Park on October 16th under mild conditions with an estimated 30 tonnes of fuel to the hectare. Dozens of habitat trees were burnt to the ground and destroyed [photos in Photo Gallery] and they were unable to stop this. This was at 30 tonnes to the hectare under mild, controlled conditions.

The glimpse of the future here requires just a tad of imagination.

Imagine a 50% increase in fuel to the VEAC level of 50 tonnes. Imagine, not a control burn, but a wildfire. Imagine total devastation of the conservation values of the forest.

DSE could not stop the destruction of the habitat trees in this burn - go and have a look for yourself. Why should we accept VEAC reassurances that their recommendation will produce good environmental outcomes when we now have to deal with the disaster of October 16th?

Four areas that VEAC have got it badly wrong and we are able to see the consquences of that. Some of their other recommendations we will not see the results of for years - by then it will be too late.

It is time to have your say

SEND A LETTER NOW TO PREMIER BRUMBY BY FOLLOWING THE LINK BELOW

The Alliance and its members have sought to engage with VEAC to bring about good environmental outcomes for the River Red Gum Forests. There is no indication that VEAC have listened to community concerns about the stated adverse impacts of the VEAC recommendations.

It is now time to have your say on the future of public land along the Murray River.

A rally poster and a map of where the rally march will start from can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below

VFF president Simon Ramsay said the Alliance's plan recognised the limitations of water availability, future climate scenarios and the socioeconomic impact on rural communities if the VEAC "lock it up and leave it" approach was adopted.

Mr Ramsay said the alliance had come up with a more balanced and sensitive approach than VEAC, while delivering on the environmental concerns without decimating rural communities.

While VEAC recommended the creation of more than 100,000ha of National Parks, the Alliance said the classification of "Ramsar reserves" would give greater forest protection through the utilisation of Special Protection Zones. These management tools are available now to forest managers and have proved effective in protecting conservation values in land that does not have or need national park classification.

"The notion that biodiversity values can only be protected through the creation of national parks is outdated thinking" said Alliance secretary Max Rheese.

It was standing room only with Alliance chairman, Peter Newman introducing biologist Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a director of the Australian Environment Foundation. Dr Marohasy's speech can be viewed via the link below.

Alliance secretary, Max Rheese gave an outline of the Alliance view of land management direction and the need for change in how we think about land management.

His outline can be downloaded from the link below titled A need for change in land management.

On May 16th several Alliance Committee of Management members met with the Environment Minister, Gavin Jennings at Koondrook to put our case personally. We spent just over an hour with the minister putting our views and answering his queries. Because we were at the Arbuthnot mill site, we were able to show the minister and his staff the various products utilised in the harvesting of red gum and the 100% utilisation of the trees. Grazing strategies, fire management and recreational use of the river environs were also discussed.

Failure to address Alliance concerns over new data

Duncan Malcolm, chairman of VEAC in his reply has 'strongly rejected our assertion that the social and economic assessments prepared for the Draft Proposals Paper are flawed'. This is contary to the conclusions reached in the review carried out by Ernst & Young Associates [available on our publications page]. The reply has failed to address our concerns over new economic data that has not been available for public scrutiny and did not even mention our request for further public consultation.

Failure to address reasonable concerns only undermines the transparency of the process and flies in the face of VEAC claims of extensive consultation.

Further extension makes a mockery of public consultation

Environment Minister Gavin Jennings media spokeman, Nick Talbot has been quoted in newspapers on March 20th as saying there had been an 'exhaustive' consultation program. "There have been three formal periods of public consultation for this investigation". That may be so, but there has been no public consultation on the data collected since the submission period closed on October 8th 2007.

It has been stated that VEAC are doing further work on the economic modelling. The economic modelling that the public commented on in the submission period has been shown to be flawed and the public, to date, have had no opportunity to review or comment on this new economic modelling.

If the public are to have any confidence in the integrity of the final recommendations there must be an opportunity for them to view and comment on the new data.

Alliance goes to parliament to call for more public consultation

Alliance committee of management members, together with Gannawarra Shire councillors and CEO met with Minister for Agriculture, Joe Helper and Minister for Regional Development, Jacinta Allan as well as members of Labor Country Caucus on Thursday May 8th 2008.

The Alliance asked the Country Caucus members to highlight to Minister Jennings the inequity of the current situation, whereby VEAC collects further information which has not been subject to public scrutiny to compile final recommendations.

It is acknowledged that the community has had some opportunity to consult with VEAC, but it needs to be recognised that many shortcomings in that consultation process have been identified by the public.

A number of indigenous communities have stated publicly that they have not been adequately consulted, VEAC appointed Community Reference Group members have been disappointed with the level of consulation they have had with VEAC and to date no attempt has been made to share this recent information collected with the public.

It was explained to Country Caucus that given the low credibility of the initial economic material used in the draft proposals paper and the flaws exposed by Ernst & Young Associates in their review, the Alliance felt it was essential any new data also be subject to review.