Retail giant Harvey Norman has come under fire for their timber sourcing habits, with the company using timber from native Australian old growth forests as well as Indonesian rainforest timber in their furniture. Elizabeth McArthur reports.

Native Australian old growth forests logged for commercial gain. Image: rodbot

The ongoing campaign driven by activist group Markets for Change came to a head when three protesters recently scaled the Sydney Opera House to unravel a banner reading “No Harvey No- stop selling Aussie forest destruction.”

Louise Morris, campaigns manager at Markets for Change said, “From floor surveys we have conducted in Harvey Norman an average of 70% of the wood products found in their stores were Australian native forest wood products.”

Miss Morris maintains that, “It is the responsibility of retailers to implement procurement policies that rule out selling high conservation value Australian native forest products- instead moving to plantation based products.

“Well managed plantations are a viable alternative to logging of native old growth forests.

“Mixed specie plantations grown in appropriate areas are the perfect way to supply our wood and paper needs, while leaving native forests to be carbon and biodiversity stores and to act as watersheds, which is what they do best.”

In response to the campaign Gerry Harvey said, on ABC radio, “You know, I’m trying my best to use recycled timber or timber from plantations and not old forests.

“But every now and again something will slip through and I’ll be caught using timber from old forests, but it well could be timber that the Government in fact has told saw millers that they can actually – they can take it. They’ve got a certificate to take it.

“So it’s a little bit dicey sometimes.”

However Mr. Harvey’s claims have been questioned by Get Up who recently posted on their website, “the reality is – Harvey Norman has contracts with loggers in Tasmania, NSW, Victoria and WA to source wood from our most precious native forests.

“Harvey Norman has started using industry spin and a dodgy industry certification scheme to try and deflect mounting public pressure and protests.”

Get Up is continuing to ask the public to sign a petition with the goal of Harvey Norman agreeing not to source timber for high conservation value forests.

They aim to circulate the petition to every Harvey Norman store in Australia, in the hope that franchise owners will take notice even if the larger company doesn’t change their policy.

Harvey Norman is not the only retailer who sources material from high conservation value forests; earlier this year envelopes from Kmart were found to contain Indonesian rainforest wood.

When asked why Harvey Norman was specifically targeted for the campaign Ms Morris said, “Harvey Norman was chosen as a campaign focus as they are Australia’s largest furniture and electrical retailer, with stores in other countries as well.

“The Harvey Norman campaign is an ongoing one whereby we are working to the aim of Harvey Norman implementing procurement policies that rule out the selling of native forests products in their stores.”

Thousands of people gathered in Sydney’s Prince Alfred Park Sunday morning to show their support for the federal government’s proposed carbon tax. Rashida Yosufzai reports.

Mums, dads, kids and climate activists made up the crowd of an estimated 8000 urging the government to put a price on emissions and invest in renewable energy, as part of a nationwide campaign organised by community action groups.

Some held politically-charged banners and placards with slogans criticising the opposition and calling for a policy shift from investments in coal to clean energy.

Simon Sheikh from activist group Getup and one of the campaign organisers, said it was time for the government to act on climate change.

“We say yes to a price on pollution and yes to clean energy investment,” he said.

“Right now our politicians are negotiating a carbon price. We say to them to make it ambitious, make sure it invests in clean energy and energy efficiency. “

Rallies were held in cities across the nation to coincide with each other as part of the ‘Say Yes’ campaign, which kicked off last Monday with a TV advertisement featuring actress Cate Blanchett. The controversial ad generated a media storm after the actress was criticised by parts of the media for being out of touch with families who are struggling with the costs of living, especially those in Sydney’s west.

But Parramatta resident Ramya Krishnan, from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, told crowds that residents in her community were just as concerned about climate change as the rest of Sydney.

“The shock jocks don’t speak for western Sydney, neither does Tony Abbott,” Krishnan said.

“The mothers and fathers in western Sydney have big dreams. These are families who are struggling just like everyone else, but who want to lead a better world for their children and future generations,” she added.

Phil Bradley of the Parramatta Climate Action Network, which represents a group of 150 members, said western Sydney householders have genuine fears about the impact of the carbon tax, but much of it comes down to a lack of information being sent across.

“We’ve been on door-knocking campaigns and found some people were so pressed financially they were using solar lamps [instead] of lights at night, and sometimes not even having the refrigerator going because of the costs of energy,” he said.

“It’s pretty sad when some of them are saying they’ve heard prices are going up, and thinking that’s the fault of the carbon tax, which hasn’t even been introduced yet . They’re unaware that there is a compensation package part of this, that in fact makes some people better off,” he added.

Kept a secret among the Bolivian tribes for thousands of years, quinoa or the ‘grain of the gods’ has recently become a highly sought-after food in the West. Jemma Nicoll reports.

Lauran and Henriette Daman in their Kindreds Organics farm. Image: Honest to Goodness

For five thousand years the key to human survival lived amongst the early tribes of Bolivia. Quinoa, known locally as the ‘grain of the gods’, nourished soldiers, strengthened communities and was worshiped as a life-preserving necessity.

But the secret’s out, and this superfood has revolutionised Australian supermarkets.

Containing the eight amino acids essential for human growth, quinoa is the new top-shelf hero of the organic and health food sector. Never before has a gluten-free, high in protein, low GI superfood entered our market at such speed. Quinoa’s superior taste and ease of adaptation to cereals, breads, pasta and snack foods has suppliers rubbing their hands together and Aussie pantries stocked with the latest health trend.

However as with most trends, quinoa’s increased popularity comes with its own quandaries.

According to the New York Times, Bolivian quinoa consumption has fallen 34 per cent in recent years. Increased western imports have tripled prices forcing the local population to bid farewell to their staple ingredient.

Richard Seymour, General Manager of Melbourne’s Mount Zero Olives launched an Australian grown quinoa into retailers and began supplying to restaurants in December 2010.

“The guiding principles for Mount Zero have always been sustainable, regional and quality.

“So I would hope that we will never sell imported products based on [these] principles,” he said.

“Reading about the impact of exporting quinoa from South America on the local population, only confirms that we have made the right decision.”

Similarly, Sydney-based suppliers Honest to Goodness opt for domestic production. The company likes  “to stock Australian grown products as much as possible, supporting our farmers and also low food miles which is all supportive of sustainable and environmental practices,” said Marketing and Communications Officer Amanda Powell.

Kindred Organics farm in Tasmania is where Australia's first organic quinoa is being grown. Image: Honest to Goodness

A supplier’s decisions to “think global, act local” is big business for Lauran and Henriette Daman, pioneers of Australia’s first and only organic quinoa crop. As the masterminds behind Kindred Organics, a family-owned and operated farm in northern Tasmania, they have successfully grown three seasons of quinoa.

Mr Daman thinks it’s strange that imports take the main focus.

“As a nation I think it is far more important to be self-sufficient for environmental reasons and for food security,” he said. “And I like a challenge.”

Australian representatives of the internationally renowned fair trade food suppliers, Alter Eco, travel to Bolivia three times a year to visit quinoa producers. They have recently assessed the impact of the higher quinoa prices on local populations. Founding Director, Ilse Keijzer said the increase has had positive results.

“What is happening in Bolivia today is a fantastic opportunity to help these communities, as long as fair trade standards are guaranteed,” she said.

“The rising profile and price of quinoa on the world market is a unique opportunity for one of the poorest regions in the world to transform itself.”

Ms Keijzer acknowledges that quinoa is expensive for local populations, however says that it is not the only reason for changing food habits in the region.

“Globalisation in general has accelerated the taste for western processed foods and diets,” She said. “The purchase of fair trade quinoa has a very positive impact on the people.”

Mixed messages about the impact of foreign grown quinoa will not stop the Damans from leading the way in supplying Australian-grown produce.

“Quinoa is a primitive plant and only grows where it likes to grow. Lucky for us, it wants to grow on our farm,” Mr Daman said.

Frozen halal meat from Australia is sold in supermarkets in the Middle-East alongside meat from animals shipped there live in controversial conditions. Michael Carter reports on the alternatives to live export.

Sheep in Tasmania. Image: Stonestreet's Coaches

Imagine that you’re on a plane going overseas. You’re adequately watered and fed by the stewards even if the legroom isn’t great. Below you is a ship going in the same direction.

There are humans on this ship too, but not many. Most of the ship’s passengers are animals. You don’t know them (who knows a cow?) but they’re there and have been living in the same country as you. They have been raised with the help of your taxes.

They are packed in tightly, as many as 60 000 on a ship (have you ever complained about leg room?). If you’re a sheep, the captain won’t report anything untoward unless two per cent (or more) of you die along the way. Can you imagine this occurring on a flight? And when you arrive overseas and pick up your dog or cat, imagine four or five more pets in the same carrier. This is what that ship below you looks like. This is live export.

Australia is the world’s largest annual exporter of live animals to be slaughtered. According to the RSPCA, Australia sends ‘4 million sheep, 600,000 cattle and 25,000 goats’ overseas every year. The journeys, which can last up to three weeks, are made with economic, religious, cultural and logistical concerns in mind. Yet animal welfare groups have long-held concerns that live transportation is contrary to the health and welfare of animals.

The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) provide the benchmarks for the welfare of animals in live transport. These standards cover several aspects of live export including sourcing animals from farms, transportation, registered export feedlots, vessel preparation and on-board management.

However, the RSPCA’s 2008 report ‘Australian livestock Export Standards – a flawed process’ – found that the standards are essentially unenforceable in significant ways. Comparisons should be made between native ‘coat of arms’ animals and those domesticated. Why is the live export of kangaroos prohibited under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act? Why is kangaroo meat shipped frozen and not other types of meat?

Live export is often so crowded that it is difficult for animals to reach water or food. But, according to the website of the Australian Livestock Export Animal Welfare Group (LEAWG), “animal care is the first priority for everyone involved in the Australian livestock export industry.”

In such charged debate, you have to look beyond preambles to philosophies, intent and membership. LEAWG’s membership includes the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and Meat & Livestock Australia. The live export industry is powerful and lobbies government in earnest for the upkeep of a near $2 billion industry.

Yet a spokesperson for Live Export Shame says the industry’s influence is unfounded. “Why is it that LEAWG can make such sweeping statements when they do not have control over the live export industry? When they do not audit the live export industry? LEAWG can lay claim to whatever they want. Don’t you think the proof should be in what happens on the ground?”`

What happens on the ground, or sea, is essential to campaigners and their efforts. The sinking of the Panamanian transport ship MV Danny F II in 2009 is a case in point. In December of that year, approximately 30, 000 cattle and sheep were lost in the accident, highlighting the plight of live transport on a formerly Australian-owned vessel.

The main issue here is Halal. More specifically, it is the Australian livestock industry’s approach to Halal-certified slaughter. RSPCA CEO, Heather Neil, stated at the time of the accident that Egypt had “proven it [would] take Australian chilled and frozen meat over live animals, so we should be working on growing our processing capacity, not increasing live exports”.

According to the RSPCA, there are over one hundred certified Halal abattoirs that could viably slaughter animals in Australia. According to the LEAWG website, the live export industry also admits “Australia exports chilled meat to the same countries it supplies with live animals.”

Following similar incidents between Australia and the Middle East the practice of live transport was banned between Australia and Egypt in 2006. As campaigners predicted, countries such as Egypt increased their intake of frozen, pre-packaged meat following the ban.

Yet with the reintroduction of the route, the debate between live transport and export of chilled meat rages on; often to exasperating avenues. The spokesperson for Live Export Shame tells me “over 80% of the animals sent live are slaughtered in slaughterhouses and their meat sold in supermarkets along side chilled Australian slaughtered animals.”

It’s a strong argument for the organisation’s view that “the most economically viable form of export of animals is over the hook: chilled or frozen.”

While under ASEL, the Australian live export industry is considered as having the world’s ‘highest animal welfare standards’ by Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), “what is on paper and what occurs in reality are different,” says the Live Export Shame spokesperson. “It is important to examine the industry to see if there are mechanisms in place which demonstrate that animal care is a priority.”

This is a recurring theme in the debate. LEAWG’s informative, slick website even hosts a “Myth Busting” section which dispels these assertions by stating that “claims of cruelty by animal rights extremist groups are absolutely untrue”.

Most organisations, like the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), advocate for a humane method of transport for animals. Their proposal is simple: that animals be humanely killed prior to transport. This method flows into the frozen meat alternative. Talking to and researching animal welfare groups, terms like ‘humane slaughter’ and ‘point of origin’ are seemingly the antithesis of the live export industry.

The industry turns to the economic effect of a wholesale change. They repeat that the export industry is worth “$1.8 billion” annually and highlight the lack of refrigeration in destination countries.

I ask Live Export Shame if live transport is the most viable way of exporting animals internationally. They are matter-of-fact. “We are less concerned with other viable ways of transporting live sheep or cattle than we are with their welfare. We cannot imagine any other way – either ship or air flight – and we would think flying 80, 000 sheep on a plane is impossible.’

Carbon capture storage is promoted by governments and the mining industry worldwide as a solution to climate change. But can it hold up to its promises? Lauren Kelleher reports.

Coal Power Station. Image: Greenstone Girl

In March this year, the New South Wales government announced the allocation of $28.3 million to develop the state’s first large scale commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility.

Addressing the problem of climate change has been, and continues to be, a major concern of governments globally. CCS is one of the options at the foreground of providing a solution to this issue.

CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere, compressing it, transporting it to a suitable site, and injecting it into deep geological formations where it will be trapped for thousands or millions of years.

Ralph Hillman, Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, believes the NSW government’s announcement is a right step forward for the future of CCS in Australia.

“The close working commitment and relationship shown by the coal industry and Federal and State governments to CCS technology will ensure that Australia has a number of commercial scale CCS projects ready within the next ten years,” said Hillman.

The Australian Coal Association and both the federal and NSW governments equally fund the project, managed by Delta Electricity.

At the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, all parties committed to the development and broad deployment of CCS by 2020. In conjunction with this promise came the 2008 Hokkaido Recommendation to launch 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by the end of 2020.

According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), over 80 large-scale projects are at various stages of development around the world, including in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

Australia, named by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as one of the major countries committed to CCS, has invested heavily in the clean coal scheme. In 2009 the Australian Federal Government created the Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which includes spending $2.4 billion on CCS projects. The Rudd government also invested $100 million a year into the Global CCS Institute.

But according to Greenpeace, CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The environmental organisation believes that deployment of CCS at utility scale cannot be achieved before 2030, and to avoid the worst impacts of climate change gas emissions will have to start falling by 2015 at the very latest.

Time is not the only concern revolving around the use of CCS. Issues about the feasibility, costs, safety and liability of CCS all need to be addressed.

Journalist and environmental consultant for Greenpeace Australia Pacific Julie Macken said, “Carbon capture and storage is like the tooth fairy. It’s fantastic. But it’s totally delusional.”

According to Macken there is serious doubt whether the capture will work on such scale and that it will work commercially.

“At the moment we use coal because it is cheap. But using CCS will make fuel more expensive, the price of fuel will rise from $35 to around $120. The government and companies involved are saying that tax money will subsidise CCS to make it more commercially viable, and therefore cost will not become an issue.

But we say – why not subsidise on new green renewable technologies that are already available and will cost less?”

Macken argues that spending money on CCS is diverting urgent funding away from renewable energy solutions, such as wind power and many types of sustainable biomass.

According to the 2008 Greenpeace report, False Hope: Why Carbon Capture and storage won’t save the climate , funding for renewable technologies and efficiency has stagnated or declined. Australia has three research centres for fossil fuels, including one committed to CCS, but there is not one committed to renewable energy technology.

McKinsey & Company predict that by 2030, carbon capture and storage costs could be reduced to $45-$70 per tonne of CO2 abated, compared to a price of $90-$140 per tonne for current demonstration projects. This amounts to a 50% per cent cost reduction over the next 20 years.

Nevertheless, environmental concerns include catastrophic leakage, contamination of water and the escape of captured flue gasses. Such concerns highlight the unpredictable nature of CCS and demonstrate one of the key challenges it faces: the safe and permanent storage of captured carbon.

According to New Gen Coal, ‘there is no single technology available today that will enable greenhouse gas emissions from energy production to be stabilised and reduced to the levels scientists say are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. There are currently no facilities that capture CO2 emissions from a power plant at commercial scale’.

In 2006, a United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment demonstrated the unpredictable nature of carbon dioxide and the inexperience the world has when it comes to the long-term storage of CO2.

The 2008 Greenpeace report tells how the USGS scientists were testing deep geological disposal of carbon dioxide at a pilot project in Frio, Texas. The buried CO2 dissolved in large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained. Leading scientist of the field experiment, Yousif Kharaka, told Greenpeace that the results are a ‘cautionary tale’ for future detailed and careful studies of injection sites of CO2.

Macken also considers legal liability a major concern regarding CCS. Industry views liability as a barrier to wider deployment of CCS and is unwilling to fully invest in CCS without a framework that protects it from long-term liability.

“Who owns the Carbon once it is stored underground? Who owns it once it explodes, leaks, or causes an earthquake? The answer is no one. The fact is [CCS] is uninsurable. It is a risk that can’t be managed and therefore can’t be done,” said Macken.

The International Energy Agency claims significant progress has been made on the development of legal and regulatory frameworks. It will be producing a bi-annual review of CCS Legal and Regulatory Development and is working on a Model CCS Legal and Regulatory framework.

In 2005, the Regulatory Guiding Principals for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage was established by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources of the Australian Federal Government. The frameworks outline liability responsibility to all parties involved whereby liability does not arise until the injury or damage occurs. Such frameworks display that not all liability costs will be faced by the public in relation to CCS.

Australian Coal Association Ralph Hillman said “Australia generates around 80% of its electricity from coal, and the coal industry directly and indirectly employs over 130,000 Australians and plays a major role in our national economy. With so much at stake, the deployment of CCS is crucial to our industry’s future and New South Wales is now firmly in the development picture.”

With planned CCS projects proceeding in Australia and worldwide, only time will tell whether the new scheme will be a success.

Man’s best friend is facing a crisis as puppy farming rapidly becomes one of Australia’s most pressing animal welfare problems. Christie Sinclair reports.

This litter of neglected puppies is only one of thousands suffering that fate. Image: Don A. Elbourne Jr

Thousands of puppies across the country are caged in appalling conditions for breeding as the puppy farming industry places profit over the welfare of dogs. And despite the thousands of lost, unwanted and abandoned dogs that are killed in animal shelters each year the practice of puppy farming continues to contribute to this oversupply of dogs.

But the escalation of this problem lies in a misinformed public and a lack of adequate legislation.

The RSPCA characterises puppy farming as the “large- scale commercial production of puppies for sale”. Often hundreds of dogs live in the same area, are confined to tiny cages and receive little social interaction, exercise and basic care. The dogs are forced to live in damp and unsanitary conditions, often in their own faeces and urine.

Dr. Camilla Babington of Mount Martha Veterinary Clinic in Victoria reports that there are a number of health as well as moral issues associated with puppy farming.

“Do we want dogs to be in a farmed situation? When people think about dogs they think about pets, rather than animals that are kept in a similar way to that in which pigs are kept. They are not treated as a companion animal rather treated as a production animal. That’s a moral issue,” she says.

And to maximise profit female dogs are often forced to produce litter after litter, resulting in major health issues. Once they reach the end of breeding life they are often euthanised rather than being re-homed, devoid of a chance to live a normal life.

Babington also points out that puppies need a key socialisation period within which they adequately socialise with both humans and other dogs. When they are kept confined to cages, the puppies often out on a lot of this essential socialisation that can ultimately lead to behavioural problems later in life.

It seems the only way to ensure all puppies are raised in an ethical environment is to help place pressure on the government to stop the operation of puppy factories.

Animal welfare groups have long been campaigning for the regulation and abolishment of puppy farming. Passionate people like president of Oscar’s Law Debra Tranter and director of Australian Teens Against Animal Cruelty(ATAAC) Elizabeth Anile and their teams work diligently to bring the issue into the media and the public spotlight.

The Oscar’s Law campaign is about legislative reform and lobbying politicians to abolish factory farming. The campaign was named in memory of one of a number of severely neglected dogs rescued from a puppy farm in Central Victoria in January 2010.

To raise public awareness and support the Oscar’s Law campaign, a Puppy Farm Awareness Day Rally was held on Sunday 19 September at Parliament House in Melbourne to further highlight the need for changes to be implemented. Tranter says the rally was a great success and she has since been overwhelmed with support.

“We’ve been inundated with people offering their support. In a lot of those emails, people are saying they didn’t even know that this actually happened in Australia. They thought it was a problem that only happened overseas. We have succeeded in raising so much public awareness about what goes on behind pet shop windows. That was a clear goal of the campaign, to educate and raise public awareness.”

It is clear the rally was a success, with The Oscar’s Law website recently upgraded from a Victorian initiative to a national campaign to accommodate the tremendous amount of support from people wanting to lobby in their own states.

ATAAC, the first Australian animal protection group operated entirely by teenagers, use social mediums such as their website, Facebook and Twitter pages to help educate fans on the truth about puppy farms and how people can help in the abolishment of such institutions.

“ATAAC is proud to be one of the official supporters of the rally and of the campaign itself,” says Anile, its director.

“We help to promote any demonstrations or campaigns the people behind Oscar’s Law have come up with in an effort to get as many young Australians to attend as we can. It’s so important for the youth of Australia to be made aware of these issues so that they too can in turn make informed decisions which will hopefully create change.”

Anile says the first step in raising awareness is to reach out to consumers who are unaware of the concept of puppy factories and the cruelty masked by inviting pet shop windows.

“We need to keep this issue in the media so that the Victorian Government can see that Victorians want these cruel institutions closed down. We also urge people to continue writing letters to the Premier and to never, ever buy from pet shops – always adopt.”

In 1994, a mandatory code of practice against puppy farming came into existence although its application has never been enforced. It is problematic as the RSPCA (the body responsible for the prevention of cruelty to animals) was frozen out of the legislation, giving them virtually no powers under the act at all. If persons are caught violating the code of practice there are financial penalties or they can have their permit revoked, however Tranter said that has never been the case.

“The only person who can enforce the laws on a puppy farm is a local council officer. Most of the time they don’t understand the legislation, they haven’t got time and it’s just not a priority. It’s basically a self-regulated industry,” says Tranter.

Driving this industry are the inviting displays in pet shop windows that encourage impulsive buying behaviours and successfully mask the cruelty behind the puppy farming industry. A key problem when buying a puppy from a pet shop is that it is difficult to identify where the animal has been sourced.

“In terms of helping people avoid buying from a puppy farm, my advice would be that they are best not to buy from a pet shop. It is pretty rare that at a pet shop you can guarantee what the origin of the their stock was. The best you can say is if it is pure-bred and it’s got its papers then it has probably has come from a breeder,” says Babington.

The best way worried consumers can ensure they are not supporting puppy farms is to adopt a puppy or dog from a pound, vet or animal shelter. The benefit is that the animal’s life is saved, it is checked by vets, de-sexed, vaccinated and costs a fraction of the price a breeder or pet shop would charge.

“It comes back to whether people fall in love with some cute fluffy thing that they see in a pet shop window or do they want to give an animal a home that would otherwise be put to sleep,” said Babington.

By Julie Kofoed

Councils in Sydney say more funding needs to be given for bicycle infrastructure. Image: Tai_yi

Improvements in Sydney transport infrastructure mean more people are choosing to travel by bicycle. The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority NSW estimate that one per cent of all trips in Sydney are now made on bicycle.

While from an environmental point of view, this is an improvement, what this statistic does not show is that most of these trips are made in the small inner city. When it comes to bicycles, the vast suburbs of Sydney are being left behind.

According to the new NSW Bike Plan, Sydney will spend 158 million dollars on filling the missing links in major cycle ways between 2010 and 2020.

“There is a huge increase in the number of cyclists in the inner city where the infrastructure is getting better, but in the suburbs it seems like people are driving faster and the cyclists feel less welcomed,” says Elaena Gardner, president of the volunteer group BikeSydney.

“New riders are daunted. I think the cars in the inner city have got used to the cyclists as there are becoming more riders.”

One of the reasons why people in the outer councils do not have as many riders as the inner city has, might be because of the lack of cycle ways according to Liverpool Council.

“At present there is no continuous cycle connection between Liverpool and Sydney, it is only on-and-off road, so the cyclists have to share the general route with the cars where they do not have much protection,” says strategic and transport planner at Liverpool Council, James Semple.

Sutherland Council and Blacktown Council report the same problem.

“We have some fragmentation in our cycle ways network. It is tough somewhere if you want to ride into the inner city, because there is on-and-off cycle ways the whole way, which means that the cyclists have to share the road with the cars or the pedestrians,” says Ingo Koericke, senior environmental scientist in Sutherland Council.

Blacktown Council has made an extension in their cycle ways network during the last 10 years, but there is still only on-and-off cycle ways into the city.

According to the councils, money is the problem.

Steven Bryant, senior traffic management officer for Blacktown Council says, “We have been waiting for a completion of the network for a long time, but there is not enough funding for the building of cycle ways.”

Funding is uncertain and limited

To invest in infrastructure in Sydney the councils have to apply for funding.

The funding comes from different Governmental departments, for example Infrastructure Australia, which provides some funding for transport and other infrastructure. According to the several councils in Sydney, funding is strongly needed.

“As it is right now, the money for construction of cycle ways is limited, so we need more opportunities for funding. It is difficult because the need for cycle ways is competing with other kinds of needs,” says Semple.

He would like to see more planning of major commuter routes from the State Government and especially more funding for the infrastructure in the outer councils. Steven Bryant agrees.

“It seems like most of the money has been spent on the inner city.”

The NSW Government has spent nearly 300 million dollars over the past 10 years on cycle ways throughout Sydney and regional NSW, building an average of 200 kilometres of cycling facilities per year.

Vice president of the volunteer group Bicycle NSW, Richard Birdsey, would like to see more money spent on cycling, but says that there is a big pressure on the State budget.

“We have to be realistic and I think that a lot of things are already being done. Things are getting a lot better.”

Koericke echoes this sentiment saying, “It is improving, but compared to funding for roads, it is a minimum of money which is spent on cycle ways. And without money, it is hard to complete cycle ways.

“I would like to see more focus on cycling, because it needs a stronger push to make it sustainable… Unfortunately there is no certainty if funding, because it is politically driven and funding for cycling will only be possible if cycling considers to be worth it.”

Economic, environmental and healthy benefits of cycling

According to a report launched in May, made by the independent institute AECOM, there is an economic reason to invest in cycling. The study, which was commissioned by City of Sydney Council of a proposed Inner Sydney Regional Bike Network shows that Sydney can save millions of dollars by investing in cycling. 


According to this study, an investment in cycling would deliver at least 506 million dollars in net economic benefits over 30 years, and reduce Sydney’s traffic congestion by 4.3 million car trips a year.


The report also suggests that it will bring better health and environmental improvements such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as improved air quality and lower noise pollution in Sydney. 



BikeSydney welcomes the AECOM-report.

“It is really good news. The report looks on the economic benefits for the first time, and we are excited about the result. It shows that it is worth spending money on better infrastructure for the cyclists. I hope the Government will look at the research,” says president of BikeSydney, Elaena Gardner.

“The Government is traditionally more focused on the economic benefits more than other kinds of benefits, so I hope this will give the Government a motivation to invest more money on infrastructure”.

Completion of cycle network

The report might be the starting gun for councils on the outskirts of Sydney.



“This report makes a very important difference for Sydney. To invest in infrastructure in Australia, councils have to apply for funding. And to do this, they need to prove that there is an economic benefit for the plans”, says Fiona Campbell, Transport Planner for City of Sydney (CoS) council. 



She explains that the CoS Council, which spends 76 million dollars a year on infrastructure, prepares the funding applications on behalf of all the areas in the CoS Council.

“The inner city does not need the money for the infrastructure, but we want to help the suburbs to get the same good infrastructure. With this report they have a very strong case,” says Campbell. 



According to Roads and Traffic Authority NSW, an average of 233 kilometres have been built each year in the State between 1999 and 2009. 430 kilometres of cycle ways had been built out of a possible 480 kilometres of major cycle ways that the NSW Bike Plan had promised would be in place by that year.

Matt Faber, acting sustainable transport manager for the Roads and Traffic Authority NSW says, “Where cycle ways had not been completed as promised, this was for reasons including changes to the timing of other transport projects of which the cycle ways were an integral component, delays to property access or acquisition, and overall changes to transport investment priorities.”

According to the new NSW Bike Plan, Sydney will spend 158 million dollars in specifically on major cycle ways missing links between 2010 and 2020.

“When developing cycle ways, the NSW Government will continue to focus on completing links in a high-quality network that connects Sydney’s major centres, while local councils will be mainly responsible for local routes that fill in the spaces between major cycle ways,” says Faber.

Julie Koefed is studying Journalism at the Danish School of Media and Journalism. She was on exchange at the UTS on a GEJI scholarship.

Recreational fishing at Devilbend Reserve on the Mornington Peninsula could allow more feral populations of marron, a noxious freshwater crayfish, to establish in Victoria writes Kim Brooks.

By opening up Devilbend reserve for recreational use, the potential for the spread of the toxic crayfish increases. Image: Janet Oliver

Devilbend Reserve is one of two known locations of the invasive Western Australian crayfish in Victoria.

Dr Ross Thompson, co-author of Devilbend Aquatic Habitats Ecosystem Study, said one of the reasons marrons haven’t spread from Devilbend is because the reserve is not open to the public.

Devilbend Reserve has been closed since it became a water catchment in the 1960s.

Between 2000 and 2001, Melbourne Water removed the reservoir from the water supply network and initiated plans for its future use.

VRFish, the Victorian recreational fishers representative organisation, and recreational fishing interests have been lobbying for recreational fishing at Devilbend Reserve for over ten years.

When Parks Victoria open Devilbend Reserve to recreational fishers, as confirmed in the Final Management Plan released in May, the potential threat of marron to spread into other fishing spots in Victoria becomes a real concern.

The marron are considered a Noxious Aquatic Species under the Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic). Existing legislation prohibits the possession of marron at any time.

Additionally, it is illegal for a person to bring into Victoria, or take, hatch, keep, possess, sell, transport, put in any container or release marron.

Parks Victoria have noted in the Management Plan that restrictions on the type of fishing equipment permitted in the reserve will be employed to manage the spread of marron.

“It’s actually a declared noxious pest, it’s illegal for Parks Victoria to allow it to spread,” said Dr Thompson.

“Probably one of the reasons it’s not being spread is that people aren’t able to move in and out of the reserve, to me that’s a major issue that unless dealt with I would never open that personally for any form of recreational use.”

A confidential report on marron in Victoria conducted by the Arthur Rylah Institute for the Department of Sustainability and Environment states that the spread of marron within Victoria is likely to occur from the translocation of marron sourced from Devilbend Reservoir.

Don Ellis, President of Metropolitan Anglers Association, believes the idea that marron will spread is a “furphy”. He said that recreational fishers recognise marron and would not mistakenly remove them from the Reserve.

Devilbend Foundation, a local community group, disagree. In a letter to the Minister for Agriculture and Small Business in 2007, the President of Devilbend Foundation called the feral population of marron in the Devilbend Reservoir a potential threat to the aquatic environments of Victoria.

Tom Camp, member of Mornington Peninsula Fly Fishers and long time advocate for recreational fishing at Devilbend Reserve believes that fishers will help contain the feral population of marron at the Reservoir.

“The best way to maintain and manage marron is if you have people there keeping an eye on it, the worst thing to do is leave it unchecked.”

Related articles

Trout threatens Dwarf

Environmentalists argue that what began as an initiative to clean up dirty palm oil production practices, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil has become little more than an NGO-endorsed greenwashing tool. Rebecca Zhou reports.

Due to an increase in worldwide demand for food, palm oil production has grown dramatically since it began in the 1970s. Image: CELCOR

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was set up by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to involve companies in creating more sustainable ways of producing palm oil. However environmental experts believe that not only is the RSPO ineffective, it has become a way to green wash poor practices.

“The RSPO gives the companies a green front and encourages more consumption, which is precisely the cause of the problem,” said Valerie Phillips, forest campaigner of the Greenpeace branch in Papua New Guinea, one of the three countries most adversely affected by the palm oil industry.

The Roundtable board includes stakeholders from producers, processors to traders and retailers who work with NGOs to develop a set of ‘Principles and Criteria’ that all member companies must follow to be certified.

One of the environmentalists’ main concerns is that there is no legal framework around the ‘P&C’ and companies work at their own pace to meet them. Often they are not met at all.

“It is a voluntary initiative so the company cannot even be held accountable for failing to meet standards,” said Eddie Tanago of the Centre of Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR) in Papua New Guinea.

“Up till now there are 11 or 12 companies certified under RSPO mechanism, however all of the companies have gotten complaints because of most of them are not following the principles and criteria of RSPO but still have the certificate,” said Agrofuels campaigner from Friends of the Earth Indonesia, Torry Kuswardono.

WWF’s Global Forest and Trade Manager Lydia Gaskell says that companies wanting to be certified are given action plans and targets according to ‘the size of the company and how sustainable they are.’

“To take a company off certification for failing to meet standards and criteria is at the very least, impractical,” said Gaskell. “There would be no need for the RSPO if everyone was meeting those principles and standards from day one.”

The fact that action plans and targets are negotiable is another weakness, said Grant Rosoman, Forests Campaigner for Greenpeace International. He believes that WWF’s close affiliation with businesses has led to compromises in their conservation efforts.

Misuse of environmental indicators

Under the P&C, the company must work with WWF to identify ‘High Value Conservation Forest’ (HCVF) areas prior to plantation. WWF, with the assistance of other independent consultancies such as Daemeter Consulting use a HCVF ‘toolkit’ as a framework to define these areas.

“They’ve taken the HCVF concept and misused it,” said Rosoman, “The HCVF is essentially open to interpretation and when used this way, the assessments see heavy interference from the company.”

“Say the assessment is done and 50 percent of the land is written off as being primary forest. The company says not feasible. It then becomes negotiable with WWF to reducing that down to a more ‘economic level’. In the end it gets to something ridiculous like only 10 percent of the area.”

WWF has been under fire in the past for receiving enormous levels of funding from corporate companies. In 2007, it received $20 million from Coca Cola for research into water efficiency. Its 2008 annual Financial Report recorded revenue of $196.5 million while Greenpeace reported a 2007-08 revenue of a little over $40 million.

“WWF needs to take a side and really stick to their guns and not be influenced by the client. Poor HVCF assessments risks good work done on the ground,” said Rosoman.

Kuswardono is also concerned with the lack of transparency with HCVF assessments and the role that WWF plays in the process.

“It’s hard to know what WWF’s role is because they are always acting in the gray area between the government and the company,” said Kuswardono.

“Although WWF will set principles and criteria which promote their interests in HCV forests, they won’t push the companies to implement them.”

Violation of land rights

Investigations into RSPO certified company Wilmar International show that it has been clearing land without proper consultation with communities. Criterion 2.3 in the P&C states that the company must ensure ‘use of land for oil palm does not diminish the legal rights, or customary rights, of other users, without their free, prior and informed consent’ and that prior negotiations with locals must involve ‘open sharing of all relevant information in appropriate forms and languages, including assessments of impacts, proposed benefit sharing and legal arrangements.’

Kuswardono says that when companies do consultations, they are insufficient and often misleading.

Child pushing a wheelbarrow. Image: CELCOR

“They will use tactics of division by selecting certain figures of the community who support their projects and cause a divide between communities in this way.”

A joint investigation by NGOs into Singapore palm oil giant Wilmar International in October 2009 revealed that crucial information about land rights were often omitted during negotiations with community. The team discovered that a large majority of local people living in the Landak plantation area had been misled into relinquishing their land to the company.

Under Indonesian law, the land leased to a company is returned to the government, and not the original owner. The investigation showed that those who agreed to relinquish their land did it under the belief that they could reclaim ownership after expiration of the lease.

The investigation team reported that ‘they [community leaders] vehemently asserted that the lands were theirs and should revert to them and that they had only lent the lands to the companies for their use (hak pakai). Two interviewees in the widely separated districts went on to say that they would never have agreed to release their lands if they had known that this was permanent.’

Health issues

A study by CELCOR in 2006 reveals that some of Cargill’s plantations managed by its subsidiary Higaturu, have also gravely affected communities’ health.

In 1976, Higaturu, a subsidiary of Cargill started a plantation in Popondetta in Oro Province, where the Kokoda Track is situated. The health effects of the mill on local communities for the past 33 years has been severe and in some cases, irreversible.

The study documented the effects of nine toxic chemicals such as the herbicide ‘paraquat’ used commonly in all plantations as well as a variety of insecticides. Its effects range from skin diseases, ulceration and alterations to the Central Nervous System resulting in intense nausea and loss of reflexes. Paraquat was banned by the European Union (EU) in 2007 but remains legal in most developing countries. Though it is still commonly used in Australia and New Zealand, there are strict regulations governing it.

“The people live all the way down near the rivers there and those rivers have all been polluted with the effluent from the mills. The company reports claim that it is a hundred per cent treated but it’s not,” said Tanago.

“The people depend on the river for living. They drink from it and they wash their clothes in it and they continue to do so because they have nowhere else to go.”

In response to allegations of pollution made by CELCOR and Friends of the Earth to the RSPO grievances panel in 2008, Wilmar responded that they would prepare ‘to adopt a precautionary approach by conducting Environmental lmpact Assessments, a full HCVF Assessment and Social Impact Assessments before any land development in the area commences.’

But Tanago maintains that he has not seen any real commitment from the company.

“Their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. The company says that there is no scientific backing and sometimes they will just refuse to answer them. There is evidence of suffering though. About 60 per cent of a village of 200 people are affected. Only few ever speak up about it.”

WWF also seems to believe that complaints from the communities and findings of NGOs require more substantial evidence.

“There will always be allegations, and WWF can’t be everywhere at once.”

“Cargill and Wilmar are definitely not a hundred per cent there yet,” said Gaskell, “In fact I wouldn’t say that any of the companies are quite there yet.”

“WWF is very much aware of the situation on the ground,” said Grant Rosaman, forests campaigner for Greenpeace International, “But when WWF becomes an external assessment body for the companies, the companies become their clients and it gets very difficult for them to stay loyal to their agenda.”

Forest Restoration coordinator for WWF Indonesia, Fitrian Ardiansyah concedes that some companies on the Roundtable have continued their malpractices.

“This is a challenge for us. And we have been naming and shaming companies which use the RSPO to cover up their practices,” said Ardiansyah.

The RSPO website has a list of companies whose memberships have been terminated but no such ‘name and shame’ list that draws attention to the alleged malpractices of major companies like Wilmar and Cargill exists. An older version of the RSPO website however, did report a complaint made against Wilmar International by Friends of the Earth in January 2008.

Complaints made against companies are dealt with by the Grievances Board, which consists of stakeholders instead of external assessors. In response to the allegations against Wilmar, the executive board stated that ‘There are three items in the response where further assurance is to be secured…none of these three items, individually or collectively, were considered as invalidating the acceptability of the response.’ There was no specification of what those three items were and whether Wilmar delivered its assurance. At the time of this article’s publication, the executive board’s response had been removed from the new RSPO website, a move that further shows the board’s lack of transparency.

The Singapore biofuel giant remains a member of the Roundtable and received full certification in January 2009 as ‘a testament of Wilmar’s strong commitment towards sustainable palm oil production, based on sound management and active engagement with the different stakeholders in the palm oil supply chain’, according to a company press statement.

Villagers are contracted by major companies to harvest palm oil. Image: CELCOR

Gaskell describes the Roundtable as a ‘journey of improvement’ that WWF guides them along. It is also a journey for the organisation itself, which is constantly seeking ways to improve the principles and criteria.

“RSPO has worked hard to get a set of standards that are far and beyond the current level of practices. They are the best practice management right now. And those standards are not set. WWF will continue working with companies to strengthen them.”

But both international and local campaigners believe that WWF is missing the point, which is that without a legal framework within the country that can govern a company’s actions, the RSPO is useless. Furthermore, local governments often have no regard for the environmental impacts of plantations and this makes it difficult for the company to carry out assessments without heavy financial losses and thereby making them more likely to skip the process.

Government indifference

In Indonesia, the Department of Agriculture regulates and distributes permits to companies. These location permits provide for the transfer of rights of the land to companies for commercial uses but are only valid for three years. In that time, companies must carry out initial surveys, socialisation programs and environmental impact assessments, secure investments, apply for and be granted requisite permits for clearance and construction and install the necessary infrastructure. Delays occur for a number of reasons and permits are often forfeited if the company cannot complete the process on time.

“It is very likely that the companies will not perform assessments or community consultations properly because they are afraid they will lose the land to someone else,” said Kuswardono.

“The government in Indonesia or Papua New Guinea doesn’t care how much forest will be destroyed when they give out these permits.”

The same investigation by Sawit Watch, Wild Asia and Forest Peoples Programme found that as a reaction to complaints of other businesses, governments often rush to reallocate these permits to other companies. Wilmar International was reported to have had over a total area of 120,100 ha in 2006 with active permits. By 2009, the Minister for Agriculture had cancelled permits to almost all these areas and had then restored to Wilmar only 52,204 ha. The main receiver of the permits was a company called Djarum, which is not RSPO certified and was alleged to have cleared land without conducting environmental impact assessments or securing agreements from host communities.

“The big task which WWF and RSPO should focus on is creating a legal bind for the HVC assessments so that companies can be held accountable for their actions,” said Tanago.

“Nothing is being done right now about the pollution and land clearance because the government is on the company’s side.”

WWF concedes that it is a difficult situation but maintains that it is taking a constructive approach.

“We have been involved with the Indonesian government since the early days of the RSPO and taking all the necessary steps in the process,” said Ardiansyah, former forest restoration coordinator for WWF Indonesia. “It is a difficult process because the government does not yet understand.”

“But I would say that 50 per cent of the P&C have already been incorporated into government agenda. The critical points related to social and indigenous issues are not quite there yet.”

Carbon emissions

Palm oil production also accounts for a large majority of Indonesia’s carbon emissions. When each hectare of peatland is drained for oil palm production, an estimated 3,750-5,400 tons of carbon dioxide is released over 25 years. Due to this, Indonesia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the U.S.

The Roundtable held its annual conference in Kuala Lumpur in early November 2009 and according to its press releases, the executive board managed to ‘reach a compromise in which some emissions reduction requirements will be directly incorporated in the Roundtable’s certification standards.’ Again, the standards to be followed will be voluntary.

“This is a move in the right direction,” said Adam Harrison, WWF’s representative on the RSPO Executive Board in a press statement released after the meeting. “We encourage companies to embrace emissions reduction standards once they become available and do their part to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change.”

The fact that the RSPO does not factor the enormous levels of CO2 emitted from plantations has been one of the primary concerns of NGOs. WWF appears to consider the outcome of the latest annual meeting a constructive step forward but it is unlikely that the others will agree.

Twenty six years after the first official request by the Greek State for the return of its Parthenon, or Elgin Marbles, the British Museum is still claiming ownership and refuses to hand them over. Sofia Belegrinou investigates.

London's British Museum is still refusing to repatriate the Elgin Marbles back to Greece due to concerns over the capital's air pollution. Image: Andrew Dunn.

The Marbles are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures, inscriptions, friezes and architectural fragments that originally formed parts of the Parthenon, a symbol of ancient Greek democracy, and other significant buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.

According to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the artefacts were controversially removed between 1801 and 1804 by Lord Elgin, then-British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. They were spirited to Britain where they were eventually purchased in 1816 by the British Government and put on display at London’s British Museum where they remain to this day. The Museum originally vowed to give them ”an honorable shelter” and keep them ”safe from ignorance and degradation,” as quoted in the New York Times in 2002.

The British museum argues that some artefacts symbolise the cultural heritage of all humankind through the ages in the world’s museums and private collections. The Parthenon Marbles are part of this international cultural heritage, despite their significance to Greece. Yet the debate surrounding the Marbles is not just about ownership. It has become further complicated by the question of the levels of air pollution in Athens and how this environmental factor will affect the condition of the marble pieces if repatriated back to Greece.

The Acropolis Restoration Project is a highly significant project worldwide. The Greek team uses a technique of combining infrared and ultraviolet beams to avoid a yellowing effect of lasers on the marble. Commencing in 1983, the project is still only partially completed with the main part of the Acropolis and the Temple of Athena remaining. In a report, Evangelos Venizelos, the former Greek Minister of Culture mentions that the main aims of the program are structural and surface maintenance and the protection and re-orientation of old restored sculptures.

According to Theodore Skoulikidis, the chief chemical engineer of the Acropolis Restoration Project, there are six main types of limestone and marble deterioration caused by atmospheric pollution. These include: water freezing in the fissures causing stone cracking due to expansion; erosion caused by suspended particles; biodeterioration; marble cracking due to the corrosion of steel clamps and junctions introduced either during construction or restoration; attack by acids contained in the atmosphere combined with rain water; and attack by SO2 that in absence of rain water creates a gypsum formation (sulfation) on the stone surface.

Maria Ioannidou, the archaeologist heading the Acropolis Restoration Project says that such deterioration is severe.

“The effect of pollution is very serious. It destroys sculptural, structural and painting detail.”
Apart from other causes of deterioration, the Parthenon Marbles have suffered heavily from recent attacks of atmospheric pollution hanging over the Greek capital. The pillars, pediments and lintels remain exposed and continue to deteriorate in Athens’s smog. As a result, acid rain eats away at the marble layers due to the presence of sulphur and nitrogen oxides.

The US Geological Survey confirms that the sculptures receive little rain or rain runoff and seem to be formed by sulfur dioxide uptake, in the presence of moisture, on the stone surface. Subsequent conversion of the sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid results in the formation of a layer of gypsum on the marble surface.

Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary told the BBC in 2004, “Athens might no longer be a war zone but atmospheric pollution had already caused serious damage to many of the Marbles remaining there.”

In fact, other parts of the Parthenon have already been moved to the New Acropolis Museum in order to preserve and protect them.

Monument reconstructor Konstantinos Boletis emphasises that the corrosion of the Marbles due to air pollution has been limited since the 80s when the Greek government implemented a range of measures to combat the issue: restriction and relocation of industrial activities; restriction of road traffic; extensive pedestrian areas; promotion of public transport and fuel quality improvement for industry and households were the main provisions.

Ian Swindale is a British teacher who in 1997, lead an online student campaign on this subject. He says that the British Museum argument about air pollution is quite obsolete.

“I suspect that the British Museum doesn’t want to return the Parthenon Marbles because it would create a vacuum in the British Museum’s collection of worldwide artefacts,” he said.

Undoubtedly, the case of marbles is more complex than it seems. Based on a recent report about CO2 emissions conducted by Greenpeace, in 2008, the Greek national electricity provider emitted roughly 52 million tons of dioxide. In other words, it exceeded almost 18% of the total accepted limit based on the National Plan of Dioxide Emission, issued after the Kyoto protocol on the confrontation of climate change.

Further research conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) confirms that “although efforts have been made to raise public awareness of environmental issues, lack of familiarity with the concept of sustainable development still constitutes a handicap for policy implementation.” The intensity of air pollution emissions is very high, overall; emissions of SOx, NOx and CO2 per unit of GDP exceed the OECD Europe averages by 100%, 42% and 38%, respectively.

Consequently, the intensity of air pollution emissions is still very high.

“Pollution issue is quite embarrassing considering about the fines Greek Government has to pay in order to save humanity’s cultural heritage,” says Greek journalist Sofia Iordanidou.

Gradually, Greece will observe the emission limits defined by the EU standards. In the meantime, the country has applied to the European Commission to delay compliance with EU air quality limits on this particulate matter from 2005 until mid-2011. Unfortunately, there is no specific plan.

Remarkably, between 1990 and 2006, all member states – except Greece – reported a decrease in emissions.

On the other hand, Swindale’s 1997 student online campaign states, “The Marbles suffered far more damage from their lengthy stay in the heavily polluted and humid atmosphere of London than they would have done if they had stayed in Athens where pollution is only a very decent phenomenon recently.”

Equally, Anna Panayotarea, a professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki claims that there has been no risk of air pollution since the mid 90’s, after the launch of several measures to improve energy efficiency in power generation and industry.

“I believe that the biggest corrosion of the marbles was not due to the polluted air of Athens but when Elgin removed the sculptures. In his effort to take as much as he could, sawing some of the sculptures in half to reduce their weight and ship them easily to England.”

However, as long ago as 1986, during her speech in Oxford Union, then-Greek Minister of Culture Melina Merkouri who was heading up the official international campaign for the return of Parthenon Marbles, confirmed that the Greek Government has never intended on exposing the repatriated piece in the open air.

If the Elgin marble sculptures are returned to Greece, they are to be housed in today’s new Acropolis museum.

Acropolis site supervisor Alexandros Mantis insists on the replacement of 17 original sculpted plaques with replicas because they can no longer endure atmospheric conditions. Mantis insists that keeping the marbles in a safe place will strengthen Greece’s case for the repatriation of the Marbles from London in a brand new and impressive museum which is located some miles away from the Acropolis.

“There can no longer be any question about where or how the marbles should be displayed,” says Eleni Cubitt, secretary of the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles.

Speaking earlier this year at the opening ceremony of new Acropolis museum in Athens, the current Minister of Culture Antonis Samaras said, “The main British argument against was that there was no deserving museum in Greece to house the marbles. Now, this argument is off the table.”

GEJI reporter Sofia Belegrinou prepared this report while on exchange at UTS from Aritstotle University.