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.

The New South Wales government, Australia, is considering amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act that will make it easier for developers and tourism operators to use parks land. Opponents to the changes say the amendments will lead to the commercialisation of New South Wales’ wilderness areas. Proponents argue that increased tourism will bring conservation dollars to help manage the parks. Rebecca Leaver, Amanda Hoh, and Nick Evershed reporting.

]]> http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/12/room-with-a-view/feed/ 1 http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/12/melbourne-to-drink-recycled-sewerage/ http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/12/melbourne-to-drink-recycled-sewerage/#comments Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:58:37 +0000 Nick Evershed http://www.reportage-enviro.com/?p=1499 Victoria’s drought means Melbourne will be drinking recycled sewage within the next 15 years, according to a growing chorus of experts writes Taryn Hunter and Calla Wahquist.]]>

By Taryn Hunter and Calla Wahquist

Experts say Melbourne's Yarra River already contributes non-potable water to be purified for drinking (Image: Adam)

Ongoing drought means Melbourne, Australia, will be drinking recycled sewage within the next 15 years, according to a growing chorus of experts.

Despite the Victorian government spending billions of dollars on the North-South pipeline and the desalination plant, researchers say Melbourne will need to look for alternative sources of water within 10 years.

Dr Tony Priestly, a water researcher at the CSIRO, Australia’s leading scientific research institution, said “it’s inevitable frankly; it’s inevitable in lots of places. The logic of it is, to my mind, just inexorable… it’s the way to go.”

Drinking recycled sewage is highly controversial, as shown by splits in a parliamentary committee inquiring into Melbourne’s future water supply, with the president alleging that some members were afraid to tell voters to “go and drink shit.”

The head of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Labor MP John Pandazopoulos, said in June this year the committee had been “ready to recommend” the release of highly treated recycled water into Melbourne’s reservoirs, but a leading Opposition member would not put his name to the proposal so it was dropped.

Pandazopoulos alleged that the deputy leader of the National Party and Shadow Minister for Country Water Resources, Peter Walsh, said he did not want to tell the electorate that they had to “go and drink shit”.

Walsh denied the statement, and accused Pandazopoulos of being unprofessional in making the allegation.

However, Walsh said that he is opposed to the use of indirect potable recycled water in Melbourne.

“It is extremely inappropriate for him to discuss what went on in the confidential committee. I am bitterly disappointed in him,” he said.

The Brumby government has refused to consider using recycled water for drinking because of fears of a political backlash.

A majority of submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into Melbourne’s future water supply recommended the introduction of recycled water.

In its submission to the inquiry, environmental lobby group Environment Victoria strongly advocated a move towards recycled water sooner rather than later.

“It is critical for Melbourne’s water future that recycled water use play a bigger role,” said Leonie Duncan, spokesperson for the group.

“Not only does increased use of this recycled water have the potential to reduce the demand on existing water supplies and the rivers that feed our reservoirs, it also helps to reduce the problem of ocean outfall.”

Melbourne produces approximately 330 gigalitres of sewage per year, which already has the potential of adding an additional 100 gigalitres of drinkable water to the supply through treatment procedures currently available.

While scientists admit that the use of treated sewage as drinking water is one of the riskiest ways to obtain water, the CSIRO’s Tony Priestly said the technology is already there to ensure the public is safe.

The Pandazopoulos Committee presented its report on the water supply inquiry to Parliament on June 2. The report contained 48 recommendations, including water recycling targets of 50 per cent by 2012 and 70 per cent by 2015 and an increased use of recycled water for non-potable use.

Pandazopoulos said that the committee did not push the use of indirect potable recycled water because of the political difficulty involved.

“We didn’t want our report to be a debate about … drinking shit,” he said, or about a new dam, which was another option considered.

Pandazopoulos said that recycled water will be released into the water supply at a future stage, but didn’t think this was likely for the next 30 years.

“The politics will always be complicated. We need it to get a lot drier and have a much more informed public,” he said.

He added that based on rainfall projections, controversial projects such as the desalination plant and the north-south pipeline will be insufficient to provide for Melbourne’s water needs past 2036. He said indirect potable reuse was a probable future step.

Independent Gippsland MP and deputy Committee Chair, Craig Ingram, said that the Committee “failed” to provide leadership and direction on recycled water due to political sensitivities, and said it was the “best option” for ensuring Melbourne’s future water supply.

Ingram said the Committee “could not bring itself to counter the politics of recommending putting purified recycled water into Melbourne’s potable water supply”.

He said that the committee found that Melbourne Water customers were already drinking indirectly potable water, as Melbourne Water takes water from the Yarra River downstream of several direct wastewater discharges.

In contrast to Victoria, the Queensland State Government has authorised the release of indirectly potable recycled water into its water supply if the water storage level drops below 40 per cent. Melbourne’s water storages are currently at 25.9 per cent.

Water expert Dr Mark Lynch supports greater reuse of water but is concerned that environmental restrictions on trade waste are not sufficient to enable water to fit for human consumption.

Lynch, team Leader of Process Management and Optimisation at the Eastern Treatment Plant, said: “We reuse about 20 per cent… I’d love to see that go a lot higher.”

“I don’t think we’ll have any choice in the future,” he said.

While the current Victorian Government has a ‘no discussion policy’ when it comes to the implementation of indirect potable reuse, many see educating an apprehensive community on the benefits of recycled water as the next step in preparing for the future.

“It is time for the Brumby Government to lift their policy ban and allow us to make an informed decision about recycled water. We need to move the debate beyond the knee-jerk ‘yuck factor’ response,” Duncan said.

Priestly agreed that ignorance is one of the key factors in people’s reluctance to accept recycled water, with little information available for the community to make an informed choice.

He said that providing the facts in a scientific and straightforward manner has been shown to radically change opinion from that of fear to greater acceptance.

“The big issue is the community; getting the community to understand it and agree to it.

“It comes down to the fact of what people see: there’s the toilet, there’s the tap and they had very little idea of what happens in between.”

As rain fall levels continue to decline, those in the water industry know that discussion is crucial to ensure the acceptance and success of what may be our most sustainable source of water for future generations.

“You cannot take the risk of a city running out of water; the social and economic implications of that don’t even bear thinking about, you just can’t let it happen,” Priestly said.

Taryn Hunter and Calla Wahquist are journalism students at Monash University.

Would you drink recycled water? Tell us below.

By Jeanavive McGregor

The West Atlas oil rig after the fire had been extinguished.

An oil rig that was leaking an estimated 400 barrels a day into the Timor Sea was finally plugged in early November, but the incident has raised questions about the production of oil and gas in important environmental areas.

Two reports, one released by the Government and another by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found marine life interacting with the spill, and said the situation is a massive environmental disaster that is still unfolding.

Dr Gilly Llewellyn, the WWF’s director of conservation, led the team of ecologists that conducted a survey of the impact of the spill in September. She found a region rich in wildlife, sighting seabirds, dolphins, sea snakes and turtles in the six day trip from Darwin to the West Atlas oil rig.

“It was just sickening … to think about the wildlife that was out there and being exposed to the oil,” she said.

The Government’s report also found large numbers of whales, dolphins, turtles and sea birds were feeding in the oil, saying that the marine life is likely to be at “immediate risk” from the spill.

The WWF found 17 dead sea birds and a dead sea snake during the survey, all showing signs of exposure to oil. Both reports stress that while there are clear short term affects on marine life, the chronic long-term impact needs to be monitored.

Listen to the extended interviews for this story:

The Government has now announced a Senate inquiry into the spill, which has so far cost $5 million to clean up. The former secretary of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, David Borthwick will lead the inquiry.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert has been pushing for more information about the spill since the leak began. She is critical of the Government’s response to the spill and thinks that it should be looked at in the inquiry.

“It took the World Wildlife Fund going out first for the Government to even put a boat in the water,” she said.

“There was a reluctance to acknowledge the full extent of the spill, there was an attempt to downplay it and implying that it’s out there its offshore, its out in the middle of nowhere its not going to have an impact.”

Siewert believed oil and gas exploration should not be allowed off the Kimberly coast until there are safeguards in place to protect them.

Llewellyn said the world is watching with interest about what this might mean for future oil and gas developments.

“These are extremely sensitive and fragile marine habitats. Should we have even more stringent safeguards? Should there be areas that are so important that we say that they are off limits to oil and gas?” she said.

Professor John Buckeridge is a biologist and natural resources expert at RMIT University in Melbourne. He said the world’s hunger for oil means the environment will continue to be compromised by risky oil and gas exploration.

“We are at a stage now where all the easy oil fields have been tapped, the ones we can easily control have been tapped, what we are now looking at are ones that on the whole are more difficult terrains, ones that are in areas that are highly faulted and areas that in fact we don’t necessarily understand or appreciate how they are going to respond,” he said.

Welcome to the harbour city – home of the opera house, the bridge and traffic chaos. A battle is on for not only the streets of Sydney but the environment, the economy and just common sense. Will cars and bikes ever get along in Sydney? Strap on your helmet and watch the Battle of Sydney unfold, a documentary by Matt Davis.

By Calliste Weitenberg

Lake Kutubu (Image: Ants of New Guinea)

An international body for the protection of wetlands is investigating acute toxic pollution and a PNG government approved plan for a $15.6 billion mining project at Lake Kutubu – a world listed site.

The Ramsar Secretariat, responsible for the Ramsar Convention on internationally significant wetlands, will question the PNG Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) over an unreported toxic pollution event in 2007 and a projected $15.6 billion PNG LNG mining project at the world recognised lake.

“The Secretariat did not hear about the event (pollution) in 2007 until [Reportage] brought it to our attention,” Lewellyn Young, senior regional advisor for Asia/Oceania of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, told Reportage. “If there has been an incident, then the next step is for us to get assistance for that site.”

The Ramsar Secretariat will also ask questions about the PNG Government’s decision to sign off on the multi- billion dollar Oil Search-ExxonMobil-Santos gas project.

Evidence of acute toxic pollution at Lake Kutubu in June and July 2007 was reported in the media by the Sydney-based Sun Herald in September. Kutubu residents made statements at the time of the pollution incident that  the water changed colour and large numbers of fish floated on the surface of the lake.

Many also said they had suffered severe vomiting, diarrhoea and skin and eye irritation – including skin-sores – after swimming in the water or eating fish and drinking from the lake.

One local girl is reported to have died two days after eating fish from the lake.

As a signatory to the Ramsar Convention since 1998, the PNG Government is directly responsible for maintaining the ecological health of Lake Kutubu.

Under the Convention, it is obliged to report to the Secretariat at the earliest possible time any change or threat of change to the ecological character of its wetland.

Sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur, are also to be placed on the Secretariat’s Montreux Record for closer monitoring.

Reportage research shows there are  discrepancies in the accounts by the DEC and the Australian mining company Oil Search Ltd – who was drilling the site at the time – about when they first became aware of the incident, the nature of investigations and the likely cause of the pollution.

In a statement issued by its executive director Peter Botten, Oil Search Ltd said it reported the incident immediately to the PNG Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) on May 23 2007, followed by a detailed incident report that was delivered on June 21.

Oil Search Ltd said: “Two external independent reviews were conducted, one by the DEC and one by the [World Wildlife Fund].”

A letter obtained by Reportage from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Dr. Wari Iamo, stated:.

“…Oil Search Ltd did not inform the Department at that time or immediately after the incident had occurred. DEC only became involved in October 2007, several months after the alleged incident had occurred,” it states.

Whatever the date the DEC was told about the pollution incident, the Ramsar Secretariat says that the PNG Government – which is a significant shareholder in Oil Search’s PNG mining operations – never alerted it to the pollution.

The DEC’s internal review of the pollution incident has also never been made public.

Asked why the Ramsar Secretariat was not notified, the DEC’s National Ramsar Officer, James Sabi, said he was not aware of any pollution incident at Lake Kutubu.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who is an active caretaker in the Kutubu region, also did not notify Ramsar of the incident although they had carried out investigations into the pollution.

WWF receives annual funding from Oil Search for projects that protect the Lake Kutubu environment.

Last year they received $AUS600, 000 from Oil Search and a further $US48, 000 from the Asian Development Bank for work on a water catchment management plan

The head of WWF in PNG, Iain Carr, told Reportage it was the responsibility of the DEC, not WWF, to report the pollution to Ramsar.

“The PNG Government is the signatory to Ramsar and thus has the responsibility for reporting,” he said.

“But all stakeholders, including WWF as an environmental non-governmental organisation with local involvement, would be consulted.”

The WWF website declares it consults, co-operates and works with the Ramsar Convention to “help governments to implement their commitments under the convention” and to uphold “strong international laws and policies that ensure the sustainable management, equitable use, and adequate protection of biodiversity and natural resources.”

The Ramsar Convetion also states that “competent NGOs and other “third parties” who can supplement information obtained by official bodies should provide “early warning” notification to site managers and relevant authorities of changes or likely changes…”

Vainuupo Jungblut, Associate Ramsar Officer for the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) based in Fiji, said he had not been told about the $15.6 billion Oil Search-ExxonMobil-Santos gas project.

“It is a big concern for us,” he said.

“If and when you join and sign up to the Ramsar convention it’s believed that you express a commitment to its regulations and that you do everything possible to make sure the ecological functions and characteristics of the site are maintained.

“This includes reporting any changes.”

Under the Convention, the PNG Government is obliged to provide a fully updated Ramsar Information Sheet for Lake Kutubu at least every six years and submit a detailed National Report to the Secretariat every three years before its official Conference.

The PNG Government has failed to submit its National Report since 2002, ignoring the 2005 and 2008 Conference deadlines.

If you would like to contact Calliste Weitenberg with further information, please email calli.weitenberg@gmail.com.

The closure of Land and Water Australia, the country’s key rural development agency, casts doubt over the future of agriculture research, writes Emily Ackew.

The impacts of the closure are expected to be significant in an industry already plagued with irrigation problems.

Next month will see the winding up of Australia’s premier agricultural research management body, which experts say will have a dire impact on agricultural and environmental research in Australia.

Land and Water Australia (LWA), is a Government research investment body that sustains research into the management and use of Australia’s natural resources. The Federal Government has axed Land and Water Australia to save $45.9 million in the next four years.

According to the Opposition, Rudd’s “money saving” budget cuts have affected the agriculture sector notably.

“This continues [to show] a lack of support for the Australian rural sector,” said Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water.

The Department of Agriculture said the budget cut was made because the LWA was too expensive to sustain but declined to comment on the impacts of such a move.

However, a 2006 Agtrans investment study revealed that it put $4.80 back in direct economic benefits for every Government dollar invested.

Michael Robinson, LWA Executive Director, said Australia does not “have enough research and effort in to promoting knowledge and research into Australia’s land, water and agriculture”.

“This closure is a wrong direction to save money,” he said.

LWA aided the Government in balancing competing demands on natural resources and rural landscapes. The Cooperative Research Centre For Irrigation Futures’ (CRC) closure next year has also been announced by the Federal Government, leaving supporting organisations such as the National Farmers Federation in fear of losing research into water irrigation altogether.

“The future shows that after closing the CRC, there will be no research in to water irrigation in Australia…the consequences will be to agriculture,” said Deb Kerr, spokesperson for the Federation.

Rachel Siewart, Greens Senator agreed: “Raking the funding away from LWA removes the vital knowledge that LWA gave to agriculture and on land and water issues.”

Mr Robinson expressed his concern for Australian agriculture research, as it will no longer exist without LWA, he said.

“90% of LWA’s portfolio was completed, some programmes were transferred to other organisations, with less than 10% [of the projects] terminated,” said Mr Robinson.

LWA’s older projects were picked up by Tony Burke and Peter Garrett within the Caring for Our Country organisation.

“New managers of the projects’ work still remains to be seen,” said Stuart Blanch, Non-executive Director of Land and Water Australia.

“Caring For Our Country invests funding, where LWA provided the investigation and research. It’s a real disappointment to me and I hope in the future the Government will come up with something to replace LWA,” said Mr Blanch.

“This will particularly affect the cattlemen, farmers, aboriginal land managers and mainly Northern and Central Australia who relied on much of the funding and research, [and] others who have lost their jobs. So a lot of people have been affected by its closure,” said Mr Blanch.

Since May 2009, LWA have been winding up final projects for the official closure on December 31.

“Most staff have moved on and most have found other jobs in quasi-government organisations, there is only a small amount who haven’t got anything, myself included,” said Mr Robinson.

“We have not heard of anything in the pipeline about a replacement of LWA [and] it concerns us, as the Government are making research their last resort to climate change,” said Ms Kerr.

The case against oil giant Chevron may finally be coming to an end after at least 16 years in the court system, writes Sophie Palmer.

The Amazon rainforest in Ecuador has been damaged and local communities poisoned by negligent remidiation of oil well sites in the 1990s (Image: L. Marcio Ramalho).

The long running environmental case against oil giant Chevron over its activities in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador gained momentum recently, when two Chevron lawyers committed fraud in their testimony.

This case has spanned decades, beginning when Ecuador’s state oil company, Petroecuador, was involved in a project with US partner Texaco Petroleum (Texpet), which merged into Chevron in 2001.

The lawsuit was first filed against Texaco in 1993, and will now determine whether Chevron will be forced to pay for clean up and remediation costs for the 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater that was dumped during its operation in the Amazon from 1964 to 1990.

Although the Ecuadorian government and Texaco declared the sites remediated after the company spent $40 million in the 1990’s to clean up the contaminated areas, a civil suit has been brought against the company on behalf of thousands of indigenous residents.

The pollution has been labelled one of the biggest environmental catastrophes ever witnessed, and a new court-ordered report has found extensive levels of toxic contamination in oil well sites, which the company previously claimed to have been effectively remediated in the mid 1990’s. The report now clears the way for a decision within the coming months.

Pablo Fajardo represents the Ecuadorian communities, and believes the latest results will most likely be used against two Chevron lawyers and seven former Ecuadorian government officials for lying about the results of the remediation in the mid 1990’s in exchange for a release from government claims against the company.

The case has been presented by an international team of lawyers claiming that the area’s high rates of cancer and other health issues are a direct result of pollution from the oil company’s operations there.

Plaintiffs allege that cleanup efforts have continually been substandard, with hazardous waste and crude oil left in hundreds of open pits dug all over the Amazonian forest floor.

The remediation carried out by Texaco has been particularly criticised for being an illegal cost cutting exercise. It is alleged that the oil giant deliberately chose not to use the standard oil industry operation known as ‘re-injection’, a process that involves firing the toxic waste back into the bored well cavity.

Instead, Texaco was allegedly involved in dumping topsoil over small portions of 916 unlined pools of toxic waste so as to disguise the remnant pollutants in the open dumpsites.

It is claimed that this resulted in the poisonous waste by-products seeping into the water table, contaminating the drinking water of local inhabitants. The plaintiffs say that over the last 20 years, cancer and other serious health issues have escalated enormously in populations who live close to these sites.

According to ChevronToxico in their international campaign website Campaign for Justice in Ecuador, Texaco deliberately and fraudulently took short cuts in their remediation programs. This saved them between $1.5 and $4.5 billion in operational expenses at the cost of the health and welfare of the local indigenous population.

One of the lead plaintiffs, Luis Yanza, had nothing but contempt for the remedial work that Chevron claims it undertook years ago.

“The corrective work they say they performed does not exist,” he told the United States radio program Free Speech Radio. “Water and soil samples have been taken at the sites which Chevron says they have cleaned up, and the results show incredibly high levels of toxicity.”

Similarly, New York based attorney Steve Donziger argues that the remediation work was more of a cover up than a clean up.

“They just took dirt and ran it over the pits without cleaning them out. You cannot live over a toxic waste pit without being exposed to carcinogens.”

According to a damages assessment produced in April 2008 by a team of court-appointed experts, all 45 of the remediated sites previously inspected during the trial showed illegal levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) that were thousands of times higher than normal.

Of the 178 water and soil samples collected by Chevron’s own experts, over 90 percent indicated high levels of contamination that surpass the lax Ecuadorian norms. Of the 69 separate samples taken by the Amazon Defence Coalition, every test sample showed extensive levels of toxic contamination.

Chevron does not deny that Texaco dumped the toxic waste into the rainforest, but maintains that the Ecuadorian government released it from further clean-up operations.

However, Mr Fajardo argues that although Chevron has attempted to use the remediation as a defence in the trial, this recent evidence of fraudulent test results give these claims little or no value.

“Not only does the remediation fail as a defence at trial, it has backfired into a criminal indictment against Chevron lawyers, who orchestrated a fake clean up with the apparent help of corrupt Ecuadorian government officials,” Mr Fajardo said.

“Chevron’s continued use of this defence in the face of scientific evidence that clearly exposes the remediation as a sham, calls into question the company’s credibility on many aspects of the trial.”

The original damage estimate of $6 billion has been reassessed to $27 billion and the number of cancer deaths from oil is estimated to be greater than 1,400.

Analysts seem to have mixed opinions as to what the Ecuadorian fallout may mean to Chevron, but agree that there will be at least a short term knock to the stock price. Leading oil industry analyst, Faded Gheit, said that the case has been poorly handled by Chevron.

“I think the longer it lingers the more it will cost,” said Gheit. “The sooner they resolve it, the better off shareholders are. I don’t think it will cost $27 billion, but it will certainly cost a hell of a lot more than the $1.8 billion Chevron has reserved for liabilities.”

If the legal experts are correct in their prediction, it will be the first time in history that a large oil company will be subject to a significant judgement over environmental damages in the court of a developing nation.

In September this year, Chevron filed an international arbitration claim against the government of Ecuador claiming Ecuador is exploiting the company through the ongoing lawsuit, as well as the failing to uphold its duties under decade-old contracts. The arbitration is currently before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Director of the Los Angeles Environmental Law Center, Sean Hecht, believes this to be an epic case.

“The sheer size of the money involved explains why a company like Chevron will continue to fight this as long as possible,” he said. “You could be looking at years, if not decades before any money exchanges hands.”

Although this may be true, for now the noise appears to be getting louder.

Perhaps public opinion and corporate share value will draw a better response from Chevron management than the Ecuadorian villagers who are living in the toxic, oil polluted environment created by the company.

When the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act was passed in 1999, it was heralded as a major step towards protecting Australia’s environment. Ten years later it is undergoing its first review and some argue that its weaknesses have caused irreversible damage to the environment. Rebecca Zhou reports.

The pristine Bell Bay is about to become home to a potentially toxic pulp mill.

The EPBC was introduced to streamline federal, state and territorial assessments and approval processes on developments. Based on the United States Act for the protection of endangered species, it was introduced as the key piece of environmental legislation on which the Federal Minister for the Environment bases all his decisions. But critics argue that the act leaves too much decision-making power to the Federal Minister for the Environment and as a result, undermines the act’s effectiveness by allowing approval for environmentally harmful projects.

“In the U.S those decisions are delegated to departmental secretaries and independent assessment panels,” said Avril Bones, an activist for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) “whereas in Australia, the final sign-off goes to the minister and he has the opportunity to disregard advice from his department or from the scientists.”

An example of this was Federal Minister Peter Garrett’s approval for timber company Gunns to build a pulp mill in Bell Bay, Tasmania. In 2007 then Federal Minister for the Environment Malcolm Turnbull approved the mill with 48 conditions that Gunns was required to comply with before construction. In January 2009, Environment Minister Peter Garrett gave the company the green light for construction but not operation on the grounds that the company had not met one condition- which was to conduct adequate hydrodynamic modelling of impacts of the mill’s effluent would have on the Bass Strait.

There are several problems with the series of approvals at play here. The first goes back to 2007 with Turnbull’s decision. Lawyers for Forests, who launched a case against the environment minister in May 2008 said that the approval and subsequent 48 conditions he established failed adequately to address environmental impacts. The main reason for this is that the EPBC can be interpreted in a way that does not legally oblige him to be aware of all potential impacts. Section 132 of the Act says that the minister may choose to obtain more information only if he or she feels it is necessary.

“The Act allows for an action to be approved without knowing what the impact is on the environment, we don’t agree that this is way the Act ought to be construed,” said Vanessa Bleyer SC, leading attorney for Lawyers for Forests.

In spite of this, the LFF’s case was dismissed in the Federal Court in April 2009. Ms Bleyer says that she intends to appeal to the Full Federal Court in August on the grounds that Garrett’s decision is based on a single subjective judgement and that the Act does not allow for a review of the environmental scientific merits of the decision.

“The overwhelming problem with the case was that it was not a merits review and was not based on right or wrong in protecting the environment,” said Greg Ogle, coordinator of the Wilderness Society’s EPBC reform campaign

In the first appeal judgement, Judge Tracey stated that ‘it is not appropriate, in a judicial review proceeding, for the Court to pass upon the merits of scientific advice’. The lawyers say that the lack of provision for the scientific merits of a decision results in flawed conditions including Turnbull’s decision to use Canadian Guidelines to determine the maximum levels of effluent allowed in the Bass Strait. In his 2007 review of the impact of dioxins from the pulp mill, Scientist Dr Wadsley reported that the Canadian Guidelines were inappropriate for the Australian marine environment. Despite this, the Minister decided to follow the advice of Environment Canada.

“It’s not appropriate to apply Canadian guidelines that deal with an already contaminated freshwater environment and apply that to a pristine saltwater environment,” said Ms Bleyer, “particularly in circumstances where there’s an alternative measure that’s been created and relied on by both Australia and New Zealand. If he had relied on our own protocol, the levels would be much lower than they currently are.”

“The extent of ministerial discretion is a major concern as there is nothing in the object of the Act that requires the minister to protect the environment,” said Mr Ogle.

The object of the Act as stated in Section 3 and that it merely requires the minister to ‘provide’ for the protection of the environment. Section 136 specifically states that the minister must do this while considering social and economic factors. The EPBC Fact Sheet published on the departmental website suggests that the minister is expected to prioritise socio-economic implications of an action. The Fact Sheet states that the minister will always consider ‘these critical environmental decisions in the broader context of Australia’s social and economic needs’.

This inherent weakness of the Act means that ministers are subject to external pressure from powerful industrial lobbyists to place socio-economic benefits over environmental impacts. The case of the controversial McArthur Mine Expansion in the Northern Territory is an example of this.

In April 2007 the Aboriginal Land Council won a legal victory against Northern Territory Mines Minister Chris Natt, revoking his approval of the company Xstrata’s proposal to divert the McArthur River 5.5km to the east in order to conduct open-cut mining. The approval was overturned on the grounds that the minister had authorised the mine without complying with the Mining Management Act 2001.
The Swiss-based company was confronted with three options following the revocation; launch an appeal in the High Court, submit a new application to the Federal Minister or do nothing for the moment being and ‘mothball’ the mine. Xstrata took up the second option and in the last month of the approval process declared that it was to lose 300 jobs in addition to the 20% reduction in ore production it has been forced to make due to low metal prices. In January 2009, Peter Garrett re-approved expansion of the $110 million project, authorising a 5.5 diversion of McArthur River and the engineering of a new ecosystem, acts that scientists argue could lead to dire consequences for the environment.

In a statement to the media following his decision Garrett stated that he had ‘taken into account the financial and employment benefits of the mine expansion for the region’ but the government’s primary concern was the project’s impact on migratory birds and the freshwater sawfish. He has imposed monitoring conditions with the intention of mitigating the impact but environmental scientists say that this is useless.

“Monitoring is good. The point we made is if the monitoring spots a major leak, you can’t go in there and take the toxins out of the river,” said Stuart Blanch, a scientist at the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory. “You can put conditions on it but if there turns out to be a real problem then those conditions won’t change matters that much.”

“People muck around with rivers and you don’t get a good outcome. When rivers have been diverted in Victoria for minefields, they lose their heterogeneity, their variability of habitat. Things like shallow pools, twists and turns in the river, all of these things create variations in habitat that allow the creatures to survive”.

“Engineers can condition some amazing things, it might look pretty good but the proof is in the pudding. Will the sawfish comeback?”

The EPBC does not make it mandatory for the developer to conduct ongoing consultations with the community. In an article in the Australian following the decision in February 2009, Garrett himself highlighted the limitations of the EPBC, conceding that ‘while I cannot require it as a condition of approval, I have strongly urged MRM (MacArthur River Mining, name given to the division of Xstrata in charge of the mine) to communicate the outcomes of environmental monitoring and other reports with the local community.”
Xstrata asserts that a strong engagement with the affected communities is one of their key company policies. In the company’s press release praising Garrett’s decision, it claims to have ‘spent years consulting with local indigenous leaders and communities throughout the open-pit planning and approval process’. The company has also filed consultation summaries to the Northern Territory government. However, they do not offer much transparency into the actual dialogue which was supposed to have occured between the indigenous community and MRM but reads more like a list of FAQs. ECNT scientists like Mr Blanch say that the company had failed to adequately engage with the local community.

“To do consultations with indigenous communities requires a lot of effort because a lot of them don’t speak English,” said Mr Blanch, “and frankly Xstrata has not put in enough money to get interpreters. They just found some traditional owners who were supportive of it and used their comments for promotional material.”

“The consultations have been belated and were not relevant to environmental issues,” said John Hughes, director of the Mining and Native Title Land Rights department of the Northern Land Council. “They have largely been about payments and benefits for the community.”

The areas surrounding the McArthur Catchment are owned by four indigenous groups: the Gurdanji, Yanyuwa Garawa and the Mara people, many of whom reside in the nearby town of Borroloola.
Both activists and scientists of the ECNT have cited rumours about Xstrata promising indigenous members of the community cash in hand or new Four Wheel Drive vehicles in return for their support of the diversion. Other methods have been more subtle, with the company investing over $1 million into a new dialysis unit and a new swimming pool publicly announcing its aims to ‘improve, upgrade and restore infrastructure which may not otherwise be made available’ in a company media release in 2007.

“They came along and said, “if the diversion goes ahead, we’ll give you those things” and a lot of people thought “well if we’re going to lose the river anyway, we might as well gain something from it,”’ said Mr Blanch

“An overwhelming number of the community opposed it, but not all Aboriginal people think the same.”

The mine is now in full operation.

The Act’s manifest objective is to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss. Yet Australia remains as the nation with the highest rate of mammalian extinction.

A senate inquiry involving submissions from a range of scientific experts, NGOs and developers has been submitted to the minister and will be considered in conjunction to the findings of an independent panel led by Dr Allan Hawke.

“I am looking forward to having to the opportunity to review their findings,” said Mr Garrett, “The review will specifically focus on the way federal legislation interacts with relevant state and territory laws with a view to ensuring that environmental regulatory regimes in different jurisdictions are harmonized to operate in a streamlined and efficient manner.”

A reduction in ministerial discretion and a strengthening of the Act’s object could simplify Mr Garrett’s role by simplifying it. Imposing a legal obligation on him to act solely for the protection of the environment may provide a respite for him in a constant battle against the two fronts of industrial and environmental lobbyists.
Mr Garrett refused to comment on this, saying that he will not speculate on the outcomes of the review and its potential impacts on his role.

Environmental activists are skeptical that anything constructive will come out of the review.

“There hasn’t been any indication that the EPBC reform is very high on the government’s agenda or that they’re really committed to giving better protection to the environment,” said Ms Bones, “the senate inquiry has helped the review to be more than just a simple stamped and approved sort of process but the government’s legislative agenda is too chockers at the moment with the Emissions Trading Scheme and Workchoices reform.”

The review is to be completed by the end of October 2009. A full list of recommendations supplied by the Wilderness Society is available here.