news, local-news,
The average Tasmanian must be wondering what is really going on in the current stoush between MMG, the operators of Rosebery mine, and the Bob Brown Foundation on the West Coast. The BBF appears to be making its case via protestors disrupting workers going about legally valid work, requiring Tasmania Police to routinely attend the site, an interstate sporting celebrity featuring in advertising and recently an attempt to activate a legal intervention. This approach is contrasted by the mining company that appears to be rigorously following all legal requirements, avoiding any sensationalism, speaking directly to Tasmanians, and ultimately relying on the science of what they are seeking to do to prove their case. Time will tell whether science will take precedence over publicity. The sad truth is it does not have to be like this. The land that is in dispute is currently being described very differently. The conservation movement suggests this is pristine rainforest and its biodiversity is worthy of being heritage listed as part of the Tarkine. The mining company suggests their preliminary assessment indicates the land is of a low conservation value and would be suitable to be a site for a tailings storage facility designed to an international standard. While the “scientific merit” of a Google Earth view of the land in question would be rudimentary at best, it is not hard to notice the big brown swathe and tracks when compared with vegetation further north and even further south. Have a look for yourself. The previous attempt to have the Tarkine heritage listed was rejected in 2013 because of the variability of the biodiversity within the requested zone. Could it be the 140-hectare development inside a 285-hectare boundary in dispute is an example of the lower value biodiversity when compared with the 439,000 hectares in the original application? Couple this question with the understanding an earlier version of the lower Tarkine boundaries were well to the north of this land area and not bordered by Lake Pieman, and maybe this patch of ground is not worthy of becoming a proxy for the Tarkine? Should the Tarkine boundaries be determined by the biodiversity and not the geographical convenience of a river or lake boundary? The mining industry welcomes the EPBCA process that will enable an independent review of the proposal, within the context of the impacts on the biodiversity. The review will confirm just where the land in question sits across the spectrum of biodiversity quality. What do you think? You can have your say by sending us a Letter to the Editor using the form below.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/ftA38LcLm6zPPferaZ3FKy/d5216be5-2676-4c97-a9a8-198f41a5d697.JPG/r1_338_3997_2596_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
The average Tasmanian must be wondering what is really going on in the current stoush between MMG, the operators of Rosebery mine, and the Bob Brown Foundation on the West Coast.
The BBF appears to be making its case via protestors disrupting workers going about legally valid work, requiring Tasmania Police to routinely attend the site, an interstate sporting celebrity featuring in advertising and recently an attempt to activate a legal intervention. This approach is contrasted by the mining company that appears to be rigorously following all legal requirements, avoiding any sensationalism, speaking directly to Tasmanians, and ultimately relying on the science of what they are seeking to do to prove their case. Time will tell whether science will take precedence over publicity.
The sad truth is it does not have to be like this. The land that is in dispute is currently being described very differently. The conservation movement suggests this is pristine rainforest and its biodiversity is worthy of being heritage listed as part of the Tarkine. The mining company suggests their preliminary assessment indicates the land is of a low conservation value and would be suitable to be a site for a tailings storage facility designed to an international standard.
While the “scientific merit” of a Google Earth view of the land in question would be rudimentary at best, it is not hard to notice the big brown swathe and tracks when compared with vegetation further north and even further south. Have a look for yourself.
The previous attempt to have the Tarkine heritage listed was rejected in 2013 because of the variability of the biodiversity within the requested zone. Could it be the 140-hectare development inside a 285-hectare boundary in dispute is an example of the lower value biodiversity when compared with the 439,000 hectares in the original application? Couple this question with the understanding an earlier version of the lower Tarkine boundaries were well to the north of this land area and not bordered by Lake Pieman, and maybe this patch of ground is not worthy of becoming a proxy for the Tarkine? Should the Tarkine boundaries be determined by the biodiversity and not the geographical convenience of a river or lake boundary?
The mining industry welcomes the EPBCA process that will enable an independent review of the proposal, within the context of the impacts on the biodiversity. The review will confirm just where the land in question sits across the spectrum of biodiversity quality.
- Ray Mostogl is the Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council CEO
What do you think? You can have your say by sending us a Letter to the Editor using the form below.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/3CNDG2AWTVJKNP6AAPIZ6NWTEA.jpg)
