Opinion Piece, Northern Daily Leader 12.4.2012, (this article is more relevant than ever with Cecil Plains and Fullerton Cove blockades commencing today, Ed)

It’s a frustrating time living in the shadow of the proposed coal mines in the Gunnedah Basin in the Central North of NSW. The cookie cutter approach to mine project applications developed by the resource companies and the Planning Department are rolling over the valley with predictable results. Sound ideas, common sense and logical arguments count for nothing …. “Clear a forest for a coal mine, no problem” … “Totally foreign owned, even better”.

Whether factually right or wrong, the perception is that accountability is optional and anyone including our institutions can spin their way through. Government departments, one off scientific studies and senior political figures are all willing to chance their arm. Three recent examples spring to mind.

The Coalition Strategic Regional Land Use Policy takes pride of place with a 180 degree U turn on the pre-election promises for the no-go zones and ring fences to protect strategic land. So complete is the about face that the entire state is open for mining and gas extraction. The stakeholders in the consultation process walked away and the prospect of NSW Farmers and the peak conservation body, the Nature Conservation Council issuing joint press releases gives a good indication that the stakeholders weren’t happy. For the Planning Minister to claim in a moment of classic spin, that this was an indication that the policy was about right, is about as far from the truth as possible. Indeed it is a sign that the policy is completely wrong.

Next up is the Namoi Catchment Water Study. The Terms of Reference, painstakingly developed by the community for the purpose of identifying the risk to the quantity and quality of surface and groundwater resources of the Namoi Catchment were promptly ignored in the contract between the Government and the Independent Expert, Schlumberger Water Services (SWS). There is no visibility for the community as the contract is commercial in confidence and hard won gains in the Terms of Reference were lost among budgetary and time line pressures. Quantitative analysis of water quality is absent from the Phase III reports. The fact that the parent company of SWS is a mining services company who supplies Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) Chemicals in Queensland and throughout the world is disconcerting to say the least. These chemicals and the fracking process itself, certainly don’t improve the ground water quality and it is conceivable that it is not in the best interests of future contracts for Schlumberger to forensically dissect the potential impacts of fracking in the Namoi Valley.

Further cause for community concern can be observed with the NSW Governments Planning Assessment Commission’s recommendations re the Boggabri Coal and Maules Creek Coal Mines slated to open cut  in the Leard State Forest. The forest is described as a Tier 1 biodiversity hotspot and is nominally protected under the Federal EPBC Act. Despite the Planning Minister’s written Terms of Reference to assess the cumulative dust impacts, the Commission returned reports for both mines without any quantitative air quality assessment and a recommendation to merely monitor dust emissions. The net result provides no legal protection afforded by designated Zones of Affectation for the affected community but a “suck it and see” process designed to fast track approvals. There is no “planning” process just an incremental “approval” process ignoring the cumulative impacts and likely to perpetuate the mistakes evident in the Hunter Valley.

These examples show how the institutions have been hijacked and what little respect there is for due process and the expectations of the public. The net result is investment uncertainty in the state of NSW with the non mining industries being destabilized due to increased risk across a range of spheres from land use policy, water resource security and the environmental and community impacts from individual mining projects. Combine this investment uncertainty with the crowding out effect due to a high Aussie dollar and increased labour costs and purported benefits to the locals are greatly diminished if not negative.

People are rightly asking how this can be? Who is responsible for circumventing Ministerial and Departmental Terms of Reference? What measures are available to put some rigor back into government policy? In the face of extensive “regulatory capture” and in the absence of government leadership, it is the community who will show the way.

The successful blockades at Georges Island and at Gloucester, on the Scenic Rim in Queensland and the recent protest actions in the Leard Forest involving local environmentalists is likely borne out of such frustration. In the absence of sensible legislation, these direct actions give an indication of the things to come. Non violent protest workshops, blockades and legal action will add to the non productive time spent writing submissions, lobbying politicians and liaising with the media. Everyday people will impose their own moratoriums and join the Lock the Gate movement which has grown in less than 2 years to encompass more than 140 community groups across the country. Something will have to give as people power will eventually win through and the backlash against the mining industry will be something to behold.

Following the successful Health Forum “Undermining Our Health” held in Gunnedah on 4th August, the community resolved to conduct a regional Health Impact Assessment on the Gunnedah Basin, with the Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales.  To that end, we are calling for Expressions of Interest to join a scoping committee to commence this work.  A single meeting to develop the Terms of Reference for the HIA will be held in Gunnedah in mid September 2012 (indicative duration 2-4 hours).

To be effective, desirable skills of the whole committee should include:

• Project Management

• Finance and Budgeting

• Health Background

• Experience with Health Impact Assessment

• Political/Government/Corporate Background

• Media Skills

•  Familiarity with the proposed developments in the region

We are looking across the region for persons with knowledge, qualifications or interest in the following areas:

Management:  Chair – oversight of process, &  media liason;   Deputy chair  – project management
4 Community Representatives:    Caroona/Mullaley/Quirindi; Maules Creek/Narrabri/Bellata/Gurley/Wee Waa.  Representative of Aboriginal groups, mine workers, townspeople  and agricultural sectors.
4 organizations or professionals:  Representatives from Mining related Councils ; Hunter New England Health; General Practitioner, Nursing, Mental Health Professional
Chartered Accountant, Lawyer or Corporate Manager

For more information regarding Health Impact Assessments see The World Health Organisation website:  http://www.who.int/hia/en/  or the UNSW HIA Guide 2007

Please contact Phil Laird <wplaird@bigpond.com> or Nicky Chirlian nicky@tallawang.com if you are interested in becoming involved in this process or wish to apply.  Applications will close on 31^st August 2012.

A mate called me the other day and asked about CSG. She was worried about an absentee neighbour who could get an offer from a gas company and this got me thinking.

“What worries me, is that if a farmer accepts a percentage of a well head he immediately becomes a beneficiary.  Down the track all the beneficiaries can be held responsible for water contamination, devaluation of property, water depletion etc .”

She is right. If you put in a financial incentive, the science and risk will be lost in the rush for short term gain at the expense of our future generations. This policy has unintended consequences, from divided communities right through to legal class actions – farmers against farmer.

The threat of legal action is already part of working on the land. For example farmers are responsible for the chemical damage done to crops, water and the environment from spray drift, and this has worked well for the benefit of everybody. You’ve got to do the right thing and it is difficult to see how possible contamination from CSG operations would be different.

A nasty environmental incident such as the BP Gulf Oil Spill or the Brantos CSG Mud Volcano in Indonesia show that the damages can run into the billions. A long running class action as a co-defendant could see legal costs go beyond the financial capacity of the partnering farmer. It is likely the company could sustain some of the losses, but a land owner could be wiped out for a paltry $250 – $1500 per well per year.

It is fertile ground and Hedge Funds that provide seed money for class actions are studying these issues very closely. For the speculative money stuck in slow financial markets, class actions are another means to an end. Legal precedent in the US and elsewhere is starting to develop and the likelihood of massive class actions is increasing.

Beyond environmental impacts, the regional scale devaluation of properties in areas such as Chinchilla point to another potential litigant – the banks. Partnering with a smaller CSG company is even more fraught as limited or no capital base makes the farmer the first port of call.

Surprisingly, Governments have no requirement that CSG operations be insured for environmental risk such as failure of rehabilitation, water contamination and depletion or for property devaluation. The protection of such insurance is basic to the social license that is required by the community for mining and the extractive industries to operate. You can’t drive a vehicle on the road without 3^rd party insurance, surely 3^rd parties require protection in these circumstances as well.

Of more value, insurance companies would weed out the dodgy operators, the serial offenders, undercapitalised and cowboy operations sheltering under inadequate legislation. There would be another watchdog overlooking environmental performance, a watchdog with real skin in the game.

For a state government anxious to kick off the CSG industry the temptation for the corporate farmer, the cash strapped or smaller operator, the hobbyist or absentee land owner could be overpowering. Recommendations from both the state and federal inquiries into CSG outline such compensation and not surprisingly these recommendations have had a luke warm reception from CSG companies choosing instead to express relief that there is no moratorium.

We must respect the precautionary principle and the consequences of such compensation for land management could be disastrous. Financial incentives may splinter the community of interest that exists to protect and properly manage our agricultural and environmental resources. If we provide incentives, we may end up with a death by a thousand cuts, division in the communities and the slow destruction of agricultural and environmental values across regional NSW.

I can hear the justifications now. “If my country is stuffed by CSG due to neighbour X, I may as well take what I can get, even if it affects neighbour Y. Everybody is doing it now and it’s not my fault if there is a problem, I’m moving on, so someone else can deal with it.”

It all boils down to the evidence. Planning decisions on CSG should be based on robust evidence, not financial incentives. Fair compensation is one thing, but the first steps should be to protect land and water. No one landholder should be able to allow the CSG industry a start with a personal financial gain at the expense of the entire region.

For the farmer or government MP thinking that there just might be something in this CSG thing for them – think again. The evidence is mounting, and when the land use battles are over, the legal battles will begin. That new bit of fencing or road done by the gas company could just cost the farm.

As a ratepayer, it was a great surprise to hear of the $6.4 M Aquatic Centre to be built in Narrabri. Most of the money is coming from Voluntary Planning Agreements with the coal companies and the Narrabri Shire Council voted unanimously to approve the centre.

The crumbling road network and the mine affected communities of Boggabri and Maules Creek were overlooked and even the miners are privately questioning these payments. Management must work in the best interests of their shareholders, but acknowledge that this is not a good look.

Worse still is the corrosive effect of the debt which will lock in the council as a long term supporter of potentially inappropriate developments and give the illusion that the companies are supporting the community. This is not the case as any community impacted by open cut coal mining will tell you – it is air quality and health impacts that are the prime consideration. After all what can you do without your health?

While the Narrabri Shire has been organising its new pool, community groups, the EPA, the Gunnedah Shire and the Planning Assessment Commission have been calling for the establishment of a regional Air Quality Monitoring Network in the Gunnedah Basin in order to establish a baseline before large scale mining is approved. Despite this no working group that includes the community has been formed and no mining company has publicly outlined their position.

These calls are warranted as information provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage shows that background dust levels are already high and can exceed minimum air quality standards at certain times. Open cut coal mines are going to add to that dust load and there is very little margin for additional dust emissions before these standards are breached.

The Planning Assessment Commission questioned estimates of cumulative dust emissions and it is now time for a Health Impact Assessment to be carried out in the region. One of the goals of HIA’s are to ensure that projects such as open cut mining actually improve individual health outcomes and not negatively impact. Like air quality, it is important to establish a baseline of existing health metrics in our community.

Calls for a HIA have gone unanswered by Planning Assessment Commission and the State Government. This void should be plugged by the miners and it is a test for the Shenhua Community Fund who could use their $2 M to seed a HIA for the Gunnedah basin rather than pursuing name plate recognition on pools and sporting centres etc.

Of course one solution that is lost in the scramble for approvals is the underground mining option and the Maules Creek Community Council has long argued underground mining benefits all the stakeholders. No one stakeholder benefits over the interests of another and it is a win-win-win solution for the company, the community and the environment in the best traditions of the triple bottom line. After all, it wasn’t until mining in the Hunter moved from underground to open cut that the worst impacts were felt.

For cash strapped councils, the VPA’s are making them vulnerable to inducements that favour the development proposals over their existing ratepayers and guidelines need to be established. Priorities that focus on the affected areas need to be developed. Health, roads and even waste infrastructure should have precedence, with the goodies to come after the hard yards are won.

After months of wrangling with the Namoi Water Study, the tremendous detail, the failures to address the Terms of Reference and now the hijacking of the findings by the Minister for Mining, the Maules Creek community is wondering where to from here.

The findings were that there would be a maximum drawdown of 2.5 meters in Maules Creek (Zone 11) due to mining in drier times. (See below graphic taken from Table 5.8 page 66 of the final study report).

The fact that in drier times most people in Maules Creek have less than 2.5 meters of water in their stock and domestic bores is omitted.

The simplistic media comments by the consultants, Schlumberger, who said that there is little impact of mining on groundwater at a regional scale is a joke.

What Schlumberger actually said in their report about Maules Creek is that the “Upper Namoi Alluvium Zone 11 actually shows quite a high sensitivity to the tested inputs, but a significant increase in impacts is predicted only with the drier climate scenario.”

Unfortunately the evidence in the arctic and elsewhere  of the likely climate change trajectory means that we are headed for much drier times. By digging up more coal at Maules Creek we are only adding more fuel to that fire.

The plan to put together a Health Impact Assessment for the Gunnedah Basin is gaining momentum with a number of critical pieces beginning to fall into place.

One of these is the  Gunnedah Health Forum on August 4 at the Gunnedah Town Hall/Civic Theatre complex.  The program of speakers has been finalised. Media Release 25.7.2012.

These health issues are being shared all along the coal supply chain as rural towns push to have coal train wagons covered, workers at the Newcastle port seek proper health coverage and communities near the port seek to put in place air quality monitoring.

The Gunnedah Mayor has long argued the case for baseline air quality monitoring in the Gunnedah Basin prior to large scale open cut coal mining. Even the Department of Planning has sought to include this condition in project consents, however the Planning and Health Ministers are silent on this issue.

Why are they silent? What is it that they don’t understand about the health impacts of the coal industry, and at what time does silence become neglect?

At the Gunnedah Town Hall consultation for the Strategic Regional Land Use Forum, Phil Laird asked Brad Hazzard why there was open cut mining in an EPBC listed Leard State Forest.

The Minister responded saying that it was illogical. Nothing has changed – except the projects have been approved.

Audio: Phil Laird talks to Brad Hazzard 1 min 45 sec

Ground floor opportunity for a computer person to run a project to develop a simple community noise monitoring network.

This project can be used by all mining affected communities to take control of the environmental impact data from the mining company “experts” and put it in the public realm.

The concept is  to interface cheaply available iphone sound level apps to a webpage that shows real time noise monitoring data on google maps or its equivilent.

The iphone apps may need to be modified to carry out unattended email of GPS co-ordinates and measured sound levels to a back end server.

The back end server will  collect, store and collate the data with real time webpage display.

Earlier post – Do it yourself  noise and dust monitoring

In a new development the MCCC website has been hacked and has been down for 2 days. Fortunately the fantastic new site is back up and running and the “do good” campaign can continue.

http://maulescreek.good.do/no-new-coal/email-the-key-decision-makers/