Logan & Albert Conservation Association

Recently some 30 Logan residents spent a day expanding their knowledge about our wetlands. The day began at 8am with several powerpoint presentations relating to wetland vegetation, water quality, fish habitat and bird habitat, and also included a Berrinba Wetlands Walkabout.

 During the presentations we learnt what elements of a wetland are beneficial to  Australian native wildlife and what we can be doing on our property to help convert our  dam into a nature refuge during times of drought.

 It was offered as part of the Logan and Albert Rivers Catchment Association's, "Wetland  Management on Private Property in Logan" Project. The invitation was extended to all  who registered interest at one of the display stalls at the Logan Environmental Action  Festivals (LEAF).

 A bus tour was included and we visited several public wetlands within Logan City Council, including:

Eagleby Wetlands

JJ Smith Recreation Corridor

Springfield Mountain Wetlands.

Next will be a site visit to a private property to showcase a property which has had no revegetation effort and is just starting out, so this landholder would like to receive advice for further action which would improve habitat for wildlife. 

Last visit will be to a private property to inspect established revegetation efforts and offer advice for further action which would improve habitat for wildlife.

Logan and Albert Conservation Association aka LACA's water and wetlands management person Barry Fitzpatrick shared his extensive knowledge about vegetation and processes for revegetation for wetland areas. He has been observing and recording Cornubia Wetlands processes for several years. 

Image and diagram aside are provided by Barry. Detailed information about plants is available in our essential plant reference tool Mangroves to Mountains with local botanist Glenn Leiper being a contributing author.

Suggested planting guide includes plants generally occurring across Logan - Albert Catchment. Selection is influenced by on soil types, steepness of slope down to water, general typography, climate etc.

Article to be completed

The Coalition has made a pre-election commitment to 'fast track' pending international free trade deals by doing what the current Labor Government has stubbornly refused to do: accept dangerous legal provisions which will allow transnational corporations to sue Australia in off-shore tribunals - away from our own legal system - if our environmental and other public interest regulations get in the way of their profits.

If the Coalition is elected and pushes ahead with this commitment, we will almost certainly see the death of environmental campaigning as we know it in this country, along with significant weakening of environmental regulation.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a huge free trade deal due to be signed off by Australia in October this year, and comes fully armed with corporate powers to sue participating nations in off-shore tribunals, known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

Under earlier free trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA – the model for the TPPA), corporations like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill had, by 2011, launched 450 investor-state cases in off-shore tribunals against 89 governments to fight environmental laws and regulations, including

challenges to bans on toxic chemicals, fracking, timber, mining regulations and programs

supporting green jobs and renewable energy.

Recent examples include the US Lone Star Mining company currently using ISDS provisions in NAFTA to sue the Canadian Quebec provincial government because it has suspended coal seam gas fracking pending a study of its environmental impact, and Peru, which has recently been required to pay Renco the largest ever damages award of USD$ 4.2 billion for banning products that had contaminated the city of La Oroya's environment and poisoned 95% of children there.

There are many, many more examples.

The threats posed by ISDS provisions in free trade agreements clearly impose a 'regulatory chill' effect on nations wanting to avoid the ongoing costs of defending their public interest regulations in off-shore tribunals away from their own jurisdictions.

Couldn't happen here?

There have been some 450 ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES arising out of previous free trade agreements which include ISDS provisions similar to those proposed for the TPPA:
By the end of 2011, corporations like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill had launched 450 investor-state cases against 89 governments, including the US, to fightcommon-sense environmental laws and regulations. Among these cases were challenges to bans on toxic chemicals, fracking, timber,mining regulations, programs that incentivised green jobs and renewable energy programs.

Recently Peru has been required to pay Renco the largest ever damages award of USD$ 4.2 billion for banning products that had contaminated the La Oroya, Peru environment and had poisoned 95% of children there. An incredible outcome protecting the polluter!!
The US Lone Star Mining company is currently using ISDS provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement to sue the Canadian Quebec provincial government because it has suspended coal seam gas fracking pending a study of its environmental impact.
Ethyl vs Canadian Government 1998-99: US company Ethyl successfully challenged a Canadian ban on gasoline additive MMT which the Canadian government claimed was harmful to human health and the environment. The Canadian government agreed to withdraw the ban and pay Ethyl $13 million
On August 25, 2008, Dow AgroSciences LLC, a U.S. corporation, served a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, for losses allegedly caused by a Quebec ban on the sale and certain uses of lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D. The tribunal issued a consent award as the parties to the dispute reached a settlement
In the United States and Canada the reality is that federal governments are often willing to "lose" these cases in order to discipline provincial, state or municipal governments that have adopted progressive social and environmental policies.

The proposed TPP foreign investor privileges would provide foreign firms greater 'rights' than those afforded to domestic firms. This includes a 'right' to not have expectations frustrated by a change in government policy
In the US, the powerful corporate lobby position on the Australian Labor Government's position is, quote: 'American companies should be able to side-step the Australian legal system in the event of certain legal disputes'
Under ISDS rules, even when governments win, they often must pay for the tribunals' costs and legal fees, which average $8 million per case.
The TPP would expand the scope of policies that could be attacked. For example, in health, the office of the United States trade Representative has also proposed patenting surgical procedures - a move that would force Congress to change IP law and one that could force surgeons to obtain permission from patent-holders before performing surgery!
Australia is already experiencing the effects of ISDS provisions with Phillip Morris, having failed in Australia's High Court, now attacking Australia's cigarette labelling policy off-shore using a 1994 'Investment Agreement' with Hong Kong that contained ISDS provisions. This could cost Australia hundreds of millions of dollars.

What you can do:

Write short, concise sharp emails to the following:

Write today to the new Federal Minister for Trade, Richard Marles, urging him to continue the government's position of refusing to agree to the inclusion of the ISDS provisions in the TPPA. The Trade Minister's electorate contact details are at:

http://www.richardmarles.com.au/index.php?option=com_facileforms&Itemid=53

Write today to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, urging him to protect Australia's sovereignty, farmland, water quality, environment, health care, and workplace rights by maintaining Labor's established position of refusing to agree to the inclusion of the ISDS provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations. Mr Rudd can be contacted by email at http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

Write to the Coalition Spokesperson for trade, Julie Bishop, asking the Coalition to adopt the same position as the Labor Government and refuse to agree to the inclusion of any ISDS provisions in the TPPA. Julie Bishop's contact details are at http://www.juliebishop.com.au/share-your-ideas.html

Write to the Leader of the Opposition and ask if you can get a 'blood oath' from him that the Coalition, if elected, will not agree to the ISDS provisions being included in the TPPA and any other free trade agreements in the future. Contact details are at http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx

The Trans Pacific Partnership – a massive new free trade agreement where your vote may no longer count as a way of stopping unwanted CSG, coal mining, deep sea mining and other impacts by transnational corporations

Who would want an Australia in which major transnational corporations can sue the Australian government in off-shore tribunals – away from our legal system and democratic process - for making laws which are aimed at protecting water quality, environment and farmland from inappropriate CSG and coal operations?

Who would want Australia to sign an international free trade agreement which could potentially wreck our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, severely restrict our free use of the Internet and curtail our democratic rights?

Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law at Auckland University, has said: 'This locks the door on electoral democracy'.

It appears that, if elected to government, the Federal Coalition may be willing to go along with this.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a massive free trade agreement currently under negotiation in high secrecy between Pacific Rim nations including Australia, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, the US, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Other nations, including Japan and possibly China, are set to join.

The TPPA includes provisions which, if agreed to by signatory nations, will give extraordinary powers to transnational corporations through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. At the least level, these will put a 'chilling effect' on governments introducing new regulation around environment etc.

Fortunately the current Australian Government has steadfastly refused to agree to the inclusion in free trade agreements of ISDS provisions, in spite of great pressure from the US, transnational corporations and some sections of Australian industry.

However, the Federal Opposition has sent a clear message that, if elected, it will be willing to agree to investor state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements in order to conclude a deal.

A list of likely consequences of this trade agreement negotiated in secrecy,

collated from a number of sources:

PROFESSOR JANE KELSEY, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND warns us "The TPPA will lock future governments into a failed regime where markets rule for the next 100 years." See http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_gallery/professor-jane-kelsey-faculty-of-law-university-of-auckland/

1. TPPA could be used to force Australia to adopt lower standards for e.g., environmental and workers protection, or be sued for damages.
2. The TPPA creates a parallel legal system of international tribunals that will undermine national sovereignty and allow conglomerates to sue countries for laws that infringe on their profits.

3. The TPPA would grant radical new political powers to multinational corporations

4. Under the TPPA democracies might no longer be able to decide to invest tax dollars to create jobs at home or to create markets for green energy or morally produced goods.

5. If the TPPA is signed off in its current form by an Abbott government there will be almost no progressive movement or campaign in Australia whose goals are not threatened

6. Under the TPPA, vast swaths of public-interest policy achieved through decades of struggle are poised to be undermined by Corporations wanting to pursue their business models unimpeded
7. The TPPA provisions are targeted at barriers to corporate business such as the regulation of corporate activities by governments, laws around workplace rights and justice, environmental protection and public health
8. The TPPA provisions empower companies to challenge environmental and healthcare regulations where these impede their business model
9. The TPPA highlights the many inconsistencies and special interests that dominate our approach to trade, which tends to be framed around a relentlessly neoliberal paradigm
10. Under the TPPA, labeling of GE foods for example would be banned in the interest of the harmonisation of laws between countries. The same for labeling the country of origin on food products. Present tobacco and cigarette rulings could be overridden
11. The TPPA puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge by the world's citizens

12. If an Abbott government signs off on these TPPA provisions, they will be set in concrete so that they cannot be changed or modified later even when governments or the public demand change

13. The TPPA represents an unprecedented shift of power towards locking in corporate rule insulated against the normal means of democratic accountability, such as elections, advocacy and public protest
14. The TPPA would establish new rights for foreign investors to acquire land, natural resources, factories and more. All local performance requirements, including domestic content rules, would be overridden by the trade agreement.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:
Potentially the greatest threat yet to our environment,

social justice, health system and democracy

This could represent an unstoppable threat to our environmental laws, our way of life, our democratic rights, our legal system, our health system, our internet use, our tobacco plain packaging laws, etc, etc. If certain provisions in this trade deal, currently being negotiated in extreme secrecy, are agreed to by a future Coalition Government then Australian communities will have little power to stop any foreign corporation from doing what it wants, where it wants, including moving them out of the way, if necessary. This is a real concern because these clauses, known as 'Investor-State Dispute Settlement' provisions, fit comfortably within increasingly right wing Coalition ideologies under Tony Abbott.

Do you want an Australia in which major international Corporations can sue the Australian government for making laws which are aimed at protecting farmland, water quality, rainforests, the Great Barrier Reef etc?

Do you want Australia to sign an international trade agreement which will potentially wreck our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (making chronically ill Australians pay top dollar for medicines), force farmers off their land through agricultural dumping, get Australians jailed under US copyright law for innocently downloading research material on the internet?

   What is it?
  This is the Trans pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) – free trade  negotiations currently being held in high secrecy between Australia, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, the US, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Other nations, including Japan and possibly China, are set to join. The negotiations have been going on for a number of years but the agreement is proposed to be signed off soon – possibly in October this year. An excellent summary of the environmental and other issues that may flow from this trade agreement can be found in: 

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TransPacificEnvironment.pdf and http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TransPacificCorporations.pdf