Scientists are predicting the possible loss of 30% of the planet’s biodiversity through the impacts of climate change within 80 years, less than one human lifespan. To suggest any species is “secure” is stretching credibility, much less one with such a restricted range as B. hapalophylla.
In conclusion it seems that, given the modern genetic testing that is available, perhaps some effort could have been made to determine if those other populations are in fact B. hapalophylla, or possibly even an undescribed species, before proceeding with the delisting.
Having read through the Plan, we are left somewhat disappointed. Given the climate change driven extremes we have encountered over the past 4 – 5 years, we were hoping to find a greater degree of forcefulness, for lack of a better term, in ensuring best practice NRM is occurs across all sectors. Instead, this plan, has the objective to: “Promote the Landscape Restoration Flagship Program as the region’s overarching approach to delivering integrated landscape scale NRM programs ….,” which merely tinkers at the edges of the problem.
Unreasonable conduct by anyone is unacceptable. It is also something that, as an environment group, is not at the forefront of the Clarence Environment Centre’s concerns. However, we have experienced behaviour, or more often a complete lack of response, from council staff over the years, that we believe contributes to an escalation of tensions, leading to what could be deemed to be “unreasonable conduct”.
The Clarence Environment Centre has a proud 32-year record of environmental advocacy, with conservation of the natural environment an absolute priority. As such, we view planning as the key to an ecologically sustainable future.
Having been alerted to the above document privately at the last minute, this submission will be far from comprehensive. However, we would like to make the following observations in relation to the salient points of the Draft.