Submission by the TCT on Draft Guidelines For The Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan Prepared by the Hobart Ports Corporation

THE TASMANIAN CONSERVATION TRUST [TCT]

ON THE DRAFT GUIDELINES
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
[DP&EMP]

TO BE PREPARED BY
THE HOBART PORTS CORPORATION
[HPC]
FOR
PROPOSED ELECTRONA WHARF DEVELOPMENT

1. Introduction
As for Forestry Tasmania’s proposed Southwood Resources – Huon development [‘Southpark’], the TCT is grateful for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Guidelines for preparing a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan [DP&EMP] for the Hobart Ports Corporation’s proposed Electrona Wharf development. We appreciate the Board having recognised the level of public concern over this development proposal in deciding to release its Draft Guidelines for public comment before finalising them.

Of some concern to the TCT, however, is the lack of compatibility and consistency between the Draft Guidelines released for the Electrona and ‘Southpark’ development proposals despite both proponents identifying a substantial relationship between the two. Insofar as Departmental officers have been attending meetings between these two proponents and local government and state agency officers for the purpose of facilitating acquisition of appropriate permits and licences, we are somewhat concerned at the apparent lack of coordination and cooperation within the Department in preparation for servicing the Board in managing the formal assessment processes involved in preparing and finalising DP&EMPs for the two proposed developments.

As you are no doubt now aware, the TCT has had significant problems with the Board’s performance in this area with respect to another woodchip-related development proposal – Artec’s proposal to chip up to 400,000 tpa of wood and wood products at a new mill site at Bell Bay. Somewhat to our amazement, it has now been confirmed by Departmental officers that the Board did not issue any project-specific guidelines for the preparation of a DP&EMP for Artec’s woodchip mill proposal despite designating it as a Level 2 development.

• the preparation of project-specific guidelines for all Level 2 developments;
• the scope of such guidelines to include: impacts of resource supply and of securing other inputs; and impacts of transporting resources to and/or product from sites used by the designated activity;
• soliciting public comment on draft guidelines for all Level 2 developments (unless the Board explicitly decides that public input at this stage of the assessment process for a particular proposal is not appropriate);
• maintenance of a list of matters to be included in draft guidelines for each class of Level 2 activities, based on accumulated experience;
• maintenance of a list of previous draft guidelines which can be used to guide Departmental officers; and
• that a standard framework be maintained and used for preparing draft guidelines.

The TCT has been aware, for some time, that the Department is seriously under-resourced when it comes to meeting its legal requirements under Part 5, among others, of EMPCA. This was one of a number of issues that the TCT had raised with the Commonwealth when invited to comment on the draft Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania under Section 45 of the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act relating to Environmental Impact Assessment. A copy of the final Assessment Bilateral Agreement, as signed by the two governments is appended for your convenience.

Much to our frustration, these concerns were not addressed by either government in finalising this Assessment Bilateral Agreement. The TCT therefore regards any failure on the part of the Board in meeting its responsibilities under EMPCA as a breach of the Agreement insofar as such failures amount to a failure to honour commitments made to the Commonwealth by Tasmania in signing the Agreement.

These concerns obviously apply as much to the manner in which the Board has handled the assessment process for Artec’s woodchip mill and for Forestry Tasmania’s ‘Southpark’ as to that for HPC’s Electrona Wharf development. In particular, the TCT notes that the Agreement states that "The Board prepares draft guidelines for the preparation of the [DP&EMP] …" and that "the guidelines ensure that the [DP&EMP]: (a) assesses all relevant impacts of the action; …" (our emphasis). [See Section 3, Part B, Schedule 1 of the Agreement, p.15.]

As the TCT noted in our submission on the Draft Guidelines for ‘Southpark, it is also a matter of some concern to the TCT that only rather perfunctory attention seems to have been paid by the Department to the Board’s obligation to prepare proposal-specific guidelines in the preparation of the Draft Guidelines for the ‘Electrona’ EIA released for public comment. It is somewhat unsettling not to be able to divine any sense that there might be a need to substantially vary the scope and emphasis of the EIA needed for each of the activities envisaged to be conducted at the proposed Wharf at each stage of the development.

After all, surely handling woodchips from the Southern Forests is rather different to handling toxic waste from Antarctic or elemental sulphur from the mainland. As much as for the ‘Southpark’ site, there would seem to be a substantial effort required to ensure that the cumulative impacts of handling different bulk materials at Electrona are properly assessed.

It is the TCT’s view that the HPC is obliged to ensure that its EIA covers each and every one of the materials it anticipates handling at Electrona – separately and collectively. The TCT regards this as an inescapable part of a comprehensive assessment as required of the Board in complying with the provisions of Part 5 of the EMPCA Act. The TCT is therefore of the view that the Board is erring in law in stating that "The application will be for the stage one development only." [See p.4, Draft DPEMP Guidelines, Feb. 2001.] We trust that the Board will give appropriate attention to this specific concern.

With respect to these concerns, the TCT would like to Draw the Board’s attention to Chapters 3, 4.1 & 5 and to Recommendations 9, 10, 11 &19 of the TCT’s submission on the Draft Guidelines for ‘Southpark’ where we deal in more detail with the issues of assessing all aspect of all stages of a proposed development and of assessing cumulative impacts. At present, Section 4.18 of the Draft Guidelines makes only the most cursory reference to this critical issue. Indeed, the confusing and contradictory nature of the project description appended to the draft guidelines illustrates the need for more explicit and more detailed description in the DP&EMP.

2. Scheduling a Staged Development
One of the peculiarities of the proposed Electrona Wharf development is the ephemeral nature of the initial activity – woodchip exporting. From perusal of the project description for the ‘Southpark’ proposal and from discussions between the TCT and HPC officials, it is clear that woodchip exporting from Electrona is only intended to be a temporary phenomenon.

Recent public statements by the Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources have mentioned a period of 7 –10 years over which ‘Southpark’ might generate exportable woodchips. Neither project description, however, mentions any timetable.

• continuing to export woodchips from the Southern Forests through Triabunna as at present;
• using the port of Hobart;
• using the new road linking the Huon and Derwent Valleys which would allow woodchips to be trucked to Boyer and then railed to Bell Bay or Burnie;
• whether the proposal is viable if the ‘Southpark’ development does not proceed.

The TCT notes that the State government has recently made a grant of $3M to, and foregone dividend payments from, the Burnie Port Corporation in order to maintain the operational viability of the bulk materials handling port of Burnie by improving its capacity to compete with Bell Bay. If the State is going to subsidise such port activity, it seems only sensible to consider increasing the efficiency of use of such ports by maximising their use – not by spending another $10M to develop and service another one.

Insofar as woodchip exporting is intended to be a temporary activity at Electrona, serious discussion must be given to whether a new bulk materials handling port in Tasmania can be justified. From our discussions with HPC officials, the TCT is aware that some kind of ‘take-or-pay’ contractual arrangement between Forestry Tasmania and HPC is, or will be, in place which effectively ensures that sufficient woodchips will exported through Electrona to offset the costs of developing the wharf.

Depending on the terms of such an agreement, the ‘Southpark’ development could end up subsidising the Electrona wharf development – or vice versa. It is thus very much in the public interest that the terms of such a contractual agreement should be included in the DP&EMP.

The TCT is particularly mindful of the statement by the HPC in its project description (p.3) that "The HPC considers that future sustainable economic development of the southern region of Tasmania requires facilities for a bulk and multi-purpose deepwater port." We are also aware that the HPC has contracted Indec to prepare a report which contains material which is being used to provide economic justification for the Electrona Wharf development proposal.

The TCT regards it as wholly unacceptable that the HPC should be allowed to develop its own, secret, ‘future sustainable economic development’ strategy for the Huon/Channel region and then use it to justify the Electrona Wharf development yet not allow its assumptions, conclusions and recommendations to be publicly discussed as part of the assessment of the proposal.

3. General Cargo Handling & Antarctic Resupply
The TCT notes that the HPC anticipates using the Electrona Wharf development for handling general cargo and Antarctic resupply activities as well as for woodchip exporting in Stage 1. We are particularly worried at the inference that it is no longer convenient or appropriate to use port facilities in Sullivans Cove for such activities.

The TCT, along with many other groups and individuals with an interest in Sullivans Cove, is keen to see that the historic Cove continues as a working port. We are thus somewhat alarmed that the HPC should attempt to justify development of a new wharf at Electrona by asserting that such activities are no longer appropriate for Sullivans Cove.

While we are delighted at the success the HPC has had in attracting cruise ships to Hobart, it would be somewhat counter-productive is such shipping were to be at the expense of general cargo handling and Antarctic resupply. The TCT has similarly been supportive over the years of developing Hobart as a major servicing port for Antarctic and Southern Ocean related ship-based activities. It is simply unacceptable that such shipping activity should be removed from Sullivans Cove.

If it is, indeed, part of the HPC’s vision for southern Tasmania that these changes to Sullivan’s Cove should be made, it is vitally important that such a vision is made public and widely debated before being allowed to be put in place. Stimulating such debate by ensuring a suitably comprehensive scope for the Guidelines for the Electrona DP&EMP would seem like a good place to start.

4. Conflict with Surrounding Uses
It is disingenuous in the extreme for the HPC to blithely note that "The [Electrona] site is zoned for industrial use and has been … occupied by industrial operations since 1917." and then make no further reference to the fact that the proposed wharf development is sited in the midst of an extensive peri-urban residential area and of fish farming operations. It is stunningly obvious that most of the community concern with respect to the development of a bulk materials handling port at Electrona and its associated infrastructure originates from individuals concerned for the future of these two uses and associated activities and amenities.

4.1 Peri-Urban Demography of the Channel

• the transport routes for bringing woodchips and other materials to and from the Electrona site; and to
• the suburbs and communities of the Channel which have an interest in the uses and amenity values of North-West Bay.

In response to private discussions with HPC staff, the TCT has grown increasingly alarmed at the ignorance of the HPC with respect to the social and economic context in which the Electrona site and North-West Bay now sit. This context is very different from that prevailing in 1917 and it is preposterous to think that the HPC should be allowed to ignore this context merely by noting that Electrona has long been an industrial site – even if its history of actual industrial use has been chequered to say the least!

The TCT is particularly concerned at the HPC’s apparent capacity to ignore the public furore which broke out over the proposal to establish a silicon smelter on the site and the use of fast-track planning legislation to force the project through against the manifest wishes of the local and wider community.

The TCT finds it extraordinary that the HPC can still regard it as ‘sustainable’ to build a port at Electrona – let alone a woodchip export port or a bulk materials handling port. Indeed, the idea is so preposterous that the TCT regards the whole proposal as simply vexatious. The TCT remains confident that, if the HPC is required by the Guidelines to give informed consideration to the social and economic benefits of peri-urban residential and fish farming activities and support services, it will become obvious - even to them - that Electrona is no longer an appropriate site for industrial or port activities and uses.

Indeed, to assist and encourage the HPC along this path towards adoption of sensible sustainable development strategies, the Guidelines should include a requirement for the HPC to consider alternative zoning and use of the Electrona site and the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of prudent and feasible alternatives.

4.2 Aquaculture
The aquaculture industry is now by far and away the biggest single employer in the Channel. It is one of the greatest economic success stories in Tasmania over the last decade or two and the industry has considerable expansion potential if well managed and controlled. It is demonstrably prone to serious disruption by close passage of large ships in confined waters. It is seriously at risk from pollution and the introduction of pests and diseases.

While it is good to see ballast water considerations included as a dot point under 4.14 Health & Safety Issues, it is important that the economic impact and economic liability issues are also covered in detail in Section 3.4.

5. Impacts of Resource Supply
As ever, it is incumbent upon the Board to ensure that all the environmental impacts of a Level 2 activity are considered – including those associated with resource supply. Obviously, the most logical way to approach this issue, with respect to woodchip exporting, at least, is to require the proponents of ‘Southpark’ to canvass resource supply issues and impacts. Insofar as the Board has yet to decide on such a course of action, it is necessary, by default, that the scope of the Guidelines for the Electrona Wharf development proposal should canvass such resource supply issues.

This is obviously the principal responsibility of Forestry Tasmania but it is important that HPC understand that, should Forestry Tasmania continue to decline to exercise this responsibility, the legal responsibility to consider them in detail will continue to devolve to the HPC. As the Board is aware, it is the TCT’s view that the Board itself has a legal responsibility under its Act to require the proponents of ‘Southpark’ to canvass these resource supply issues.

We remain hopeful that this issue will be resolved in a timely and appropriate fashion and in an appropriate forum – by the Board including them in the scope of the Guidelines and subsequent DP&EMP for ‘Southpark’. As the Board will be aware, it is 15 years since a comprehensive EIA on the impacts of wood supply for woodchip exports from Tasmania was conducted and that the principal assumptions underlying that assessment no longer apply.

6. Appendices