Wednesday the 19th March 2025
Here’s a detailed analysis of why the EPA report fails to uphold the principles and objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) and why this should factor into the Meander Valley Council’s refusal to approve the proposed bauxite mine.
The RMPS objectives apply to legislation dealing with the regulation and management of natural resources, including land use planning. Decisions by local planning authorities and state agencies must take these objectives and principles into account.
Objectives
The Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) RMPS has several aims.
These are to:
- Maintain ecological processes
- Promote sustainability in development
- Include the public in decision making
- Consider the future needs of the population
Key principles The RMPS was developed with the following principles to guide decision making about resource use.
Inter-generational equity Resource use decisions should be made considering the needs of future generations.
Conservation of biodiversity This requires that we maintain community, species and genetic diversity.
Precautionary approach Where there is uncertainty about the potential impact upon the environment, decisions should err on the side of caution.
Social equity Private use or development of resources must consider the wider social costs.
Efficiency Resources must be used efficiently.
Community participation The community should be involved in establishing the parameters for the use and development of resources.
The EPA Assessment failures:
1. Failure to Uphold Inter-Generational Equity
The RMPS requires that resource use decisions consider the needs of future generations.
However, the EPA report does not adequately address the long-term environmental and social impacts of the bauxite mine.
- Land Degradation & Irreversible Damage: Once mined, the land cannot be restored to its original agricultural or ecological value, depriving future generations of productive land use.
- Water Contamination Risks: Bauxite mining is known to produce runoff containing heavy metals, which can impact local water sources, affecting both current and future communities.
- Loss of Agricultural Land: Approving the mine prioritizes short-term economic gain over the long-term sustainability of Tasmania’s agricultural and tourism industries.
By approving this project, decision-makers would be disregarding their duty to preserve resources for future Tasmanians.
2. Contradiction to Conservation of Biodiversity
The RMPS mandates that biodiversity, including species, genetic, and ecosystem diversity, must be protected.
- The EPA report fails to address the impact on native flora and fauna, particularly species that relied on the habitat before it was previously
- Fragmentation of Habitat: Mining operations disturb ecosystems by clearing land and disrupting migration corridors for wildlife.
- Airborne & Waterborne Pollution: Dust, sediment runoff, and increased road traffic will affect nearby forests and waterways, impacting plant and animal life.
If Meander Valley wants to uphold Tasmania’s national and international reputation for conservation, approving the mine would directly contradict this principle.
3. Ignoring the Precautionary Approach
The RMPS dictates that where there is uncertainty about environmental impact, decisions should err on the side of caution.
- The EPA report acknowledges potential risks but does not enforce strong mitigation measures.
- Lack of Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plans: The mining company’s claim that land can be rehabilitated is not backed by strong scientific evidence. Other bauxite mining sites in Australia show failed regeneration efforts.
- Unclear Long-Term Water Impact Assessments: There is no definitive proof that the mine will not contaminate groundwater or affect local water security.
Given the uncertainty of the mine’s impact, the RMPS demands a more cautious approach, which the EPA report does not adopt.
4. Violation of Social Equity Principles
The RMPS states that resource development must consider wider social costs beyond just financial gains.
- Local Community Opposition: Many local residents oppose the mine due to concerns over noise pollution, water security, and long-term land degradation.
- Health & Well-being Risks: Dust and chemical exposure can have significant respiratory and health effects on nearby residents, yet the EPA report does not sufficiently mitigate these risks.
- Unfair Distribution of Benefits vs. Costs: The profits of the mine will largely go to external stakeholders, while the local community bears the environmental and social costs.
This project prioritises corporate profit over the well-being of Tasmanians, violating the social equity principle.
5. Inefficiency in Resource Use
The RMPS emphasises efficient resource use, ensuring that land and natural resources are utilised in a way that maximises long-term benefits rather than short-term gains.
- Bauxite mining is a high-impact, low-return industry for Tasmania. It offers temporary jobs but permanently damages productive agricultural land and ecosystems.
- Tourism and Agriculture are more sustainable long-term industries. The Meander Valley is known for pristine landscapes, farming, and ecotourism—all of which are put at risk by the mine.
Approving a mine that permanently depletes resources for short-term gain contradicts the RMPS principle of efficiency in resource management.
6. Lack of Community Participation & Transparency
The RMPS requires genuine community involvement in decision-making about resource use.
- Local concerns have not been adequately addressed. The EPA report fails to incorporate strong local opposition and instead aligns with corporate interests.
- Transparency Issues: There is limited publicly available information on the long-term risks and rehabilitation guarantees.
- Failure to Respect Community Priorities: The Meander Valley Council has a climate policy that emphasises minimising emissions and preserving natural assets—yet approving the mine would go against this commitment.
Ignoring public sentiment and failing to ensure transparent decision-making is a direct violation of the RMPS.
7. Contradiction with Tasmania’s Climate Commitments
Tasmania’s emissions are already 47% higher per capita than the global safe emissions budget, and the state is falling short on climate targets.
- Mining contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions, both directly (machinery, transport, land clearing) and indirectly (loss of carbon sinks).
- Tasmania’s national and international reputation as a “clean and green” state is at risk if new fossil-fuel-dependent industries like bauxite mining are approved.
- The Council’s own Climate Policy commits to minimising pollution and emissions. Approving the mine would directly contradict this policy.
Tasmania should be focusing on carbon sequestration and sustainable industries, not new extractive industries that increase emissions.
Conclusion: Why the Council Should Reject the Bauxite Mine
The Meander Valley Council has a duty to uphold the principles of the RMPS and its own Climate Policy. Approving the bauxite, mine would violate nearly every key principle of sustainable planning, including:
✅ Inter-generational equity – Fails to protect land and resources for future generations.
✅ Biodiversity conservation – Threatens local ecosystems and endangered species.
✅ Precautionary approach – Fails to apply caution in the face of uncertain environmental impacts.
✅ Social equity – Burdens the local community with costs while benefiting external corporations.
✅ Efficiency in resource use – Wastes valuable agricultural and ecological land for short-term profit.
✅ Community participation – Ignores public opposition and lacks transparency.
✅ Climate commitments – Contradicts Tasmania’s emissions reduction goals.
Rejecting Abx’s bauxite mine is the only logical decision if the Meander Valley Council wishes to maintain consistency, integrity, and long-term sustainability in its planning and governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment