This summary was released on 16 June 2008 by Lawyers for Forests as general information for the public. It does not constitute legal opinion or a view as to the merits of the case. The trial started on 18 June before Justice Tracey in the Federal Court in Melbourne. For further information, go to www.lawyersforforest.asn.au
Policy
Analysis of the strategic environment surrounding the pulp mill approval process
An analysis of the strategic planning environment for the planned pulp mill was presented to TAP members in early May 2008. Presenter was Mike Bolan.
Its purpose was to inform planning and decisions about where to focus efforts.
Some slides from that presentation are shown below to give a whole of system perspective . It follows on from a workshop that identified the needs of community members of TAP who live in the affected area of the Tamar Valley and northern Tasmania.
TAP Public Forum - To pulp or not to pulp; alternative futures for our forests
25 Feb 2008 - 6:00pm
25 Feb 2008 - 8:45pm
Etc/GMT+11
The next TAP public forum in the series will be on alternative futures for our forests.
When 7pm - 9.45pm Monday 25 February 2008.
Where Riverside Community Centre, off Brownfields Lane behind the Riverside High School, West Tamar High way, Launceston.
Speakers
Speakers
Mike Scott (engineer) email - Mike_Scott@acl.com.au
Frank Strie (master forester) email - schwabenforest@connect.net.au
Kim Booth (Greens MHA) email - kim.booth@parliament.tas.gov.au
Decisions by Forestry Tasmania about the State's forests centre on producing one main low value product – pulp wood, but at what cost?
Reports and submissions on the proposed pulp mill
Selected reports and submissions on Gunns proposed Tamar valley pulp mill are organised by category.
2. Economic and planning risks
6. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
Letters from Tasmanians Against the Pulp mill (TAP)
Key letters between Tasmanians Against the Pulp mill and official government bodies and others. Click on the link to see the full letter.
Letter 14 to ANZ re failure of Gunns' roadkill monitoring to meet the requirements of the Chief Scientist. Given the serious shortcomings of Gunns’ data, funding should be refused by the ANZ.
