❓ Hon. Sally Talbot questions the Dept. of Environment and Conservation's proposed amendment to the Forest Management Plan, specifically regarding increased karri logging and compliance with review requirements. The response defends the process, citing a mid-term audit and EPA involvement.
AnsweredQoN 747Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO “FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004–2013”
I refer to the Department of Environment and Conservation’s proposed amendment to the “Forest management plan 2004–2013”, authorising a 45 per cent increase in the allowable cut of karri other bole volume from 117 000 to 170 000 cubic metres per year for 10 years. (1) Has DEC informed the minister before today that the FMP requires a review in the event that the upper limit of other bole volume is exceeded? (2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER
I refer to the Department of Environment and Conservation’s proposed amendment to the “Forest management plan 2004–2013”, authorising a 45 per cent increase in the allowable cut of karri other bole volume from 117 000 to 170 000 cubic metres per year for 10 years. (1) Has DEC informed the minister before today that the FMP requires a review in the event that the upper limit of other bole volume is exceeded? (2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(1) Has DEC informed the minister before today that the FMP requires a review in the event that the upper limit of other bole volume is exceeded? (2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(1) Has DEC informed the minister before today that the FMP requires a review in the event that the upper limit of other bole volume is exceeded? (2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(2) Does the minister intend to require compliance with the FMP by directing his department to carry out a review of the plan, as opposed to allowing this amendment to be considered in isolation; and, if not, why not? (3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(3) Is it correct that DEC is acting on behalf of the Conservation Commission of Western Australia in, firstly, proposing the amendment; and, secondly, considering the public submissions and making a recommendation on whether the amendment should be made? (4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(4) What is the relationship between DEC and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, and what controls are in place to separate DEC’s powers as both the proponent of the amendment and the assessor of its merits? (5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(5) At what point did DEC become aware that the upper limit of KOBV had been, or was likely to be, exceeded and why did this not trigger a review of the FMP as required on page 33 of the plan? (6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(6) What justification does DEC provide for allowing this continued noncompliance with the plan? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
On behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Environment, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation informed the then Minister for Environment of the level of removal of karri other bole volume when it provided advice on the mid-term audit of performance of the forest management plan 2004–2013 in February 2009. The mid-term audit of performance had been provided to the then minister by the Conservation Commission in December 2008. The minister has noted that the annual removal of karri other bole volume exceeded the average annual level provided for in the forest management plan in each of the years 2004 to 2007. A review has been undertaken through the mid-term audit process, together with supplemental advice by DEC on the production levels of karri other bole volume in May 2009, which was provided to the Environmental Protection Authority by the Conservation Commission in November 2009 with the Conservation Commission’s advice on this matter. (3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(3)–(4) The process to amend the “Forest management plan 2004–2013” was undertaken in accordance with section 61 of the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The Conservation Commission is the proponent of the proposed amendment. (5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(5) It was recognised prior to the preparation of the mid-term audit of performance in 2008 that levels of production of karri other bole volume might exceed the limit provided for in the plan. The forest management plan specifies the average annual availability of karri other bole volume for 10 years rather than an annual limit and, in this context, it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in the mid-term audit of performance. (6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
(6) The Environmental Protection Authority’s report and recommendation on the mid-term audit of performance was provided in August 2010, in bulletin 1362, and the proposed amendment has been progressed since then.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.