As you do work your way through the report, please note that – while Environment Victoria is generally quite supportive of the work and hopes that it has an impact on the government – in one section there is an inaccurate assertion about Environment Victoria's position and submission on forest thinning as a water supply measure.
On page 289 of the report the report states that:
"Both the Environment Victoria and Institute for Public Affairs submissions87 noted work undertaken by Marsden Jacob Associates which illustrated that catchment thinning is one of the cheapest water augmentation options -between $0.22 and $0.25.88
While our submission references this work by Marsden Jacob Associates (MJA), the reference in no way implies that we support catchment thinning and if you read both our oral and written submission we very clearly recommend that logging be banned from Melbourne's water catchments by 2010 (see section 3.2 of our submission entitled 'Removing logging from Melbourne's water catchments by 2010' at http://www.parliament.vic.gov.
As you may be aware, we turned our submission to this Inquiry into this report, which we published last November: http://www.envict.org.au/
If you are interested in government community consultation issues, I’d recommend you read the Auditor-General’s report from April 2008, if you haven’t done so as yet:http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.