Call to Stand

Where daily bits of info can be added and discussed.

Moderator: webmaster

Julene
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm
Location: Brisbane, and Chatsworth, via Gympie QLD

Call to Stand

Post by Julene » Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:52 pm

Hi all,
Hopefully most of you are aware of another “Peter” – that is, Peter Spencer and his “Tower of Hope”.

In brief, Peter Spencer has had most of his land (Shannons Flats in NSW, near Canberra) locked up by native vegetation laws. He pursued this legally and, after getting nowhere, decided to hunger strike, lasting 52 days up the tower. Along the way he gathered a lot of supporters and media attention, including some which tried to discredit him.

Whether you approve of his methods or not, Peter Spencer has given a voice to what many struggle with – the erosion of property rights in Australia.

This began at least 20 years ago when the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was signed by all the States and the Federal Government (1992) and has continued with more and more draconian environmental legislation.

Why is this important for NSF supporters specifically? Because there is so much we are unable to do under current legislation. As Duane noted in a paper updated in Sep 2008: “NSF raises a myriad of policy issues at every level. In NSW for example, an application to do an NSF project could trigger no less than eight Acts.”

Restoration of property rights is vital for anybody who wants to implement NSF. Imagine a world where you are not going to get into trouble if you plant willows or don’t spray your weeds.

Next Tuesday (February 2) there will be a rally at Parliament House. Thousands are expected. The NSW Farmers Federation has put money forward to provide free buses to Canberra from all around New South Wales, and also a couple of buses from Toowoomba (stopping along the Newell and New England Highways.) The contact number for seats on buses is 1300 794 000. To get more information or to get involved in other ways, go to the Peter Spencer Support Group on Agmates at http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike.

Cheers,
Julene

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:47 pm

This came in from the NSW Farmers Federation:

Dear Member



It’s not often that we as individual members of the family of farmers are asked to step forward and be counted.



Now is just such a time.



Property rights erosion, whether or not you believe you are affected right now, is the biggest single threat to the farming community.



Property rights erosion is insidious and taking a strong, united stand at the property rights Rally in Canberra on Tuesday will not only draw a line in the sand but will be the start of the farming community redressing some of the wrongs done to us in the past.



You must be part of this.



While your Association has been lobbying on the erosion of property rights since the 1990s, the action by Peter Spencer has brought the attention of the public to this issue, like never before.



We as a farming community cannot let this opportunity go without driving home the message that the farming community which feeds and clothes millions of Australians is being strangled by Governments who refuse to allow just compensation to be paid to farmers whose land use is taken from them for the so called public good.



All around the State early next Tuesday morning, buses will be leaving for Canberra carrying farmers who are willing to make the commitment of one day of their time to defend their property rights – whether that be developing their land, protecting their water rights or making sure their rights don’t come second to the big miners.



Don’t leave it to your mates to protect your property rights.



Make the commitment right now, as you read this, that the next action you take will be to pick up the phone and call your local NSW Farmers representative to book your seat on Tuesday’s bus.



If you don’t know your local NSW Farmers’ Association rep’s number then call the Association’s on 1300 794 000 to book your seat.



One way or another, we must sort out the mess created by Governments and return our property rights or receive just and fair compensation.



This will be an historic day. You must be part of it.



Please pick up the phone now and book your seat on the bus.



Regards



Charles Armstrong
NSW Farmers Federation


We in the NSF support group urge all who can attend to go.

Julene
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm
Location: Brisbane, and Chatsworth, via Gympie QLD

Canberra rally

Post by Julene » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:27 am

Thanks, Duane, for that follow-up post!
Julene

Wallaby
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Hawkesbury LGA

Post by Wallaby » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:39 am

I'd really like a response to come from Peter Andrews. After reading both his books, there appears to be swing away from what he stands for. If all farmers were to clear their land we would end up with further dust storms and the loss of top soils. The question has to be asked, do we need more land clearing or more trees to assist with fertility. As I understand, Peter would prefer more trees to rehabilitate the land. Do we not have cleared land going to waste? Personally I sense that the country has lost is rights to survive sustainably. Have we all seen the thousands of acres of mono canola cultures? What happens when this land is no longer used? More dust storms, the very purpose of Peter's books.
Has this great man been hijacked?
Seen a lot of degradation in my time having lived in 3 states and travelled to all.

sheilan
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:30 am
Location: Frankston, Victoria
Contact:

Post by sheilan » Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:59 pm

Peter Spencer has been presented in the media as if he is wanting to clear his land, as in as in "Peter Spencer has had most of his land (Shannons Flats in NSW, near Canberra) locked up by native vegetation laws."

This won't get him sympathy from the wider public. There is nothing in there about wider ecological principles. We don't know what he wants to do with it and what he is being stopped from doing.

What is the real story?

One understands that Farmers would want to be able to manage their properties within the wider ecological systems and that the governments are hopeless on matters ecological. One also has grave concerns about the selling off of land and water to huge public-private corporations - an ongoing fact in all colonial countries, notably those with British originating land-use planning and legal systems.

Is Natural Sequence Farming putting an NSF perspective on this?


I would like something to publish on candobetter that goes a bit deeply into these matters. I do have major concerns about land-use planning as determined by our rotten governments.

Julene
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm
Location: Brisbane, and Chatsworth, via Gympie QLD

Canberra rally

Post by Julene » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:38 pm

Hi Wallaby and Sheila,

Thank you for your comments and I understand your concerns.

On the surface it does seem like there is conflict between what Peter Andrews and Peter Spencer stand for. In fighting for property rights, the supporters of Peter Spencer could cause the very destruction (by clearing their land) that Peter Andrews is fighting against.

I can’t speak for Peter Andrews directly (although I did clear it with Duane before raising a link between the two Peters), however on page 3 of Beyond The Brink he writes in relation to loss of vegetation across the landscape: “Virtually everything that is wrong with our landscape can be traced back to this.” He then says, “I am not just talking about the disappearance of trees, either. I am talking about the loss of all kinds of vegetation, including, in particular, weeds.”

How many of you would love to plant some weeds in an eroded gully to restore it? How many of us feel hampered by or fearful of environmental legislation? The irony is that we can’t repair our environment – because of environmental legislation.

This issue is much deeper than the clearing of land (or not). It is about the freedoms we take for granted in this country. Freedoms which we are slowly and subtly losing. Farmers who have had their land “locked up” for the sake of Kyoto targets have lost their freedom to make a living. In despair, they cannot pay their mortgages or their rates – many of them choose the gun. An estimated 50 farmers suicide each year.

Peter Andrews also writes, on page 5 of BTB: “(The) solution, simply, is, one, to grow more plants – trees, weeds, scrub, grass, the lot – and, two, to stop killing plants that are already growing. Stop ploughing; stop spraying out paddocks before sowing crops and pasture; stop killing weeds; stop clearing forests, especially forests on the high points of the landscape.”

Notice that he provides a list, rather than just a credo of grow trees/don’t clear trees. Remember that his plan for a fertile farm is based on thirds, with the forestation covering the high ground, not necessarily the entire property. Elsewhere he states that he is not a conservationist for conservation’s sake. Peter Andrew’s special talent is in being able to read the landscape and he encourages all of us to look at our land individually and figure out the hydrology, figure out how best to improve the fertility to make it productive.

The Productivity Commission Report on “Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations” (2004) found that: “The effectiveness of restrictions on clearing of native vegetation has been compromised by … the inflexible application of targets and guidelines across regions with differing characteristics such that perverse environmental outcomes often result.”

One size does not fit all.

I don’t know the outcome of this current fight by farmers and other landholders. If native vegetation legislation is repealed or amended then, yes, we may see some people doing stupid things, like clearing all their forestation.

But we would also see people free to follow NSF principles, free to talk about weeds and willows with their neighbours, and to show off their demonstration projects. How much easier would it be for Peter Andrews to get up a research project if he didn’t face legislative restrictions?

Sheila, here are some web links that go into Peter Spencer’s story in some depth: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Farm ... 93828.html
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/to ... more-11689
(the second one is actually a leftist blog, which is surprising, but it is informative.)

As you can see, Peter Spencer had a number of attempts to make his land productive. I have read (but can’t find the link now) that he also put up a proposal for selective clearing and agroforestry. My understanding is that he never proposed to clear all his property, just enough to be financial.

I was a fan of Peter Andrews (and sustainability) long before I heard of Peter Spencer. On the family farm we are reforesting and growing weeds. I certainly don’t want to hijack Peter Andrews and I don’t really have the power to do so. I am just a person who has been paying attention to both Peters and can see links between their crusades. It scares me the power that governments have in the name of “environmentalism”, particularly when much of what they do, according to Peter Andrews, is downright wrong. If this turns out to be a pivotal moment in Australian farming, then NSF should be there.


Hope this helps,
Julene

Wallaby
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Hawkesbury LGA

Post by Wallaby » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:09 pm

Julene, I will try to understand the Spencer story however, even way back before I'd even heard of Peter Andrews, some 30 years ago, I was aware of some farmer's inappropriate practices. A peer of mine from S.A. mentioned that his father had just purchased some 500 acres of mallee and was astounded that he was forbidden to clear it. I asked why did he buy it for, and the answer was cropping. What did he pay for it, oh, it was really cheap he said! The problem I saw was that these bods wanted their cake and eat it too. He wasn't prepared to pay for cropping land already cleared. Lets face it we might purchase land, but in essence one pays for one's own lifetime. We are caretakers of the country and some have done dismally at doing it. Peter Andrews mentions the crevices that cut their way across the land where water is flowing some 3 metres or more below the surface. Farmers haven't even bothered to fill these in so that the water remains at the top where it can flow outwards and irrigate. Are farmers waiting to cash in on another mulitude of "Grand Canyons" because thats whats clearly happening!
Seen a lot of degradation in my time having lived in 3 states and travelled to all.

sheilan
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:30 am
Location: Frankston, Victoria
Contact:

Re: Canberra rally

Post by sheilan » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:29 am

Since Napoleon, the French civil code has contained rights to property and related right to compensation if the State should have a legal reason to interfere with it. Australia would be much better off with the Napoleonic civil code and its land-use planning and inheritance provisions than with what we have got. In effect, Australians have very few legal rights as citizens. It looks like there is little time at the moment (prior to the ACT event) to study the cases you put forward, but they are of great interest to me within the larger situation of property rights and civil rights/right of citizens. So I will probably have to wait a little while before covering this on candobetter.org

Could I suggest however, that if someone wishes to, they could submit an article to http://candobetter.org and or or notification of the rally in the ACT. I will be busy but I will let the other editor, James Sinnamon, know to look out for it.

Sheila N
Julene wrote:Hi Wallaby and Sheila,

Thank you for your comments and I understand your concerns.

On the surface it does seem like there is conflict between what Peter Andrews and Peter Spencer stand for. In fighting for property rights, the supporters of Peter Spencer could cause the very destruction (by clearing their land) that Peter Andrews is fighting against.

I can’t speak for Peter Andrews directly (although I did clear it with Duane before raising a link between the two Peters), however on page 3 of Beyond The Brink he writes in relation to loss of vegetation across the landscape: “Virtually everything that is wrong with our landscape can be traced back to this.” He then says, “I am not just talking about the disappearance of trees, either. I am talking about the loss of all kinds of vegetation, including, in particular, weeds.”

How many of you would love to plant some weeds in an eroded gully to restore it? How many of us feel hampered by or fearful of environmental legislation? The irony is that we can’t repair our environment – because of environmental legislation.

This issue is much deeper than the clearing of land (or not). It is about the freedoms we take for granted in this country. Freedoms which we are slowly and subtly losing. Farmers who have had their land “locked up” for the sake of Kyoto targets have lost their freedom to make a living. In despair, they cannot pay their mortgages or their rates – many of them choose the gun. An estimated 50 farmers suicide each year.

Peter Andrews also writes, on page 5 of BTB: “(The) solution, simply, is, one, to grow more plants – trees, weeds, scrub, grass, the lot – and, two, to stop killing plants that are already growing. Stop ploughing; stop spraying out paddocks before sowing crops and pasture; stop killing weeds; stop clearing forests, especially forests on the high points of the landscape.”

Notice that he provides a list, rather than just a credo of grow trees/don’t clear trees. Remember that his plan for a fertile farm is based on thirds, with the forestation covering the high ground, not necessarily the entire property. Elsewhere he states that he is not a conservationist for conservation’s sake. Peter Andrew’s special talent is in being able to read the landscape and he encourages all of us to look at our land individually and figure out the hydrology, figure out how best to improve the fertility to make it productive.

The Productivity Commission Report on “Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations” (2004) found that: “The effectiveness of restrictions on clearing of native vegetation has been compromised by … the inflexible application of targets and guidelines across regions with differing characteristics such that perverse environmental outcomes often result.”

One size does not fit all.

I don’t know the outcome of this current fight by farmers and other landholders. If native vegetation legislation is repealed or amended then, yes, we may see some people doing stupid things, like clearing all their forestation.

But we would also see people free to follow NSF principles, free to talk about weeds and willows with their neighbours, and to show off their demonstration projects. How much easier would it be for Peter Andrews to get up a research project if he didn’t face legislative restrictions?

Sheila, here are some web links that go into Peter Spencer’s story in some depth: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Farm ... 93828.html
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/to ... more-11689
(the second one is actually a leftist blog, which is surprising, but it is informative.)

As you can see, Peter Spencer had a number of attempts to make his land productive. I have read (but can’t find the link now) that he also put up a proposal for selective clearing and agroforestry. My understanding is that he never proposed to clear all his property, just enough to be financial.

I was a fan of Peter Andrews (and sustainability) long before I heard of Peter Spencer. On the family farm we are reforesting and growing weeds. I certainly don’t want to hijack Peter Andrews and I don’t really have the power to do so. I am just a person who has been paying attention to both Peters and can see links between their crusades. It scares me the power that governments have in the name of “environmentalism”, particularly when much of what they do, according to Peter Andrews, is downright wrong. If this turns out to be a pivotal moment in Australian farming, then NSF should be there.


Hope this helps,
Julene

Julene
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm
Location: Brisbane, and Chatsworth, via Gympie QLD

Canberra rally

Post by Julene » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:32 am

Hi Sheila,
Thank you for the invitation to post something on (We) can do better. Unfortunately, I ran out of time also. (I didn't get email notification of your reply for some reason and was too busy with my kids to check the forum directly until the morning of the rally.)

It would be great if you follow this issue, given your interests in civil rights. I think the issue which began with one man up a pole will not be limited to farmers but will spread to all who are labouring under excessive government regulation, as expressed in this article below from the Business Spectator.

It's interesting what he has written in the second last paragraph about private ownership and environmental care. This reflects the argument that I am pursuing in trying to balance property rights and the environment, because I do care about the environment profoundly. I'm going to try and email the guy to find out what examples he has and so on.

Have a great day!

---000---

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... enDocument

AGRIBUZZ
by David Leyonhjelm

Posted 4 Feb 2010 6:44 AM

Government interference is hurting farmers
Indirectly depriving property owners of the ability to use their property as they see fit is a slow burning fuse. Governments, federal and state, are ignoring it at their peril.

The 52-day hunger strike by Peter Spencer, who camped up a 10 metre wind tower on his property near Canberra, galvanised people all over the country. But in reality the issue had been simmering away for some time and was going to flare up somewhere.

Spencer’s case focused attention on the NSW Native Vegetation Act, which puts severe limits on land clearing including re-growth. But each state has similar legislation, introduced at the insistence of the Howard government to enable it to claim Australia was meeting its Kyoto targets even though it had not ratified the treaty.

There are lots of other examples. The Queensland government faces smouldering fury over its Wild Rivers legislation, which deprives aboriginals of the right to earn a living from their land in Cape York. There are major restrictions on the subdivision of land for lifestyle blocks. Riparian rights and biodiversity corridors reduce property options. Even in metropolitan areas, bans on cutting down trees cause resentment, especially since Victoria’s catastrophic bushfires.

Most politicians and lobby groups are staying well away from the issue, not least because it amounts to disapproval of the long term trend of increasing government intrusion. There is nothing politicians dislike more than to be told they have done too much already.

The exceptions are from the National Party, including Senator Barnaby Joyce, which is sensitive to rural issues if not big government in general, and Tony Abbott, who blames it all on the states. NSW Farmers, which knows a membership issue when it sees one, is also taking a strong interest.

In some countries, an issue like this would be provoking violent confrontation. Private property rights are absolutely integral to a free society, and some people consider them worth fighting for. But Australians do not have a culture of fighting with their governments. Here, the emphasis is on compensation for those who, like Peter Spencer, have been adversely affected by government rules affecting their property.

This is where it gets difficult though. There is no way the government can afford to pay such compensation to all those already affected. There are simply too many rules affecting too many people. In any case, the government does not have any money of its own. It all comes from taxpayers, so it would simply be a form of redistribution.

The best approach would be for governments to roll back some of the rules that intrude on private property rights. Governments were originally invented by free societies to help protect the rights to life, liberty and property. It might not be a bad idea to go back to basics.

There will inevitably be times when a particular rule seems genuinely justified, but if instances of government intrusion were reduced to a bare minimum, compensation might then become more affordable. And as we have seen with the purchase of water rights and Toorale Station, handing out bucket loads of money focuses the government’s mind a lot more than simply legislating.

Of course this would offend those who believe government regulation is the only way to protect environmental values. But that is an ideology rather than a practical reality. Governments can certainly fine tune incentives, but there is enormous evidence proving the environmental benefits of private ownership. Indeed, all the worst examples of environmental damage in the world have occurred while under government ownership or control.

There is nothing more quintessentially Australian than owning and enjoying private property. Governments that persist in messing with that are on borrowed time. The fuse is burning.

---000---

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:28 pm

Peter was in Canberra when the farmers protested about property rights. Although not at the rally.....he was at the launch of the Coalitions CC policy.

He was neither impressed by the launch or the protest.

He also met with Chris Monckton (and Ian Plimer) and went to hear him at the NPC yesterday.

With regard to the point Wallaby made, both all prior Governments encouraged settlers to go out and clear 'scrub'. They did such a good good of clearing, in fact, that 95% of the country's ecological habitats and the biodiversity associated with them are now lost. 99.75% of original rainforest on our east coast has also been removed and lost.

Who removed it? Who encouraged its removal?

Governments have never had any environmental credentials....not in 1788 and not in 2010.

Peter's message is quite clear. Since we landed here in 1788 we began a process which continues to this day. The destruction of our natural environmental and its once amazing biodiversity.

We have drained our rivers by turning them into drains, salinised our floodplains by drying them out, removed 94% of our wetland systems which were the functioning kidneys and livers of the landscape and turned a nation which was rich in both soils and water into a dry dessicated desert.

Peter has advocated that ALL plants make a contribution to the environment. His understanding reflects that of the UN which sees all plants as providing ecological benefit.

Of the 5% or less of original, diverse vegetation that is left it is probably good that much of it is national parks etc., because if it was land in private hands who knows how much would remain.

Many people are aware of the importance of maintaining vegetation but if you saw the story on the ABC tonight about the Western Mallee Fowl it easy to see why the country is in such a mess.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Post by Shirley Henderson » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:51 am

HI Duane, I watched the show on Mallee Fowl. It definitley showed what a determined group of volunteers can do. On many issues it seems it is left to volunteers to show interest and do something about it.
Can we hear about what Peter thoughts were on the policies being talked about.
Welcome back also.

Wallaby
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:00 pm
Location: Hawkesbury LGA

Post by Wallaby » Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:39 am

Thanks Duane, I though the reponse to my post missed the target by well over 100%. In fact the site has been hi-jacked simply because the word "farm" appears on this site. We already have enough land cleared in this place called Oz, in fact we should be encouraging the planting of more trees. Our forefathers took to the country with massive tractors and chains and cleared millions of acres and now the current lot now want to be paid to restore this same land or continue to do what has been proved to have been disasterous. Planting hedgerows of timber in Victoria and WA has proved extremely profitable to those farmers, not for the timber but the benefits gained from their biodiversity enabling better cropping outcomes or healthy livestock. I would go as far as implementing a policy if farmers illegally clear land it should be annexed by the government for 20 years. Illegal clearing companies always factor the massive fine in to their profit margin. By locking the land up for 20 years would be an enormous incentive to not clear their land. If you want cleared land guys, as stated, 90% has already had every living thing wiped off the surface. Remember we are only caretakers for one lifetime. And the oceans are wearing the dust storms plus the stream banks that have never been maintained, wake up.
Seen a lot of degradation in my time having lived in 3 states and travelled to all.

PeterAndrews
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:31 pm
Contact:

Post by PeterAndrews » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:20 pm

Shirley....

Winston Churchill is reported to have said "The accumulated intelligence of the masses is zero".

I am of the view that there are examples where this dictum is self evident. For example....

There are 4000 people within the Federal Department of Environment and Water (DEHWA) in Canberra. It is my experience that once vested interests and personal egos get into a group of people such as the above dept, they collectively reduce the intelligent outcomes to a point where it is totally non-sensical i.e., the accumulated intelligence of the masses in this dept is zero.

I have had numerous discussions with many people in the dept and their collective views and understanding of the landscape, in my view, is just frightening. The following examples are clear indications of just a few of the public policy's I am referring to:

1. the planting of monocultures of gums in valley systems has created a fire hazard beyond belief right across this country....look at Victoria. And the WONS policy for the removal of willows, which cool and fireproof the landscape, has NO basis whatsoever in the understanding of ecological function.

2. the setting up of a market for OUR water. Water is now over-allocated in some areas by up to 800%, and whether or not the water is present the licenses are being traded and bought by both overseas interests- esp China and even Government (Torallie). This was done NOT to manage out precious water resources but to give Govts more revenue. It has the real potential for overseas interests to control and own our most precious of all resources.

3. the failure to recognise the importance of biodiversity in all its dimensions. There has been over 500 exotic species of animals introduced into this landscape which have had a devastating effect on both our native fauna and flora. The failure to recognise that many of the so called introduced plants or weeds to remedy this landscape devastation is just another example of a complete lack of collective understanding.

duane
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:55 am

Wallaby

There are currently 500million hectares under some type of agricultural operation in Australia. 400 million ha. are degraded.

Shirley
Thx for the welcome....

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Post by Shirley Henderson » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:19 pm

Peter,
Unfortunately Winston Churchill’ statement still stands correct in many circumstances. I look around in society today and am terrified at the culture breeding in Australia built on parties, celebrations and entertainment.
I find people working for governments are paid to do a job, they have to do it within their guidelines of their job description, follow policies, legislation and procedures and any ideas outside of those boundaries are scorned upon. The red tape and the time it takes to even get a discussion going about a discussion is ridiculous and progress, if any is to be made, is slower than a snails pace. Either this is the intention of government to keep control over absolutely everything or it is sheer incompetence.
The 3 issues you have raised are established facts.
• planting of monocultures
• setting up of a market for water
• the failure to recognise the importance of biodiversity
I have these questions for you….
Is there anyone in government that is willing to help you further NSF in the real world.”
Among the people that you have had discussions with is there anyone that can be relied upon to help change those 3 issues above.
Who are those people?
If the policy makers and legislators will not change then what is the next step for NSF?

Post Reply