The most significant points of Justice Preston's decision are the following findings:ġ. Now somewhere in there cost effectiveness disappeared in translation between International and Australian, could you please explain and clarify this? In the application of the principle… decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment and (ii) an assessment of risk-weighted consequence of variou
#School mate 2 lag full
"If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reasoning for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Waiting until habitat mapping programs can reveal more information about the areas of uncertainty.ġ. An example of how the precautionaryĪpproach may be applied is the inclusion of unmapped areas within marine parks now, rather than Previously unforeseen risks to biodiversity conservation. Hypotheses should support decision making to anticipate, plan for and subsequently adapt to The precautionary approach is that unknown risks may also exist and that reasonable scientific Known risks of harm and/or potential harm to the marine environment. Principle Number One: The Precautionary or Anticipatory Approachįor the purposes of marine parks design, the precautionary approach should be applied to avert
![school mate 2 lag school mate 2 lag](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12940-019-0506-2/MediaObjects/12940_2019_506_Fig3_HTML.png)
Shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to preventīut for some reason this doesn’t match your latest design principles found here,ĥ.1. Threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty Widely applied by States according to their capabilities. “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be So I figured there must be something else to this ban, in there I found the silver bullet for the lazy and biased ecologist AGENDA 21, bottom of 2nd to last page. In trying to understand the reason to ban tow surfing from the zones I have been doing a little reading and found this in page 5 of Attachment A, Fact Sheet: Development of Preliminary Zoning Scenariosįor South Australia’s Marine Parks Network, Community design principles, “Provide for research, education, appreciation and recreation” Shame Shame Shame, I hope I’m the first to drop in on you, on a motorized surfboard would be even better! :D
![school mate 2 lag school mate 2 lag](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MUVQNsFbzXA/maxresdefault.jpg)
How on earth Mr Caica entrusted you with such a role, I’ll never know but it is now an issue that is a poor reflection on his decision making skills, that he grant you permission to “deem” the future of a sport you are now trying to divide for political gain! There is no need to “deem” a split second differentiates from a motor boat and a water sport, or your as bigger idiot, as I thought you may be. You have RAZ (restricted access zones), these restrict things like motors. So next time you call excluding my IQ from the debate effective, you may want to think again MATE >( This is Fish eat Fish Chris and I’m sorry to point out the failures of your department to consider the future while writing your eternal rules.
![school mate 2 lag school mate 2 lag](https://img.zbxz.com/upload/ai666/20210524/1515/643f6955ed3f0e86de54840da6829f55.png)
You may want to think that the future of a sport you are both for and against is not a bargaining chip, it is now far beyond what is seen as constructive consultation. Mr Caica made a commitment Surfing wouldn’t be affected by sanctuary zones, so next time you think you can hit the media (Ch 7) on your speed dial to help you play “Divide and Conquer”.