Developers are letting up to 150 tonnes of soil wash into rivers and streams from every hectare of unprotected development site in Brisbane each year, according to an erosion and sediment control expert.
Thousands of tonnes of topsoil is ending up in the Brisbane River. Photo: Glenn Hunt
The previous state government environment department was told in 2011 that there was “zero compliance” by construction crews in controlling erosion on construction sites.
That February 2011 study by Marsden Jacobs Associates for the Department of Environment and Resource Management recommended tougher compliance on builders after “pilot audits found 100 per cent of (construction) sites were non-compliant”.
Though the study determined it was “the most cost-effective way” of controlling sediment and nutrient pollution in Brisbane’s rivers, it was never accepted as policy by the Bligh government.
Erosion and sediment control expert Ben Starr, from O2 Environment Consultants, said soil loss from construction sites in urban areas was almost uncontrolled.
“It is quite common to see soil loss rates from a construction site at 150 tonnes per hectare per year and above,” he said.
“Indeed on some of the sites we see as much as 1000 tonnes, or 2000 tonnes per hectare, per year, which can expect to be eroded.”
Mr Starr said while some firms did use erosion fences and sediment basins on development sites, it was rare and checked sporadically by councils and state government.
He said research by Sunshine Coast Regional Council showed best practice steps, such as sediment basins and sediment fences, used to control soil from development sites save only 20 per cent of soil erosion.
“So potentially best practice is still potentially seeing over 100 tonnes per hectare per year off many construction sites,” he said.
Fairfax Media understands Healthy Waterways has begun looking at the issue.
The silt from this soil loss is the leading factor in why the rivers and streams in the Brisbane suburban area declined from a D-minus grade to a F grade in last year’s Healthy Waterways scorecard, experts say.
The not-for-profit community group, which uses scientific experts and local councils to monitor the health of 19 major catchments in south-east Queensland, will release its 2013 scorecard on the condition of the region’s 19 river and stream catchments on Wednesday.
In January 2013, silt from upstream blocked the Mt Crosby Water Treatment plant, putting the city of Brisbane within hours of running out of drinking water.
River health expert Jon Olley described river turbidity as a major issue for Brisbane at last year’s Healthy Waterways scorecard release.
“Mud increases the turbidity or the murkiness of waterways and contains pollutants that have a negative impact on water quality,” Professor Olley said.
The future of what would be the world’s largest marine reserve could be decided at a meeting in Hobart this week.
A large iceberg in Antarctic waters, photographed from the Aurora Australis in January 2011. The CCAMLR meeting will again consider a push to protect 1.6 million square kilometres around East Antarctica. Photo: Emma Carlos
A fresh bid to have areas of the ocean off East Antarctica and a revised protection plan for the Ross Sea are being discussed by the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).
Hundreds of scientists began discussions on Monday and delegates will begin their meeting tomorrow.
Two main proposals will be considered.
High on the agenda is a proposal to create a series of marine protected areas off East Antarctica, covering 1.6 million square kilometres.
It would effectively ban fishing in the last pristine marine environment on earth.
Australia, France and the European Union are pushing for the change and most of CCAMLR’s 25 members support it, but Russia’s position is unclear.
Another proposed protected zone for the Ross Sea, jointly suggested by the US and New Zealand, has been reduced by 40 per cent, after Russia and the Ukraine blocked the plan at CCAMLR’s last meeting in Germany in July.
Russia holds lucrative fishing licences in the area and raised legal objections.
If the new bid succeeds it would result in the protection of 1.25 million square kilometres.
What is CCAMLR?
A group of 25 bodies (24 nations and the EU)
Established by international convention in 1982 to conserve Antarctic marine life.
Set up in response to increasing commercial interest in Antarctic krill resources.
Secretariat based in Hobart, Australia.
It is understood Norway will now support the creation of the protected areas after holding initial reservations about the zones’ impact on its fishing industry.
Conservationists lobbying for the park are being led by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance.
Spokesman Steven Campbell says it is important to protect the areas “while its key ocean ecosystems are still intact.”
The countries that make up CCAMLR need to show real leadership to deliver on their commitments to establish a network of [Marine Protected Areas] on Antarctica,” he said.
The alliance will attend the meetings to try to convince member nations to back the proposal.
The results of the meeting are not expected to be known until the meeting winds up in two weeks.
Research shows the environment usually comes off second best when companies are forced to compromise between sustainability and profit. Photo: Mohammad Rhaman/Flickr
A commitment to sustainability has become a typical component of any modern-day corporation’s public face. Visit the homepages of major organisations in any sector, from coal-mining to cola-making, and you’ll find “green” credentials front and centre.
This might be viewed as a predictable and well-intentioned response to mounting concerns over climate change, deforestation, declining biodiversity and other environmental issues. Yet a distinctive component of that response has been to try to incorporate the environment within market capitalism.
For example, last year the UK government’s Environment department initiated an Ecosystems Market Task Force to review opportunities to “value and protect nature’s services”. This is typical of the fast-emerging trend for the environment to be accorded a market worth and for corporations to be seen as the central institutions through which that worth can be maintained.
Consequently, we seem to have reached a stage where both the environment and the market are treated as social goods. It follows then that the two will occasionally have competing interests. So which tends to benefit and which tends to suffer when compromise is inevitably sought? In a recent article in the British Journal of Sociology, we argue it is the market that is almost invariably and overwhelmingly favoured.
The study, focused on the sustainability approaches of a number of Australian and global companies and involved lengthy interviews with their sustainability managers and consultants. They were chosen because their work encompasses precisely the sort of compromises that have come to characterise the relationship between the environment and the market. Many saw their roles as involving not only an allegiance to their employers and shareholders, but also a concern for the environment and society. Some had even changed careers and reconsidered their personal values because of their dedication to environmental issues.
We also analysed a range of relevant material, including corporate sustainability reports, policy documents and statements relating to carbon emissions. As has become de rigueur, many of these were festooned with evocative images of forests, oceans and landscapes, as well as employees’ testimonials about the environment’s significance in their personal and professional lives.
Yet beneath the warm glow of corporate social responsibility lurked the cold reality of economic exigency.
In the cold light of day…
Staff members expressed a keen and genuine interest in the environment, but at the same time were well aware of the constraints of challenging successful business practices likely to exacerbate ecological degradation. As the director of one sustainability consultancy remarked: “It always comes down to the optimum point. You want them to be as sustainable as can be, but you don’t want them to shut down their operation. There’s no simple path through this.”
Moreover, compromise was shown to be at best a temporary resolution – one subject to continued criticism, adaptation and refinement. The next step frequently led only to a new and ‘better’ compromise or an outright shifting of the goalposts.
Take, for instance, environmentalists’ much-publicised claim that bio-fuels cause deforestation and food shortages: the result was the promotion of “second-generation”, more environmentally friendly bio-fuels. Or the company whose initial confidence in its “ambitious” carbon emissions reduction target of 40 per cent was followed by the observation that this would prove “difficult to deliver” because of an increase in business – despite investment in energy-saving equipment and “sustainable” retail outlets.
There are “win-win” situations – say, when new “green” products or initiatives cut costs or enhance revenues – but it is generally acknowledged that these are pursued only when the benefits to the market, not the benefits to the environment, can be guaranteed. In such instances compromise serves to deny the inequality of competing goods. There is no space for a reduction of profit or a decline in growth. Boosting the bottom line remains the primary objective. Ultimately, it is the market that records another lopsided victory.
Ironically, within any organisation it is the individuals who are most environmentally attuned who are also most often engaged in compromising the environment. They accept – albeit sometimes grudgingly – the impossibility of governing innocently. As the environment is reconstructed into a commodity and a tool for profit, they have to get their hands dirty.
One key question is whether the continued expansion of the market might be met with a counter-movement of protection and conservation through legislation. In short, can nature have a legal standing? There may be some hope in this regard.
Irrespective of whether they eventually prove of limited practical impact, these fledgling efforts at least illustrate a social awareness of the need for some control over market capitalism’s excesses. They also underline – as if further evidence were needed – that the conflict between the environment and the market is likely to prove a source of even greater friction, criticism and compromise as the physical realities of the natural world’s decline become ever more profound.
Christopher Wright receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Grant examining business responses to climate change..
Daniel Nyberg receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Grant examining business responses to climate change.
Photo: Yasuni National Park in Ecuador is one of the world’s most biodiverse regions. It’s home to country’s largest oil field. Photo: Flickr/joshbousel
Greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels have resulted in well-publicised changes to the Earth’s climate. But the impacts of fossil fuels start long before their carbon dioxide reaches the atmosphere. Our new research, published today in Science, looks at the effects of coal, oil and gas extraction on biodiversity.
The problem
Biodiversity loss is accelerating, and the risks to biodiversity are increasing. We are in the midst of a global biodiversity crisis.
The biggest threats to biodiversity are human activities. These act across a range of scales. Even local biodiversity loss can have knock-on large scale impacts on ecosystem function and productivity.
Fossil fuel consumption and demand show no signs of levelling off, let alone decreasing. Of course more consumption means more refineries, power stations and infrastructure, in addition to the extraction itself.
Given the increasing demand and consumption, it is reasonable to assume that most if not all remaining fossil fuel reserves will be exploited, using conventional and new methods such as fracking.
Mining and drilling have often been seen as having limited environmental impacts. It’s often assumed that restoring ecosystems after fossil fuel extraction can ultimately return the ecosystem to a state close to what it was before.
And the effects of extraction activity have generally been considered trivial compared with other human activities, such as large-scale agricultural land clearing. But this is not the case: fossil-fuel extraction causes disturbance and degradation to ecosystems.
The impacts of fossil fuel extraction fall into three main categories: the direct impact of extraction activity, indirect impacts of infrastructure development and expanded human activity, and the consequences of extraction disasters. Road building is in fact the main catalyst for irreversible ecosystem change.
The various ways fossil fuel extraction impacts on biodiversity.
Critical areas
In our research we compared areas of biodiversity and reserves of fossil fuel. We identified two key regions where fossil fuel reserves coincide with high levels of biodiversity and threatened species: the western Pacific Ocean and northern South America.
The Western Amazon, in northern South America, includes parts of Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and western Brazil. It’s one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet and also contains large reserves of oil and gas.
The forest also provides vital ecosystem services – water, climate regulation and carbon storage, which all have implications for biodiversity conservation globally.
Large oil and gas projects already developed in the area have caused major environmental and social impacts, including deforestation for construction of roads, drilling platforms and pipelines, contamination from oil spills and waste-water discharge. Each kilometre of road constructed means 4-24 km2 of deforestation for colonisation and related agricultural development.
We also looked at Western Papua New Guinea in the western Pacific, where oil extraction and transport pose an increasing risk to mangrove and coral ecosystems.
These mangrove forests support the highest diversity of mangroves globally, and are home to many rare and endemic plant and animal species. The abundant and diverse coral reefs in the region are some of the most pristine and least exploited in the world.
Oil spills would cause profound damage. Projections based on historic spill rates and estimated oil resources in the region suggest that the area could expect approximately four spills larger than 10,000 barrels in a 15-year period. As Gulf of Papua currents circulate to the Great Barrier Reef along Cape York in Australia, the potential biodiversity loss in the event of a catastrophic spill would extend far beyond the local waters.
Mapping of fossil fuels shows the risks to biodiversity.
What can we do?
We’ve identified a new substantial risk to key biodiversity areas globally, but are there any solutions?
Many countries in the high risk areas have weak governance and poor implementation and enforcement of environmental regulations, and may lack the ability to respond effectively to environmental disasters.
They may also be too remote or undeveloped to attract much media coverage – and so environmental damage may remain undetected and unaddressed.
International environmental organisations could fulfil an essential role by ensuring that fossil fuel extraction takes place according to best practises and ideally avoids areas of high biodiversity. It is crucial that trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and development are properly assessed to ensure threatened or endemic species are not lost.
International pressure can also help to ensure that any environmental damage that does occur is mitigated and the companies involved are appropriately penalised, as in the case of BP and the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
One possible mechanism to preserve biodiversity in fossil fuel-rich areas was recently attempted at Yasuní National Park in Ecuador. This highly biodiverse also area has the country’s largest oil reserves.
In 2007 the Ecuadorean government proposed that in return for not extracting the oil from the park, and keeping the forest biodiversity, they would be compensated. The funds were to be raised through the international Green Climate Fund (UNFCCC), to the value of $3.6 billion, about half the value of the oil.
Ten per cent of the money was raised, from countries, regions, corporations, foundations and individuals, to be invested in renewable energy projects. But unfortunately due to lack of global commitment and organisational support the project failed. Oil extraction will now go ahead. If the international support was strong, and organisation effective, schemes such as this could be a way of protecting biodiversity in fossil fuel rich areas.
Of course, the bottom line is that we need to decrease our fossil fuel demand, extraction and consumption; the rest is pretty much just rearranging the deck chairs.
Nathalie Butt receives funding through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions at the University of Queensland
Hawthorne Beyer receives funding through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions at the University of Queensland.
Flooding from ex-tropical cyclone Oswald earlier this year has taken its toll on Moreton Bay, off Brisbane, with its overall grade in a Healthy Waterways report declining slightly from B- to C.
The Healthy Waterways annual report card ranks the health of south-east Queensland rivers and estuaries from A to F.
Waterways’ spokesman Professor Jon Olley says reduced water clarity and increased algae in Moreton Bay are a direct result of mud and nutrients deposited during the 2011 and 2013 floods.
The central part of Moreton Bay declined the most from A- to C+.
Professor Olley also says the report also shows a decline in seagrass beds and coral in Moreton Bay.
“This year I’m sorry to report the seagrass beds and the corals are now showing signs of stress and decline, which is what we predicted would happen,” he said.
State Environment Minister Andrew Powell says farmers have also had an impact on the health of waterways.
“We need to work with them, through incentives, through grants programmes to ensure we get a great environmental outcome,” he said.
The Redlands catchment recorded an F, down from D-.
However, Professor Olley had good news for the Bremer River, which flows through Ipswich.
“The Bremer going from an F to a D-,” he said.
“That’s only the second time in 13 years of monitoring that the Bremer hasn’t rated an F.”
The Noosa, Tingalpa, Eprapah and Albert estuaries also improved.
Australian scientists have found that not only is coral more resilient than first thought, its secret defence weapon contributes to the bad smell that can come from oceans.
Purple Acropora Coral, Keppel Islands – keeping cool: coral is tougher than originally thought. Photo: CQ University
Researcher Cherie Motti’s nose led her to the discovery.
“I was handed this sample. I opened the jar and this smell of the ocean came out and I got a big whiff and I was quite shocked because I wasn’t expecting that smell at all,” she said.
That smell belongs to an antioxidant produced by coral, in the form of a sulphur gas, that helps keep it cool when sea temperatures rise.
It was believed algae in the ocean was the only factor creating the stench when temperatures rose.
However, Dr Motti says coral also lets off a stink that in turn helps to regulate its environment.
When the water gets warmer, coral releases more molecules. The sulphur gas from these molecules helps form clouds that then reflect the sun’s heat back into space, cooling the surface temperature of the sea.
“What we’re showing is that this sulphur molecule is actually being produced in higher concentrations when the coral is being bleached and that enables the coral to survive a lot longer,” Dr Motti said.
“What it means is that the coral, when it is both a juvenile before it is starting to grow and when it’s an adult under severe stress, it actually has the ability to look after itself.”
Dr Motti warns, however, that too many stresses on coral can break that cycle.
“For example, it becomes incredibly hot. We have a flood plume for example that might affect the immunity or the health of the coral, that’s when things start to go wrong because then the coral has got to play catch-up,” she said.
“It might not be able to produce enough of this gas therefore the cloud won’t form, therefore it’ll get hotter.”
The tougher environmental conditions get, the harder it is for coral to survive.
“It’s like any normal person, you have one stress and you don’t feel well, but when you have a number of stresses coming at you all at once, it becomes more and more difficult to survive that,” Dr Motti said.
“The coral faces exactly that problem.
“What we’re saying is that the coral has the ability to deal with increasing temperature. Whether this ability to produce this molecule enables it to be able to be more resilient against these other stresses we just don’t know yet.”
Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science teamed up with researchers in Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT for the study.
The research will be published in the science journal Nature.
Tony Abbott’s insistence that bushfires aren’t linked to climate change is like the tobacco industry claiming smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer, Nobel laureate Al Gore says.
In light of the NSW bushfire disaster, the former US vice president says the prime minister’s comment that bushfires are a function of life in Australia and nothing to do with climate change reminds him of politicians in the US who received support from tobacco companies, and who then publicly argued the companies’ cause.
‘For 40 years the tobacco companies were able to persuade pliant politicians within their grip to tell the public what they wanted them to tell them, and for 40 years the tragedy continued,’ Mr Gore told ABC TV’s 7.30 program from Los Angeles on Wednesday night.
‘And bushfires can occur naturally and do, but the science shows clearly that when the temperature goes up and when the vegetation and soils dry out, then wild fires become more pervasive and more dangerous.
‘That’s not me saying it, that’s what the scientific community says.’
Mr Gore says it’s a political fact of life that politicians and commercial enterprise collude to achieve goals after he was asked if there was a conspiracy between polluters and politicians.
‘I don’t think it’s a commercial conspiracy. I think it’s a political fact of life,’ he said.
‘It certainly is in my country. In the United States, our democracy has been hacked.
‘Special interests control decisions too frequently. You saw it in our recent fiscal and debt crisis.
‘The energy companies, coal companies and oil companies particularly, have prevented the Congress of the United States from doing anything meaningful so far, to stop the climate crisis.’
The Nobel laureate says Australia’s new direct action strategy was not workable.
‘The meaningful way to resolve this crisis is to put a price on carbon and in Australia’s case, to keep a price on carbon,’ he said.
He argues the price needs to be at an effective level with the market sending accurate signals so that renewable systems of energy are encouraged.
The reversal of ‘immunity laws’ surrounding Papua New Guinea’s Ok Tedi mine means former owner BHP could face claims on environmental damage. Photo: AAP Image/Lloyd Jones
Remote Mount Fubilan, near the source of Papua New Guinea’s Tedi River, is once again the site of global controversy surrounding the Ok Tedi copper gold mine.
Since the late 1980s, Ok Tedi has symbolised the David and Goliath struggle between major multinational miners, remote developing communities and the environment.
Ok Tedi resumed the spotlight in recent weeks when the Papua New Guinean Parliament removed former mine operator BHP Billiton’s immunity from legal prosecution for environmental damages caused.
On 19 September, PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill led Parliamentary actions to pass a bill allowing the Papua New Guinean Government to take complete ownership of the Ok Tedi Mine. In a separate bill passed at the same time, new legislation removed BHP Billiton’s immunity from legal action for environmental damage caused by the mine’s operations.
BHP Billiton’s legal immunity arose through a 2001 agreement in which the company voluntarily divested its interests in Ok Tedi, placing its majority shareholding into a charitable trust, the PNG Sustainable Development Program (PNGSDP). The Program held 63.4% ownership of the mine, with the PNG Government holding the remainder. This recent legislation transfers full ownership to the PNG state and removes that agreed immunity.
The environmental damage caused by the Ok Tedi mine is extensive and, many scientists argue, likely to be irreversible.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the mine dumped an estimated 80,000 tonnes of limestone sludge, containing chemicals and minerals, into the upper Tedi River.
A 1984 effort to build a tailings dam failed, with the company arguing that a dam was impossible in a geologically unstable terrain with heavy rainfall. Scientific studies found the large amounts of contaminated sediments have changed the river’s ecosystem, with severe loss of fish, reports of death to riverside rainforests and areas along the river’s considerable flood plain.
In passing the legislation, PM O’Neill declared to Parliament that the immunity granted to BHP Billiton marked “a very bad decision [by the then-PNG Government led by PM Mekere Morauta]…preventing its own people from exercising their right under law to sue for permanent damages done to their environment and their livelihood”.
Global fallout
The PNG Government’s decisions raise substantial questions for mining companies, mine-affected communities and governments worldwide. All of whom continue to grapple with balancing the economic and social development possible through mining, and the industry’s negative environmental and social impacts.
What, if any, ongoing protection should companies expect or receive when immunity deals are struck? Which individuals within mine-affected societies should contribute to decisions about when and how mining companies are held to account? Are agreements made with one era’s elected officials themselves immune to the attitudes and decisions of those who follow?
The Ok Tedi case is particularly thorny. Despite the extraordinary environmental damage, Papua New Guinea of the late 1990s was a country struggling under enormous economic pressures, including ballooning interest and inflation rates blamed on years of gross mismanagement. Government services strained under the weight of economic failure, leaving many remote communities bereft.
At the time of the 2001 agreement, BHP Billiton’s preference was for closure of Ok Tedi. Yet the mine comprised an estimated 11 per cent of GDP and produced 19 per cent of total exports. For a country in economic strife, the closure costs associated with such an asset were deemed too great, the environment another victim of national economic necessity.
The reneging of legal immunity for Ok Tedi comes at a time when serious concerns are once again being raised about other PNG mining operations. The Panguna Mine in Bougainville, for example, holds the ongoing attention of international NGOs and local activists. Local communities are now fighting a potential reopening of the mine, which Jubilee Australia highlights as having a history of military-community conflicts.
The continued operations of the Hidden Valley Morobe Joint Venture also garner ongoing attention from NGOs and activist groups worried about tribal conflicts, land disputes, environmental damage and insufficient compensation.
The recent raising of Ok Tedi’s ghost highlights the pernicious nature of mining’s impacts and the ongoing requirements of redress and responsibility.
Interestingly, the PNGSDP claims that the immunity granted to BHP Billiton also extended to the State as partial mine owner. Removal of the immunity does not only affect BHP, they argue, but the Government itself. The legal reality of this assertion has yet to play out or be investigated.
Along with these questions, the case also reminds governments, especially those of developing nations, of the importance of foreign direct investment. Highlighting the tricky relationships between encouraging investment and protecting local societies and environments. In response to the legislative changes, BHP Billiton has warned the Government’s actions raise PNG’s ‘sovereign risk’. In other words, investors considering PNG as an option will now more carefully consider the levels of risk and uncertainty which may come with business commitments in PNG.
Miners, governments, mine-affected communities and NGOs are monitoring the Ok Tedi case with great interest. It remains a terribly compelling, modern day example of the tensions between corporations, communities, government and the environment. And now a stark reminder that forgiveness or impunity once agreed may be reversible.
Sara Bice does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
South-west of the port of Gladstone in Queensland lies Kroombit Tops National Park, housing many plants and animals, some of them unique. The reserve includes steep escarpments with wet, rainforest gullies.
This tiny tinker frog is lives in the gullies of Queensland rainforests. Photo: Flickr/Smithsonian’s National Zoo
Walk through these gullies during the spring-summer wet season and you might hear a unique “tink, tink, tink” sound. It sounds like a bird or someone hitting two tiny pieces of metal together, but actually it’s the Kroombit Tinker Frog. This tiny frog – growing to no more than 25mm – is found nowhere else.
The tinker frogs (part of the genus Taudactylus) are one of the most primitive groups of frogs within Australia. There are six species within this genus (T. acutirostris, T. eungellensis, T. pleione and T. rheophilus, T. diurnus and T. liemi), and all are found in Queensland, Australia (different species occur in different national parks).
All species live in wet, rainforest gullies or streams and are extremely cryptic, often hiding under rocks, boulders or leaf litter. It is believed that all species within this genus lay eggs, hatch as tadpoles and metamorphose into adult frogs.
Status
Currently, four of the tinker frogs (T. acutirostris, T. eungellensis, T. pleione and T. rheophilus) are listed as critically endangered by the IUCN, while T. diurnus is listed as extinct and T. liemi is listed as near threatened. It is believed that populations of most tinker frog species are in decline.
This more common tinker frog, Taudactylus liemi, is the first to be bred in captivity. Photo: Flickr/Mackay Region Natural Environment
Threats
Several factors have contributed to the decline or complete extinction of these species. These are the usual suspects, including introduced pests species (such as pigs and horses) and, in the past, habitat destruction through logging. Clearing vegetation on leased land may still be an issue, and wildfire may also be contributing to declining numbers.
One main threat that cannot be seen with the human eye is amphibian chytrid fungus. This fungus is believed to be responsible for or have contributed to numerous amphibian extinctions around the globe. The fungus has been found in some streams where certain tinker frog species are found. The extremely restricted distribution of these species populations means that they are particularly susceptible to all of these threats.
Strategy
Continued surveying (both visual and acoustic) to monitor the population of critically endangered T. pleione is essential to pick up any further declines of the species. Fire and pest management controls have also been implemented in Kroombit Tops National Park.
Similar management strategies are in place for the other tinker frog species outside of Kroombit Tops National Park. Monitoring programs to determine the population health of certain tinker frog species, feral animal control, disease investigations and public education and participation are all strategies either currently in place or used in the past.
Recently, a captive husbandry project has been established at Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary in conjunction with Griffith University. This project is aiming to establish a “safe haven” for any unforeseen scenarios that could lead to the extinction of the remaining tinker frogs. The program has successfully raised, for first time ever, the near threatened T. liemi. It is hoped that a similar outcome can be obtained with the other tinker frogs.
Conclusion
The tinker frogs have seen vast declines over the past 30 years. Their decline has been attributed to several factors. With one of six known species already extinct, it is imperative that everything be done to conserve the remaining populations. Strategies to control these declines are currently in place; however, the narrow distribution range of the species within the tinker frog genus means that the threats associated with these species are heightened.
Photo: Clay Simpkins
The Conversation is running a series on Australian endangered species. See it here.
Clay Simpkins does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
In an emotional article making waves on social media at the moment, yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen reports seeing no marine life at sea, only floating rubbish, while sailing across the Pacific. He concludes that “the ocean is broken”.
A tide of tsunami debris is heading across the ocean – that doesn’t mean the ocean is broken. Photo: US Navy
I understand Ivan’s feelings, as I too have sailed tens of thousands of miles onboard research vessels and on my sailboat, enjoying the slow and silent pace of life propelled by wind and waves.
The two issues Macfadyen raises – overfishing and plastic pollution – are real problems. More than three-quarters of the oceans’ fish stocks have been depleted, sometimes beyond recovery. The global tuna industry, particularly, is better portrayed as the War On Tuna than a fishery. And the world’s oceans are filled with large amounts of plastic debris, which are eaten or caught up in marine life or seabirds, or which break down into microscopic particles that are ingested and affect wildlife in ways we don’t yet know.
So yes, there are plenty of problems in the ocean. But it is not yet broken. I am increasingly upset about reports that say it is; we scientists are to some extent to blame, as we love being the bearer of bad news, composing an overly apocalyptic narrative.
Depicting the ocean as broken and suffering from a litany of plagues including climate change, hypoxia, eutrophication, ocean acidification, marine pests, spreading jellyfish blooms, and loss of valuable habitat, suggests a problem beyond repair. This eventually deters society from engaging. These plagues are certainly real, but their severity is sometimes exaggerated through a feedback loop involving, among others, the spinning of research headlines to compete for media attention.
The ocean has many problems – plastic debris among them – but is a long way from “broken”. Photo: USFWS
Let’s focus on Macfadyen’s evidence for a broken ocean: two snapshots of the Pacific, ten years apart, suggesting a depletion of marine life and huge plastic pollution.
The ocean is a dynamic ecosystem, which fluctuates broadly over time, from its physical and chemical properties to the abundance and distribution of fauna and flora. Such fluctuations can deceive the casual observer – to detect real change requires high quality data gleaned from systematic long term observations.
For instance, my co-workers and I analysed global changes in jellyfish populations, and found there is no basis to the claim that they are growing “plague”. Instead, we found that jellyfish populations fluctuated over 20 year cycles, giving the misleading perception that the most recent rising phase of this cycle (roughly between late 1990s and late 2000s) was an unprecedented event.
Likewise, we also know that many changes portrayed as symptoms of a broken ocean, such as coral bleaching, outbreaks of invaders such as the crown of thorns starfish or toxic algae, may also largely represent symptoms of global oscillations that we do not yet fully understand and in which humans’ actions play little or no role. Separating the human impacts entwined in such natural fluctuations is a daunting task, so we should not be too quick to jump to conclusions and blame humans for all the changes we see around us. Our analysis showed that such fluctuations happened in the past, but very few scientists were watching and they lacked the channels, such as the internet, to share their results.
Soon after the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 that triggered the Fukushima accident, NOAA published models that predicted how the huge amount of debris washed into the ocean by the power of the retreating waves would take three years to travel across the ocean and wash up sometime in 2014 on the beaches of California, Oregon and Washington in the US. Had Macfadyen checked NOAA’s web page, he’d have expected the garbage patch he encountered.
The tsunami was not caused by humans, so we should rein in our feelings of guilt about it. It does, however, provide a brutal exposure to the reality that we feverishly consume and dispose of too many, mostly plastic objects, many manufactured with harmful chemicals, that we use just for just a short while and then throw away.
What kind of fishing line did Macfadyen use in his first voyage, and what happened to it when he’d finished? What chemicals are in the anti-fouling paint for his boat’s hull? Likewise, how and where was the fish we consumed with our last meal captured? Did it come from a sustainable fishery or a sustainable aquaculture farm? Did we bother to ask if it was a certified product? Do we demand that this information be displayed to guide our choices as consumers?
Should we eat tuna, an apex predator at the top of the food chain, or should we settle for sardines, oysters and seaweed? Was that chicken we ate yesterday for dinner fed fishmeal? Do we drive a four-wheel drive car whose CO2 emissions will further acidify the oceans, or do we cycle, drive a hybrid or electric vehicle or catch a bus powered by biofuels? Do rich, developed nations with among the world’s largest greenhouse gas footprints refuse to implement carbon taxes or emissions reduction strategies because we “cannot afford” them?
These questions are not easy ones to ask ourselves, but we confront our contradictions. We enjoy eating seafood, an essential component of a healthy diet. We know that fish stocks are over exploited, so developing aquaculture is the only avenue to sustainably meet the growing demands for seafood. But then we get upset if we can see an aquaculture farm off our coasts.
Responsible consumers will not break the ocean; those who choose to ignore the consequences of their day-to-day decisions as consumers will. The place where the struggle to save the oceans from breaking is fought everyday – not once every ten years – is at our local shops.
Carlos Duarte receives research funding from The EU Framework Program, the Spanish National Research Plan and the CSIRO, and he is affiliated with the Spanish National Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) and The University of Western Australia.
