community – Page 19 – ANGFA Queensland

Helping an iconic Australian tree

Aug 082013

Original story by Kylie Williams, ABC Environment

The yellow box gum tree is a beautiful Australian tree famed for its delicious honey. But with much of its habitat destroyed, the race is on to protect and expand the last remaining stands.

STANDING IN A SEA of waving grass stands an ancient yellow box gum tree. Its scruffy brown bark catches the dying rays of the sun as bees grab their last sips from the fuzzy flowers before heading back to the hive for the night.

Lone paddock trees like this are an Australian icon and a visible reminder of the vegetation Australia has lost to farming and land clearing over the last two hundred years.

The flowers of Eucalyptus melliodora are a source of a much loved variety of honey. Photo: Flagstaffotos

Mighty yellow box gums (Eucalyptus melliodora - meaning honey scented) once stood proudly alongside Blakely's red gum and white box in grassy woodlands that covered close to 20 times the area they cling to today. The remnant stands provide an essential habitat for endangered bird species - such as the critically endangered regent honeyeater, brown treecreeper and the superb parrot - and pollen for bees producing Australia's popular yellow box honey.

So rare have these last clusters of trees become, that the last patches of yellow box are now recognised as critically endangered and protected under both Commonwealth (EPBC Act) and state legislation.

But help may be at hand. Dr Linda Broadhurst leads a unique, community-powered science project that is helping to restore the yellow box.

"Several generations of farmers have grown up with these paddock trees. In two to three generations, the trees will be gone - unless we do something about it," explains Dr Broadhurst, a CSIRO conservation biologist.

"We've got an ageing cohort of eucalypts in our agricultural landscape that we need to think about replacing as quickly as possible."

However, tree restoration is not straightforward. Scientists say it is vital for such projects to source seed from suitable trees that are not too closely related. Poor-quality eucalyptus seed produced through inbreeding can be less fit than wild seeds, or may not have the resilience to respond to changes in their environment.

Dr Broadhurst has gathered about 80 volunteer researchers from across the community to help her assess the genetic health of the critically endangered yellow box by collecting seed samples for genetic analysis.

"People love yellow box," she says. "We put out a call on CSIRO social media channels and through the Greening Australia Capital Region and the response was very positive. From there, it flowed to various community groups and beekeeping organisations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland."

Honey, honey

Beekeepers know that the few remaining yellow box trees that still dot the south-eastern Australian agricultural landscape - from which their bees derive this well-known and loved honey variety - are not faring well.

Beekeeper Leo Kuter is one of the volunteers who put up his hand to help the yellow box research project by collecting samples from near his hives on the property of Stewart Scott, a dryland, mixed-enterprise farmer from near Deniliquin, New South Wales.

Armed with a GPS, pruning shears and an esky, the two friends collected leaves, gumnuts and a herbarium sample - together with information about the site and the health of the yellow box population growing nearby - as per the instructions included in the project collection kit.

"The yellow box trees I collected from are all 200 to 300 years old," says Kuter. "They are the last of the big trees not chopped down in the 1900s to clear the way for weirs on the Murray."

Native forests are the most important resource for beekeepers, explains Ararat beekeeper, Judy Leggett, another volunteer participating in the CSIRO/Greening Australia project.

"Australia's eucalypts in particular are good sources of honey and help give the honey its distinctive taste and density," explains Leggett, who is also secretary of the Central Victorian Apiarists Association.

"As a beekeeping tree, yellow box is very good for honey production," she says. "It's interesting to see if the trees have all come from a similar genetic background, or whether the ones down here in Victoria as opposed to New South Wales are very different."

Value for farmers

Many of Broadhurst's volunteers are farmers who recognise the value of the old gums scattered around their family's property.

Paddock trees play a very important role during periods of high stress for stock, such as the longer, hotter summers experienced in south-eastern Australia in recent years. They provide shade and shelter for stock in extreme weather.

Stewart Scott, whose yellow box trees were surveyed in the project says , "I've cleared a lot of country, but we've still kept belts of timber." He agrees that "stock do a lot better with timber".

Scattered trees with enormous, deep roots can also draw down water to help keep salinity at bay. Further, their root systems - and associated insects and microbes - recycle nutrients, helping regulate soil acidity and maintain soil friability.

Despite these benefits to stock and soil, paddock trees may literally stand in the way of progress. With a shift in farming practice toward larger farms and automated farming equipment, the trees can upset the straight paths that tractor and harvester engineers might prefer and tree roots can damage farming machinery.

"The big challenge for us at the moment is how we can help farmers grow these trees in a production landscape, and still keep their production high," explains Broadhurst.

Recent studies have also shown that paddock trees may be important 'stepping stones' for bird species moving in response to changing climate patterns. Like frogs hopping between lily pads, birds can fly between paddock trees, small revegetation patches and roadside verges with trees to reach safe havens as they move away from increasingly hostile habitats.

"Yellow box is crucial to the long-term survival of regent honeyeaters," says Dean Ingwersen, who is regent honeyeater recovery coordinator with Birdlife Australia.

Ingwersen and his team are working to restore and preserve precious bird habitat across Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. They recognise the importance of new knowledge in managing the natural environment, especially of studies such as Broadhurst's.

"If a species like yellow box is indeed suffering from inbreeding, we need to understand what this does to things like recruitment and rehabilitation, as well as what happens to aspects of their ecology, like timing of flowering and nectar flow," Ingwersen says.

As a conservationist, Broadhurst hope the project will allow more of the trees to be given space in agricultural areas, and for more farmers to appreciate the benefits of paddock trees.

"It's not too late. We've got a really good opportunity to do something about it. We've got to make sure we help farmers keep their landscapes productive, but also keep native vegetation. It's not an either/or situation - its win-win for biodiversity and production."

Decision looms over Qld reef dredging

community, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 082013

Original story by Cleo Fraser, AAP at The Australian

FEDERAL Environment Minister Mark Butler is expected to decide on Friday whether to allow the dredging of millions of tonnes of soil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

View Larger Map

However, Mr Butler may decide to extend the deadline.

North Queensland Bulk Ports want to dredge three million tonnes of seabed at Abbot Point, near Bowen, to make way for proposed expansions at the coal port.

Green groups have been campaigning for months - via television ads, public meetings and rallies - urging the minister to reject the plans.

They say dredging will damage coral and other marine life.

Felicity Wishart, of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, says if the plan is approved it will pave the way for construction of a mega-port at Abbot Point.

"We'd obviously be delighted if the minister did recognise the foolishness of approving this dredging proposal," she told AAP.

Ms Wishart says the plan should be rejected as Bulk Ports has not identified a specific site where the soil will be dumped.

Bulk Ports boss Brad Fish has previously said dredging could possibly make the water cloudy over a short period and may damage seagrass, but was unlikely to affect other flora and fauna.

A spokeswoman from Mr Butler's office told AAP the minister wouldn't comment until a decision had been made.

Applications to dredge the seabed are considered separate to the port expansions which have been proposed but not approved.

Earlier this year the World Heritage Committee told Australia to present a plan on how to protect the reef from increasing coal and gas extraction and shipping.

If improvements aren't made the reef would be listed as "in danger" when the committee meets in June next year.

Thousands of people are expected to march through Brisbane in two weeks to demand better environmental protections for the reef.

Weeds need more advocates

community, government, pest species

Aug 082013

Original story at the Feral Herald

The scientific literature burgeons with papers about escalating weed problems but the public airwaves are largely silent on the creeping peril that is one of Australia’s biggest environmental threats.

There is a noticeable lack of coordinated scientific and expert voices forcefully promoting policies and laws that will address some of the root causes of weed threats.

Bush Regeneration in Mosman Council area, Sydney. Photo: Mosman Council

Are the scientists, the experts and the public land managers who know the problems extremely well too constrained to say publicly what they really think? Are they worried they are breaking the rules of controlling governments that prevent public servants speaking contrary to the ‘whole of government’ position, or do they think that they can achieve more by working from the inside?

I was recently asked to speak at a seminar of the Weed Society in Victoria and I challenged them with this problem.

I worked in government for four years and I understand the arguments and the constraints. The same arguments about advocacy have been had in government and scientific circles over a long time in many other fields.

Advocacy from weed experts, including members of the weed societies, is particularly needed for weed reforms because such a substantial proportion of weed experts are in public institutions and because the issue doesn’t have a high public profile. More than climate change or land clearing, weed policy needs expert advocacy.

It is important to resist the argument that those in government cannot have an independent voice outside their formal roles. When government employees are involved with an organisation like a weed society, that organisation does not need to be silent on issues that may contradict an official government position. The challenge is how you go about it.

There have long been scientists willing to speak out and express alarm about unfolding botanical disasters.

In 1909, the Victorian government botanist, Alfred Ewart, was appalled by the weeds spreading in Victoria and called for controls to prevent any new weed from being introduced. These calls fell on deaf ears, but he was unafraid to state the problem as it was.

There have been some recent outspoken expert advocates. We all rue the loss of the Weeds CRC. Its CEO, Rachel McFadyen, was outspoken in calling for policy reforms including advocating a ‘white list’ approach to weeds. She and ISC and others campaigned to get gamba grass declared as a weed.

Invasive Animals CRC CEO, Tony Peacock, was outspoken against the attempt by the Shooters Party about five years ago to release potentially invasive bird species into game reserves in NSW and critiqued the idea that recreational hunters were effective at pest control.

Individual scientists have often self-organised, such as the highly successfulWentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. They comment on issues such as vegetation clearing, water reform and climate change, strongly challenging government policy and vested interests. This group has had real influence in changing the nature of the public debate and shifting public policy and laws.

Scientists generally recognise the importance of advocacy. In 2012, a study by Pew Foundation of over 2,500 US scientists found that 97% said it was appropriate for scientists to ’become actively involved in political debates’.

Scientists are an essential part of our community and it is important that their voices are heard.

Weed Societies have shown a willingness to be publicly active. At the national level theCouncil of Australasian Weed Societies has called for mandatory risk assessments for the import of new plants and for more resources to implement an action plan prepared by the CRC for Weed Management. The strategic plan of this representative body seeks to be recognised as the ‘leading, independent body on weed management issues’ and to supports its member’s interests to ‘reduce the impact of weeds’.

The Invasive Species Council is less constrained than the weed societies in its advocacy. While we don’t pretend to have all the answers, we insist on taking an expert, scientific approach to our work and we are willing to state a problem as it really is.

We are able to say that we need more resources to tackle the growing invasive problem. We can see an alarming drop in capacity of biosecurity staff and researchers across Australia. We have been calling for new national and state laws to make our biosecurity system more effective. We are willing to say that environmental weeds have been neglected due to the historical emphasis on agricultural weeds and because weeds are not a sexy issue. We are committing to ensuring that biosecurity decisions are science-based and transparent.

We believe that there is great scope for bringing change in this area, as there has been for other big environmental issues. As is fundamental to almost all ‘public good’ reforms, we need strong public support, attention-grabbing communication through the media, a social media groundswell underpinned by sound arguments and strong well-articulated evidence.

The Invasive Species Council is building up its campaign to reform weed laws and policies across Australia as a central part of its agenda to reduce the impact of environmental from invasive species.

We are working to improve the Biosecurity Bill, currently before the Senate. We are also seeking support for a separate Greens Bill to create an independent authority on biosecurity. Our work in Canberra has been assisted by collaborating with industry groups such as NSW Farmers, Tasmanian Fruit Growers, Nursery and Growers Industry Association, GrowCom and AusVeg.

The Invasive Species Council are promoting a proposal for Environmental Health Australia that would see government, industry and the community working together on strategic issues for environmental invasive species. Earlier in the month we launched a national survey to learn about the extent of organisational efforts in tackling invasive species. Already we have received over 400 responses.

In Victoria we are seeking to influence the proposed Invasive Species Management Bill under development and we are working to break the impasse on feral deer and horse control that is seeing their numbers steadily grow through inaction.

In our work, we are keen to work more closely with botanists, ecologists and weed experts as well as experts in economics, sociology and law.

The Invasive Species Council would like to work more closely with the weed societies from Australia and support them in their advocacy work.

We need substantial changes to weed laws, policies and funding across Australia. This will not come about unless there is concerted and well-organised advocacy.

ISC challenges the view that those in government or academia should remain narrow in their role and refrain from involvement in advocacy. They are part of the community and have in-depth knowledge of the need for reform. The weed societies are in an ideal place to be a representative voice for change.

Our appeal is to all weed practitioners: how best can you support advocacy for weed reform?

Invasive Species Rank as Greatest Threat to Australia’s Natives

community, government, pest species, wildlife

Aug 082013

Original story http://www.invasives.org.au: National Survey Results Reveal Invasive Species Rank as Greatest Threat to Australia's Native Plants and Animals

Which issues are you tackling?

A national survey of conservation, government and landcare groups in Australia has revealed that weeds, invasive animals, and 'all invasive species' rank just above habitat loss as the greatest threats to the country’s native plants and animals.

The survey was carried out over eight weeks across a wide range of conservation, government and Landcare groups, asking respondents to rank threats ‘putting at risk the conservation of Australia’s native plants and animals’.

It was aimed at building a better picture of the work tens of thousands of Australians carry out, often for free, to battle weeds, feral animals and other invasive threats to the environment.

Almost 94% of respondents rated invasive animals as either a 'very high' or 'high' threat to Australia’s native plants and animals, nearly 93% rated 'weeds' and 'all invasive species' in those two highest categories, while just under 92% rated habitat loss as either a 'very high' or 'high' threat.

The 'combination of climate change and invasive species' rated just over 88 per cent.

Fire ranked the lowest, followed by climate change.

The overwhelming majority of those surveyed are tackling weed problems (92.2%), and just over half are working on invasive animals issues.

Surprisingly, just 6 per cent said they are working on invasive marine problems, and 12 per cent are tackling invasive diseases.

Both a lack of funding and general awareness among the Australian public about how invasive species are harming our native plants and animals are proving the greatest obstacles to tackling invasive species.

More than half of respondents blamed a lack of strong laws and policies for hampering their organisation’s ability to combat invasive species. Finding volunteers is also a problem.

What’s needed from government?

Wide ranging answers were given for what governments at local, state and federal levels could be doing better to tackle invasive species, including:

Fund massive control and eradication programs to knock back feral populations of rabbits, cats, foxes, deer, cane toads etc.
Approach invasive species in the same style of co-ordination as bushfire control, with a centralised body and funding, with well co-ordinated paid and volunteer actions.
Awareness campaigns.
Ban the importation of new pasture grasses. Make industry contribute to off-farm impacts. Research biological controls for rampant escapees.
Ban all weed species from importation and distribution.
Ban cats in sensitive areas and control them elsewhere.
Employ and train more people to tackle the issues.
Enforce declared plant legislation at the landholder level.

The survey also revealed the huge levels of both volunteer and paid hours being put into tackling invasive species in Australia. This information shows both the high cost of tackling invasive species and the interest in the community in contributing to control efforts.

Who completed the survey?

More than a thousand groups, including small and large conservation groups, Bushcare, Landcare and NRM groups, as well as local councils and Friends of groups, were contacted as part of the survey.

Just over 800 completed the survey and represented a broad cross-section of organisations working on invasive species problems in this country including Landcare and Coastcare groups, bush regenerators, NRM bodies, environmental consultants, government agencies and research organisations.

The survey results will be used to create an Australian database of groups working on these issues, and to help us better share information on current invasive species threats and the opportunities for improving laws and policies.

The Invasive Species Council would like to thank the Ian Potter Foundation for its generous support in making this project possible.

Our national parks need visitors to survive

community, government, wildlife

Aug 082013

Original story by Susan Moore, Murdoch University; Betty Weiler; Brent D. Moyle, and Paul F. J. Eagles, University of Waterloo at The Conversation

Despite what many commentators on The Conversation have said, conserving biodiversity in our national parks isn’t the way to save them. Parks need visitors to get vital community and political support.

We have to get more people into national parks if parks are to have a future. Photo: Flickr/Tatiana Gerus

Parks, like every other institution on this planet, are a social construction. Those reserved in the 19th century reflect the values of those times – health and pleasure for humans. In recent decades, social values have led to a strong focus instead on conserving biodiversity.

New moves to include grazing, logging and recreational shooting are a reflection of current efforts of some groups to re-construct the purpose of parks.

If park managers and other advocates don’t like these moves to change national parks into resource extraction reserves, they have to enlist the support of visitors.

Parks need people

Conserving biodiversity isn’t enough. It is time for a renewed focus on visitors and their needs. Appreciating the full gamut of park opportunities is essential.

We need people in parks, because people vote and parks don’t. Parks are a public institution, like hospitals, schools and prisons, and they rely on public interest and support for funding.

Strong advocacy from park visitors for environmentally friendly experiences, like wildlife viewing, photography, hiking, swimming, canoeing and camping, can counter-balance pressures for environmentally destructive activities such as hunting and grazing.

People visiting national parks can have extraordinary experiences, through witnessing beautiful scenery and connecting with nature, escaping the urban environment, and reconnecting with family and friends. Promoting these experiences is essential for the political and financial support of parks.

Park visitors also matter economically. Tourism accounts for about 10% of GDP internationally. Wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation (both largely centered on protected areas) are two of the fastest growing sectors. In Australia, the nature-based tourism sector contributes an estimated $23 billion to the economy each year.

But visitor numbers to landmark national parks such as Uluru are currently declining. Recent data from Australia, Canada, the United States and Japan shows visitor numbers to parks are static or declining on a per capita basis.

One potential reason for this decline could be growing competition from electronic media and other more accessible home- and community-based recreation options. Some people find it hard (or think it’s going to be hard) to get to national parks. Recent migrants may not know how or why to visit national parks.

Concerns that fewer and fewer humans are experiencing nature were first expressed in the 1970s. Serious related consequences include declining environmental knowledge and concern (manifested as declining support for parks), the emergence of nature deficit disorder in children, and increasing mental and physical health issues.

The threat of extinction of the park visitor experience is a real possibility. This threat to parks is more insidious than stock grazing or timber removal. With this extinction potentially comes a waning in societal support for parks as we know and appreciate them today.

Park agencies must develop creative, productive partnerships with the tourism industry to protect biodiversity while providing opportunities for visitors at the same time.

Environmentally friendly activity in parks is preferable to possibly destructive activities such as hunting and grazing Photo: Flickr/yewenyi

A visitor focus

By acknowledging that an alliance between parks and visitors is essential for the future of parks, programs and strategies can be put in place to entice visitors and enhance their experiences.

Social media and technology could engage and retain the support of visitors. Apps to help locate parks, find and follow walk trails, identify birds and enter sightings on an interactive data base, or book campsites online, are all simple ways of attracting and retaining visitors.

Enhancing visitor experiences and maintaining biodiversity conservation is a complicated balancing act. Park workers will need further skills development, especially in understanding, providing for and evaluating the visitor experience.

Park visitors come from a very broad cross-section of society, all ages and all lines of work, both nationally and internationally. Politically, park visitors are a much larger group than are those who wish to extract resources from parks. They just need to be politically active.

Ultimately, parks rely on societal support for survival. The solution for parks lies in ongoing interactions between those passionate about biodiversity and those with other interests to construct and re-construct the purpose of parks in the decades ahead. Visitors are a critically important part of this dialogue. They can provide an important counter-balance to more utilitarian interests, such as grazing and logging.

Susan Moore receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government and several State Governments. She recently completed research for The Parks Forum, the peak industry organisation for parks agencies in Australia and New Zealand. She is a governor for WWF-Australia and a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.

Betty Weiler receives funding from the Australian Research Council and industry partners including Parks Victoria, WA Department of Parks & Wildlife and NSW Office of the Environment & Heritage.

Brent Moyle has conducted research in partnership with Parks Victoria, the Department of Environment and Conservation (WA), the Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) and the Parks Forum.

Paul F. J. Eagles is affiliated with the World Commission on Protected Areas.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Accountants: The unlikely environmentalists?

community, environment

Aug 082013

Original story by Katherine Christ, Joanne Tingey-Holyoak, and Roger Burritt; University of South Australia at The Conversation

With an increasingly complex assortment of green tape and initiatives such as emissions trading schemes, environmental issues are no longer solely associated simply with a corporate conscience; they are synonymous with business strategy and economic survival.

Accountants are in an ideal position to guide companies through the green economy. Photo: www.shutterstock.com

With their financial acumen, accountants are arguably best positioned to redress the deficit of data for corporate greening. However, within most tertiary accounting programs, environmental issues are not in the core curriculum, even though recent research shows managers of accounting firms would like such knowledge to be mainstreamed.

The clear danger is that we risk flooding the financial services market with graduates ill-equipped to cope with the challenges presented by the contemporary business world and armed only with the skills for external reporting.

Latest research in the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability (CAGS) suggests graduate accountants should be trained in Environmental Management Accounting (EMA).

This provides an “environmental toolbox” for accountants working in the corporate world or public practice. The purpose of EMA is to bring together physical environmental information (such as carbon emissions) with the monetary data that drives decision-making at all levels of corporate management (for example, the price of carbon offsets). The purpose is to help identify the “business case” for environmentally sustainable actions: reduced environmental impacts plus increased profitability.

The researchers undertook a survey of Certified Practising Accountants (CPAs) in business to establish their perceptions of current and anticipated future use of EMA tools. The research revealed that only one quarter of the accountants surveyed were employed by organisations that used EMA tools. In addition EMA use was predominantly found in large organisations and those operating in environmentally-sensitive sectors. This is concerning given the need for strategic environmental awareness affects all forms of business.

And while two-thirds of accountants reported their organisation was expected to use EMA tools to a greater extent in the next three years, the immediacy of the problem and the relevance of EMA to practice is still not fully recognised.

Environmental costs (such as waste, contingent liabilities and fines) place a significant, material burden on contemporary organisations and it is safe to assume these expenses will continue to rise well into the foreseeable future.

EMA offers a way to isolate costs of sustainability as well as monetary gains associated with environmentally proactive activities, as well as placating regulators, and building the trust of employees, managers and stakeholders. Who would say no?

Environmental accounting is a vibrant and exciting area. However, certain questions remain. Accountants might not be around to see the growth in environmental accounting. In order to maintain the accountant’s position as an important and valued member of the corporate management team, it is vital accountants engage in this area. If accountants fail to answer this challenge, there are other professions such as engineering that will be more than willing to take advantage of their inaction.

Accountants have a limited window of opportunity to adapt to change, as well as making a positive contribution to identifying and solving the contemporary challenges faced by real world organisations – or they can be relegated to mere bean-counters.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

No culprit found by QBFP after thousands of dead fish dumped on Moreton Island

community, fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 082013

Original story by Brian Williams, the Courier Mail

AN investigation into the dumping of thousands of fish in a wetland area of Moreton Island National Park last month has failed to find a culprit.

Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol has investigated fish dumped at Yellow Patch in the Moreton Island National Park. Photo: Supplied

A Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol spokeswoman said one commercial fishing operation was operating on the island off Brisbane last month and was spoken to in relation to fisheries and national park matters.

"The source of the dumped fish could not be fully determined,'' she said. "QBFP discussed with the fisher the need to better manage fishing operations in terms of by-catch.''

Dumping of any material, including by-catch, in a national park is not permitted.

Fisheries staff also plan to take up the issue with commercial fishing industry representatives.

Some of the fish were identified as tailor but it was impossible to determine their size because of decomposition. Fisheries officers could also not determine why the fish had been dumped on the northern part of the island, although netting activities are known to occur there.

"Unfortunately, we have been unable to issue any fines due to the decomposed nature of the fish and interaction with wild pigs, making it difficult to determine whether the fish were of legal size, or confirm who was responsible,'' the spokeswoman said.

QBFP will raise the issue at an industry meeting and will start patrols in the area. The island will remain open to commercial fishing and visitors should phone 1800 017 116 to report suspected illegal activities.

Sunfish spokeswoman Judy Lynne said illegal netting had been occurring on the island for years and successive governments had done nothing about it.

She had personally contacted the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Queensland Fisheries more than 10 times in five years with no results.

Island residents and fishermen have complained that it was not the first time fish had been dumped.

Illegal dumping of all sorts of products has been a major issue in Queensland for decades and carries penalties ranging up to $110,000.

Extreme weather likely to increase and intensify

community, environment, government

Aug 072013

Original story at The Land

Temperatures are rising, with both maximums and minimums increasing.

The extreme weather events that have hit Australia in recent years are likely to increase in frequency and potentially intensify in the future as a result of climate change, a Senate inquiry has found.

The inquiry, Recent trends in and preparedness for extreme weather events, recommended increased co-ordination across governments and many sectors of society to prepare for and limit the impact of such events.

The Senate committee report also called for "credible and reliable flood mapping" to assist landowners of potential risks and to better inform land-use planning laws.

The report will likely be welcomed by the insurance industry in particular, which had been calling for many of the changes it recommends. These include toughening building codes to "account for foreseeable risks", and removing disincentives for taking up insurance, such as state taxes.

Some of the report's submissions coincided with the country's hottest period of record. January, for instance, broke records for the hottest average national maximum temperature and for the hottest single month on record in what would be Australia's hottest summer.

Floods have been Australia's most costly extreme weather events in recent years.

Hot times

The report's release also comes as the US released its State of the Climate report for 2012, which found last year to be the eighth or ninth hottest in data series going back to 1850. It noted many other signals of a warming planet including record low Arctic ice cover and the 22nd consecutive year of shrinking glacier mass.

The Greens jumped on the Senate committee's findings, saying it was time Labor and the Coalition acknowledged Australia “is unprepared for a significant increase in natural disasters as a result of climate change”.

“The inquiry found the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will increase in coming decades, costing Australia billions of dollars,” Greens Leader Senator Christine Milne said. “In the past six years alone, natural disasters have affected hundreds of thousands of Australians and cost the economy more than $10 billion.”

“We will obviously consider an extensive report carefully,” said Greg Hunt, the Coalition’s spokesman for climate change.

Mr Hunt singled out the inquiry's recommendations that the government work closely with the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to step up research into early warning of extreme events and also the links between weather events and climate trends.

"I have a deep respect for and belief in the work of both the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO," Mr Hunt said. "We therefore strongly support continued and extended research by both into climatic trends, weather events and climate change.”

Globally, glaciers are shrinking in one signal of a warming planet.

Fairfax Media has sought a response from Mark Butler, the Minister for Climate Change.

Insurers' support

The report found that Australia's exposure to extreme events is increasing not just from climate change but also because of the spread of population and investments into vulnerable areas.

The attention to those threats, particularly in flood-prone areas, has been welcomed by insurers.

“Today’s report is another voice that strongly says we need a comprehensive and more sustainable approach to managing natural disasters in Australia to keep people safe,” said Mike Wilkins, chief executive of IAG, one of Australia's biggest insurers.

“Every Australian is impacted by natural disasters and extreme weather," Mr Wilkins said. "Whether it be through personal devastation in losing loved ones or property, whether it be through billions of their taxpayer dollars spent on recovery, the creation of special flood levies, or through higher insurance premiums, we all pay the price when we fail to make where we live as safe as possible.”

Arsenic from abandoned Queensland mines poisons rivers and threatens public safety

community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 042013

Original story by John McCarthy, the Courier Mail

Heavy metals leaching into waterways in the far north have caused environmental concerns. Picture: Michael Watt Source: News Limited

HEAVY metals and arsenic have been found leaching into the Wild River, near Herberton, in what environmentalists are calling another example of a looming disaster.

The problem with the 15,000 abandoned mines in Queensland is now becoming so acute that flooding in central Queensland caused major pollution to nearby rivers, with some turning bright blue because of copper levels and others had high levels of acid.

In Herberton, water sampling of the Wild River found levels of arsenic and lead to be above the national drinking water standard. A handful of residents were found to be using water from the river for drinking and cooking, but Queensland Health considered the risks to be low.

However, the river has been declared a no-go zone and the State Government has increased its monitoring.

The Herberton site has been known about within Government for several years but the issue of arsenic and heavy metals was uncovered in ministerial briefing notes obtained by The Courier-Mail.

It follows the discovery recently that the State Government built welfare housing on land in Eidsvold that was heavily contaminated with arsenic from a nearby mine and researchers claim the problem would be the same in hundreds of mining towns around Australia.

Because arsenic is a carcinogen academics have been able to find a link between old mining towns in Victoria and levels of cancer.

Dr Dora Pearce, from Melbourne University, said the overall cancer risk for men and women living in areas with the highest soil arsenic level increased by 20 and 8 per cent respectively.

The old Mary Kathleen uranium mine in northwest Queensland has been leaking radioactive waste for decades, the Mount Morgan mine is considered one of the worst abandoned mines in Australia, the Lady Annie mine contaminated up to 52km of creek in the 2009 floods and contaminants from Mt Oxide, near Mount Isa, turned Cave Creek blue in the 2011 floods.

The Government has allocated $7.4 million to work on the abandoned mines this year.

Environmental engineer and senior lecturer at Monash University Gavin Mudd said during his visit to Herberton he found evidence of heavy metals everywhere.

''The State Government knows where all the abandoned mines are, but what has never been done is to understand the true impacts,'' he said.

''It's a much bigger problem than people realise.

''The industry and Government have got better but sometimes it doesn't work.

''For a lot of mines it may be small and to locals there's no huge health issue, but it still may be destroying the local environment.''

Environmentalists also point out that when the central Queensland coal mines end their life they will be left as huge voids, some as deep as 300 metres.

The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry said the remoteness of some mines ''increased the chance that high levels of environmental damage are occurring without the department's knowledge''.

A Government spokeswoman said the abandoned mines unit was monitoring bores upstream and downstream of the Herberton tailings dam to provide a better understanding of how seepage could be minimised, and continued monitoring of downstream water use along the Wild River.

''Public safety is our number one priority with abandoned mine sites, and works are prioritised according to safety risks,'' she said.

The Queensland Resources Council and the Tablelands Regional Council would not comment on the issue.

Rocky waters as river act scrapped

community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 042013

Original story by Graham Lloyd, The Australian

MINING, farm, indigenous and environmental groups are on a collision course in western Queensland following the Newman government's decision to scrap Labor's Wild Rivers Act and allow oil, coal-seam gas and shale gas exploration in the Channel Country.

The Queensland Resources Council said the decision had opened the door to a potentially "world-class" resource, but the farmers' lobby group AgForce said it wanted a moratorium on gas developments until there was a better understanding of the science and the industry's effect on water. Indigenous leaders called for more consultation, and environmental groups said the state government had "torn up a sensible compromise".

George Gorringe, left, with his son Scott Gorringe on the banks of Coopers Creek at Windora. George, a Traditional Owner for Mithaka country in Western Queensland, is concerned at the possible repeal of the Wild Rivers legislation over the Channel Country. Picture: Vanessa Hunter Source: TheAustralian

Bob Morrish, the natural resources delegate at a briefing by Queensland Mines Minister Andrew Cripps in Longreach yesterday, said there were few details of how the new system would work.

He said Mr Cripps "promised stringent controls but wouldn't tell us what they were".

Mr Cripps said the government had ruled out open-cut mining and capped water extraction on the Georgina and Diamantina rivers and Cooper Creek, but he opened the way for oil and gas developments in areas that had been out of bounds under wild rivers legislation.

The Channel Country is the world's largest unspoilt ephemeral waterway. Irregular floodwaters from northwest Queensland spread over kilometre-wide systems of channels to make their way slowly to Lake Eyre in central Australia.

Mr Cripps said oil and gas development would be strictly controlled in the Environmental Protection Act. "This will mean proposed petroleum and gas developments will be subject to stronger environmental conditioning than in any other part of Queensland," he said. "A special Channel Country protection area will be created (to) protect a greater area of riverine channels and floodplains than the existing wild rivers legislation."

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche welcomed the decision, which he said had taken a "precautionary approach to future development of the Channel Country as a result of lengthy and transparent consultations with all stakeholders".

"This is a sensible improvement on the previous government's approach of declaring large swaths of Queensland off-limits to development to appease Brisbane-based environmental pressure groups," Mr Roche said.

Wilderness Society national campaign director Lyndon Schneiders said environment groups would campaign to maintain strict protections.

"The resource industry should be careful what they wish for. They have now clearly been responsible for stripping back high-level protection in a sensitive environment," he said.

"Environment groups have invested enormous time and effort with the local community to get sensible protection in that country. The mining industry must realise it has just torn up a sensible compromise."

AgForce senior policy adviser Dale Miller said farmers had been supportive of finding an alternative framework. However, there were concerns about the expansion of the unconventional gas industry. "Our position on CSG is for a moratorium in those regions until there is adequate scientific knowledge about the potential impacts," he said.

Australia's Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, said policymakers needed to get regulations and policies in place "ahead of the game".

In an address to the National Press Club, he said: "We've just released recommendations of a report on shale gas, about six weeks ago, and one of the recommendations in that is that we get the policies and regulations in place before it becomes a problem."

Indigenous elder Gerry Fogarty, representing the Georgina and Diamantina catchment areas, said he was not satisfied enough people had been given a say on the proposed changes.

Older Entries Newer Entries