Apr 232014
 

Original story by Paul Willis at ABC Science

We could take steps to at least minimise the impact of climate change and population growth, but willful blindness to the current situation creates a poor vision for the future, argues Paul Willis.
Climate change is already effecting our ability to feed ourselves, but, if world population continues to rise we're going to need more food from less land. Photo: no_limit_pictures/iStockphoto

Climate change is already effecting our ability to feed ourselves, but, if world population continues to rise we’re going to need more food from less land. Photo: no_limit_pictures/iStockphoto

Most futurists seem to be bedazzled by the possibilities of the gadgets and widgets of tomorrow. But I seriously wonder if there will be a future where the tech-heads can indulge their future fantasies.

A few recent articles and reports seriously question how much longer our culture and civilisation can continue. We’re looking down the barrel of environmental devastation on a scale that could shunt us into a very different world of conflict and survival. We may even be looking at our own imminent extinction. And we’re doing bugger all about it.

Recently Canberra-based science writer Julian Cribb wrote a lengthy piece in the Canberra Times where he asks “are we facing our own extinction?” This is the subject of a book he will be publishing later this year, but this summary still covers a broad canvass in search of an answer.

His central thesis is that climate change could well do the trick but that there are huge mitigating factors in human behaviour and our response to impending peril.

Climate change has already caused at least one extinction event — the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, PETM for short, when the Earth’s temperature increased by at least five degrees, and possibly as much as nine or 10 degrees. That was 50 million years ago.

I’d also offer the Permian Extinction some 250 million years ago which snuffed out 96 per cent of all marine species and 70 per cent of terrestrial vertebrate species. In both the PETM and Permian Extinction the culprit appears to be the greenhouse gas methane which was either released from gas hydrates or clathrates or, in the case of the Permian Extinction, a bloom of methanogenic bacteria, Methanosarcina, spurred on by volcanic activity.

According to Cribb, if all the methane currently stored as clathrates were to be released, global temperatures would increase by 16 degrees making most of the planet uninhabitable for humans. There would be some areas in the far north of Siberia and North America as well as parts of Antarctica that would remain within a temperature range that would allow humans to live, but those areas would have to not only house all humanity, it would also have to produce all the food needed to feed them. That’s not extinction, but a dramatic collapse in human populations. Under this scenario humanity would probably crash to a few million people at most.

This is an extreme scenario requiring all the gas hydrates to give up their methane but it could theoretically trigger such a dramatic change within a century. And, not that I’m trying to alarm you, but the accelerated release of methane from the Siberian tundra and in the Arctic seas has been observed to be well underway. These releases occur as plumes a few tens of metres in diameter but recently plumes have been seen that are 1000 metres across. And there are thousands of them.

The predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not usually include triggering the methane bomb. Instead they look at the release of CO2 and other climate changing factors. The conclusions of these more gentle changes to the climate are still sobering. Even if we were to stop releasing CO2 today, a temperature change of two degrees by mid century is already locked in. Our reactions to the effects of that more modest change could spell the difference between our extinction or survival. And the effects are already being felt.

Climate change is here

The most recent report of the IPCC chronicles the effects that climate change is already having on our planet.

An article from Smithsonian.com provides a good summation of the eight ways climate change hurts humans. Threats include increases in extreme heat waves, floods, droughts and wildfires as well as a decline in crop productions leading to food shortages. On top of that there are the spread of infectious diseases, mental illnesses as well as violence and conflicts. And remember, these are not predictions for what will happen in the future, they are effects that have already been measured.

So, for example, about 500 people died because of heat in Australian cities in 2011 (and that number is projected to 2,000 deaths per year by the middle of this century) while 112 million people worldwide were affected by floods in 2011, including 3140 people who were killed.

It’s well known that some governments and institutions dismiss or completely ignore the IPCC and any of its reports, but that’s not the view of the World Bank. The bank’s president, Jim Yong Kim, is worried that climate change is affecting worldwide access to food and water. He’s concerned that there will be battles over food and water around the world within the next decade and all because of climate change. Further, he’s also concerned that not enough research is being conducted into renewable energy and other solutions to climate change.

These concerns are shared by US Centre for Strategic and International Studies in their report The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change. In their assessment a rise of 2.6 degree in global temperatures will result in nations being overwhelmed by the scale of change.

Nations will be under great stress due to a dramatic rise in migration including displaced coastal communities as well as changes in agriculture and water availability. These stresses could lead to armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources and that includes the possibility of nuclear conflicts.

We are on track for an increase of more than two degrees around the middle of the century. The report goes on to consider a world with a five-degree increase and concludes the consequences are “inconceivable”. At the current rate of change, we should be there by 2100.

Add population growth

So let’s now join climate change’s apocalyptic twin: population.

The problems of feeding the world in the future are outlined in a piece by Professor William Laurance, from James Cook University.

Unless something unforeseen happens, the world population will be around 11 billion people at the end of the century and current projections suggest that the global demand for food will double by 2050. To meet that demand using existing agricultural practices will require around one billion hectares of new farming land. That’s an area a little bit bigger than Canada. But remember that climate change and other factors will result in a decrease in the extent of arable land available for agriculture. That’s a bleak combination.

There is another scenario on offer but it has its own set of complications. The preferred future proffered by organisations such as the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization is to inject technology into the equation and ‘turbocharge farming’. This ought to be particularly effective in developing countries where crop yields on small holdings are low. Inject fertilisers, irrigation, and modern methods and equipment and we could double or even possibly triple crop yields and meet 2050’s projected food demands.

So where’s the catch to this get out of jail free card? It’s the energy required to roll out intensive farming around the world (as well as the aforementioned decline in arable land due to climate change). The link between energy and intensive farming practices accounts for the bulk of fluctuations in the cost of food. Fuel prices are most likely to go up in the future and food prices will follow. And most of the fuel used in agriculture is oil that we ought to stop using because of its contribution to climate change. We could switch to biofuels, but that then feeds back into the problem of using precious arable land to produce the fuel at the expense of producing food crops.

What’s the plan?

So let’s bring this all together. Climate change is locked in and already effecting our ability to feed ourselves. But, if world population continues to rise (and there’s no way that it won’t) we’re going to need more food from less land. I can’t see how these realities can play out in any other way than a calamity. It may not end in the extinction of our species (which is a distinct possibility if nuclear war were to break out over access to dwindling resources), but it certainly can’t end happily.

And my main concern at the moment is that no world leaders are looking at this oncoming train-wreck and planning to do something about it. There are steps we could take to at least minimise the size of the coming calamity, such as rolling out zero carbon economies and investing in agricultural research that could feed more with less. But the most common response is no response at all. Willful blindness to our current situation creates a poor vision for the future.

As Julian Cribb puts it “…humanity isn’t sleep-walking to disaster so much as racing headlong to embrace it. Do the rest of us have the foresight, and the guts, to stop them?

Our ultimate survival will be predicated entirely on our behaviour — not only on how well we adapt to unavoidable change, but also how quickly we apply the brakes.”

 

 

Apr 212014
 

Original story by Warren Barnsley, Sydney Morning Herald

Budding young filmmakers are being encouraged to shoot video evidence of marine debris affecting the Great Barrier Reef in a bid to raise awareness of the issue.

Great Barrier Reef

The Gladstone Local Marine Advisory Committee is calling on eight to 18-year old documentary producers to put together short films highlighting the problem of marine debris.

“We want young people to use their creativity to tell a compelling story about marine debris in a video no longer than two minutes,” said Gladstone LMAC Chair Blue Thomson.

“It can be an interview, documentary-style, a music video, a fictional story or animated. It’s entirely up to the creator,” he said.

Researchers say it’s a major issue for the world heritage-listed ecosystem, not only because of the negative impacts to the reef’s aesthetic qualities and hazard to ocean users.

LMAC member and Central Queensland University Research Fellow Dr Scott Wilson claims plastics are a top five pollutant causing harm to the marine environment and animals.

“In a recent study, 22 per cent of shearwater chicks were found to have plastics in their stomachs.

“Plastic bags, bottles, ropes and nets trap, choke, starve and drown many marine animals and seabirds around the world every year.”

The issue could be better dealt with if people were more responsible with their litter, including plastics, rubbers, metal, wood and glass, said Dr Wilson.

Participants will go in the running to win an iPad or GoPro Hero 3, with entries closing on May 30.

Winners will be announced on June 16.

Apr 212014
 

Original story by  Alexandra Kirk, ABC News

The National Water Commission could be axed as part of the Federal Government’s savings drive.

Reflections in the Murray, the commission which audits the Murray-Darling Basin Plan looks likely to be cut in next month's budget. Photo: James Hancock/ABC News

Reflections in the Murray, the commission which audits the Murray-Darling Basin Plan looks likely to be cut in next month’s budget. Photo: James Hancock/ABC News

The decade-old commission, an independent statutory authority which advises the Commonwealth on water policy, is “in the mix” for cuts and the ABC’s AM program understands it is likely to be wound up.

Scrapping the commission would save the Government about $30 million over four years.

Staff at the commission – which also monitors and audits programs like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan – have been told their future is under review.

Parliamentary secretary to the environment minister, Simon Birmingham, who has responsibility for water policy, has refused to confirm the commission’s fate but says it is under review.

“As everyone appreciates the Government has a huge budget challenge to bring the budget back into a sustainable shape and we’ve made it very clear that all areas of government are under review for efficiency opportunities and of course, across the water portfolio we’re looking at that,” he said.

National Water Commission

  • The commission is a statutory authority which provides advice to the Council of Australian Governments and the Federal Government on national water issues.
  • Established in 2004, the commission monitors and audits programs like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
  • The body promotes the objectives and outcomes of Australia’s water reform blueprint, the National Water Initiative.

Source: National Water Commission

“But that doesn’t in any way undermine our commitment to deliver on key policy promises. Especially promises like delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin plan in full and on time.”

Senator Birmingham said the Government was keen to find the most cost-efficient way of receiving advice on water policy.

“The National Water Commission does some very valuable work, what’s important for us is to look at what that work is, how it can best be done and best be undertaken in the context of our policy promises as well as of course, ensuring that we have good environment and water policy advice,” he said.

“Of course, any use of consultants needs to be done as carefully as possible and be as limited as possible to ensure that we’re not wasting taxpayer dollars and that’s what I would expect any and every agency to do now and well into the future.

“Everything is being considered and looked at carefully to ensure that we give taxpayers best value for their money.”

Apr 152014
 

Original story by Michael Cavanagh, ABC Rural

They could be described as the canaries of the estuaries.

Oysters used to detect contaminants. Researchers using Sydney Rock oysters show the health of NSW waterways varies dramatically.

Oysters used to detect contaminants. Researchers using Sydney Rock oysters show the health of NSW waterways varies dramatically.

Sydney rock oysters – which are not part of commercial operations but selected by researchers – are being used to chart the state of waterways from the Hunter Valley through to the New South Wales/Victorian border.

Results varied from high levels of metals in waters around Wollongong through to a pristine environment around the Clyde River near Bateman’s Bay, on the south coast.

Professor Emma Johnston, from the University of New South Wales, says oysters were ‘significantly stressed’ with damaged cells in the estuaries where there were high levels of metals including copper, lead and zinc.

“These oysters are exposed to all the conditions in the water, just as the canaries were exposed to those in air.

“So if something goes wrong we know that there is a problem in the system, so our oysters are filter feeders.

“So they can filter loads of water every day and if there is a containment in the water, they’ll be exposed to that and they will respond.”

Apr 152014
 

published by the Department of Environment

Wetlands Australia: National Wetlands Update February 2014

Wetlands Australia: National Wetlands Update February 2014

Download

Introduction

The international theme of World Wetlands Day 2014 is “Wetlands and Agriculture: Partners for Growth”. For millennia, wetlands have been used directly for agriculture, and for supplying food, fuel and fibre to support lives and livelihoods. Wetlands continue to play an essential role in supporting modern day agriculture. They provide water storage, flood buffering, nutrient removal, water purification and erosion control. Sustainable practices which support both agriculture and healthy wetlands are therefore coming to the fore.

This edition of Wetlands Australia includes several feature articles on wetlands and agriculture, along with many other articles on current wetland projects and programs.

Australia was one of the first countries to sign the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention), and in 1974 designated the world’s first Ramsar site: Cobourg Peninsula in the Northern Territory.  In celebration of the 40th anniversary of the first Ramsar designation, this edition of Wetlands Australia also features 23 articles celebrating Australian Ramsar sites.

If you would like to contribute to future editions of Wetlands Australia, please contactwetlandsmail@environment.gov.au

Download individual chapters

Introduction and contents (PDF – 698.64 KB)

Wetlands and Agriculture: Partners for Growth (PDF – 888.7 KB)

  • Wimmera wetland project benefits whole farm
  • Murray Wetland Carbon Storage project
  • Territory Conservation Agreements – helping pastoralists look after wetlands
  • Agricultural water supports wetlands and tourism
  • I’d like to order some bitterns and rice, please
  • Burdekin cane farmer builds a wetland for the future

Ramsar wetland management in Australia (PDF – 749.5 KB)

  • Ramsar in New South Wales – a tale of 12 sites
  • Queensland wetlands celebrate 20 years of Ramsar listing
  • Banrock Station wetland and vineyard – a perfect blend
  • Record breaking flight signals the importance of conserving wetlands
  • Environmental flows bring waterbirds to Tuckerbil Swamp Ramsar site
  • Managing weed and sea level rise threats to Kakadu’s tropical river floodplains

Wetland conservation and restoration (PDF – 807.27 KB)

  • An update on wetland restoration on private land in South Australia and Victoria
  • Protecting and enhancing the wonderful Moolort Wetlands of Victoria
  • Using historical mine pits in Western Australia to create a wetlands complex for the benefit of water bird conservation and the local community
  • Doing it together – a good news story about the fairies and the ferry
  • From little things, big things grow
  • Successful rehabilitation of a Waterbird Refuge
  • Kids tell companies to mind their business
  • Students and surf club – the clean-up team!

Water management and wetlands (PDF – 828.02 KB)

  • Environmental watering in the Lower Lachlan River catchment, New South Wales
  • To wade or not to wade – hydrological management effects on species composition
  • Partnering to restore the Mallowa Creek floodplain wetlands

Wetland management and research (PDF – 706.58 KB)

  • Queensland Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger Program
  • The Finke River- salty & lovin’ it
  • Novel ecosystem, novel approaches
  • Sixth Lake Eyre Basin Conference – cross-border collaboration

Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Ramsar Convention in Australia – a showcase of Australian Ramsar sites (PDF – 2.94 MB)

  • Cobourg Peninsula Ramsar Site, Northern Territory
  • Kakadu National Park Ramsar Site, Northern Territory
  • Barmah Forest Ramsar Site, Victoria
  • Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar Site, Tasmania
  • Gippsland Lakes Ramsar Site, Victoria
  • Logan Lagoon Ramsar Site, Tasmania
  • Moulting Lagoon Ramsar Site, Tasmania
  • Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site, Victoria
  • Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar Site, New South Wales
  • Towra Point Ramsar Site, New South Wales
  • The Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Site, South Australia
  • Macquarie Marshes Ramsar Site, New South Wales
  • Coongie Lakes Ramsar Site, South Australia
  • Eighty-mile Beach Ramsar Site, Western Australia
  • Lake Toolibin Ramsar Site, Western Australia
  • Peel-Yalgorup System Ramsar Site, Western Australia
  • Blue Lake Ramsar Site, New South Wales
  • Ginini Flats Wetland Complex Ramsar Site, Australian Capital Territory
  • Great Sandy Strait Ramsar Site, Queensland
  • Banrock Station Wetland Complex Ramsar Site, South Australia
  • Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs Ramsar Site, Coral Sea Islands Territory
  • The Dales Ramsar Site, Christmas Island
  • Piccaninnie Ponds Karst Wetlands Ramsar Site, South Australia

Calendar of events (PDF – 482.54 KB)

Previous editions of Wetlands Australia are also available:

Apr 122014
 
The following article from Practical Fishkeeping gives a UK perspective about the hobby, but all of the issues discussed are relevant to fishkeeping hobbyists here in Australia.

Original story by Nathan Hill at Practical Fishkeeping

A handful of recent events have prompted Nathan Hill to put finger to keyboard and share some of his biggest fears of what could put an end to the hobby we all love…
Photo: Practical fishkeeping

Photo: Practical fishkeeping

Something I’ve long admired about this hobby is its tenacity. It has, over the years, been subject to all sorts of accusations, including being geeky or uncool, being unnecessarily expensive (early marine keepers, anyone?) and even being environmentally unsound.

Despite this the hobby and the supporting trade prevails, and even in the face of some fluctuating trends: not least of all that same, damning migration to online purchasing that can wither and drain bricks-and-mortar premises. More than just prevailing, in some cases it actively stands proud, is able to boast expansion, recruitment, and economic growth. Even during this ongoing global economic wobble, fishkeeping is burgeoning. Wow.

That’s not to say that we are not vulnerable, susceptible even, to factors that could pull the metaphoric rug from under our feet.

I’m often engaged in conversation with people across a breadth of different fields: anglers, wholesalers, retailers, hobbyists, environmental scientists, and so on. Talking across such a diverse spectrum, I pick up on a lot of different concerns that reside, often unwittingly so, at the backs of peoples’ minds. After sitting and brooding on these for way too long, I’d like to share my biggest fears of what could, at any time, befall our hobby and end fishkeeping.

Disease

Pathogens capable of inciting disease pandemics are a major global worry. Just look at human concerns about antibiotic abuse and the occurrence of MRSA. Look at recent worries about Ebola outbreaks. Even look at the return of diseases that could easily be prevented in humans, were people not so blinkered and scientifically ill informed about vaccines. Disease pandemics are a major fear.

If you’re a newcomer to the hobby, then whatever you think you know about fish farming – forget it. If you have images of clinical facilities where each and every fish is treated like a newborn infant, then it’s back to the drawing board time. Farms are businesses, plain and simple. The goal is to get young fish out of adults as eggs, to hatch them, and to get them up to saleable juveniles as soon as possible, and that means that pretty much anything is on the cards to get them there. Antibiotics are used where necessary (and maybe even where not), and not just the kinds of antibiotics that you or I might have access to via a vet. Different countries have different laws about what can and can’t be used, and in some it’s a bit of a medicine free for all.

Hopefully we all know the dangers of antibiotic abuse, but in case anyone is unsure, here’s a brief recap:

Antibiotics kill things indiscriminately (the very word ‘antibiotic’ literally translates as ‘against life’). The idea is that they kill bacteria at a lower dose rate than which they kill the host. So if a fish gets ill, you can poison everything in the tank with antibiotics, and the pathogens making the fish ill should die before the fish does, and then you can stop the antibiotics.

However, if you leave a few bacteria behind, they start to get immune, and can build tolerance to the antibiotic. So, the next outbreak of bacteria will be a bit ‘harder’ to control than the first lot. Repeat the process, leave a few bacteria behind, and they get harder to kill again, until eventually you end up with pathogens that are so resistant to antibiotics that you’d need to use a dose rate so high that you’d kill the host before the pathogen.

That’s the abridged version, anyway.

The problem of course is that unregulated use of antibiotics over in the farming nations could quite feasibly create a strain of bacteria that our own antibiotics have no effect against. With diseased fish coming in, and no ability to cure them, we wouldn’t stand a chance.

But it’s not just bacteria.

There are a few pathogens on the horizon that are cause for concern at this time. In coldwater fish, there are the dreaded illnesses of KHV (Koi herpes virus) and SVC (Spring viraemia of Carp), both of which have the potential to cause massive problems to Cyprinids. Not so long ago, massive wipeouts from the former blighted farms across the world, causing losses on unmentionable scales in both ornamental and food fish culture. Here in the UK, some retailers faced the furious backlash from introducing the disease to consumer’s ponds. One was even driven to bankruptcy over it.

In the tropical world, I am very twitchy about Tetrahymena pyriformis, otherwise known as Guppy disease (though this is unfair as many fish are susceptible). This disease can cause massive mortality at breakneck speeds, especially in farm, wholesale and retail environments. I’m not the only one worried about this particular pathogen, either.

What is so very infuriating is the ‘wait and see’ attitude of some traders. This is not a disease to ignore, and to do so is not just at your own peril, but that of the entire industry.

Running costs

You will recall recently that Jack Heathcote had to close down his massive aquarium because of exorbitant running costs. Agreed, his tank was huge: an absolute electricity guzzling swimming pool of a thing. But the point is, it used to be well within his outgoings to operate. Prices are creeping, across the board, and more and more of us are noticing.

Compulsory water metering, if introduced across the UK, will spell death for many users of RO water. Given that tapwater isn’t going to get better any time soon, marine keepers in particular will have the choice of either paying out for a safe supply, reverting the hardiest, nitrate tolerant specimens there are, or jacking the hobby in.

Electricity might start to play on the minds of the fiscally conscious, too. As we’re encouraged to get our own monitors in the home to calculate what’s consuming what, I suspect that many will be alarmed at just how much a decent sized tank can cost to run. A handful of frantically spinning pumps, a couple of hundred watts of lighting, and a wheezing 300W heater or two all add up to become a financial burden, and given the balance of sacrificing the tank to the cause of improved monetary household harmony, I’ll wager that some might start to seriously consider a less power-hungry hobby.

Importation costs

The tropical fish we get in the UK tend not to come from within the British shores. Many will be far eastern, along with some European, American and African contributions. Wherever they’re coming from, they’re coming via planes. A continuous squadron of winged beasts bring us boxes of fish like a hovering conveyer belt, and we’ve become very reliant upon it.

Plane freight has been insidiously creeping upwards (no pun intened) for as long as I can remember. In fact, it’s the freight that frequently constitutes the majority cost of the livestock we buy. The trade might hate me for saying it, but a farmed guppy can be bought from Singapore or Malaysia for pennies. It’s only once it’s circumnavigated the globe, whizzing from one Hemisphere to the other that it has racked up a lot of airmiles, and those airmiles all add up to extra expenditure that needs to be reclaimed.

Now this isn’t the end of the earth for fish where you can cram a few hundred into a box for transit. In that case the cost is distributed about: each and every fish carries its own little fragment of expense, to be added to a mark up. But what of larger specimen fishes? What of the larger wild catfish that come one to a box? I suspect that this aspect of the hobby is fast becoming vulnerable.

Retailers, to their credit, strive to keep retail prices down on fish. You only have to look at the glacial creep of the value of staples like Neon tetra to realise that they’re becoming less and less profitable for the trader, though the competition and the market is fierce. These fish were about £1 each ten years back, and they’re still about £1 each now. Retailers know that they can’t crack the prices of many of these staples up without dissociating themselves like pariahs from the hobby, so they suffer in silence.

Time could force a trader’s hand and we could see incremental price hikes. The big concern is where the cut off point is for the hobbyist. £3 for a Neon? £25 for a Pictus catfish? African cichlids starting at £30?

Let’s rule nothing out, because a lot of factors are at play with pricing.

Release of fish into the UK

I have spent the last few weeks scathing at the irresponsible actions of a minority of those in the industry.

I’m not sure many of us realise just what kind of scrutiny we are under as a hobby. Whether we like it or not, we have enemies, and powerful ones at that, who see what we do as a threat. Many of our opposition and detractors are those in the angling community, who can have an unbalanced and solely derogatory view of us, and the perceived threat we could pose to their own industry.

We as aquarists maintain what amount to collections of alien species in our ponds and tanks. Sterlets are far from indigenous, nor are the various gobies, catfish, tetra and so on that we keep.

This taps back in to what I mentioned earlier, vis. disease of fish. Any one of us, anywhere in the world could, in theory, be sat on the equivalent of case zero. We already know that domestic shrimps can be carriers of White tail disease, an illness currently ravaging farms of commercial food shrimp. We don’t know if there’s any risk of native crayfish picking up this disease, and I don’t want to find out the hard way, but all it takes is for some bright spark to consider putting his or her shrimps in a pond at the height of summer, to then be promptly flooded so that the shrimps get into a local river and meet a crayfish. The outcome of that encounter isn’t hard to envisage.

Is that even feasible? Well, yes. Loads of aquarists were affected by this year’s flooding, and I’m open mouthed and speechless that some people are even trying to highlight to the national tabloids that their fish escaped. Already that’s opened a forum on whether those at risk of flooding are allowed to keep the fish that they do. But the last thing we want to be doing now is drawing excess attention to it.

If ecosystems in certain rivers or lakes are impacted by fish like sterlets, who do you think will take the blame? And what then, the ramifications for our trade? Suffice to say, if someone’s escapees blight the native fish of a county, the angling lobbyists and national newspapers will demonise us to the extent that we won’t be able to walk down the roads without being spat on.

Controls are in place to stop just this kind of thing from happening. Legislation already incorporates rules and laws about where non-natives may and may not be put. Dangerously invasive fish are denied entry to the country through the implementation of the Import of Live Fish Act.

Enter the imbecile. The imbecile is someone who, upon going against all of the advice of his retailer, decides to buy a gaggle of potentially invasive, non-natives that promptly outgrow his pond. The imbecile then takes the fish, in his desire to be rid, and upends them into a local waterway.

I’m not saying that any of us should sit back and await this to happen. Rather, we should be aware of such people, and be thoroughly prepared to dob them in at the first hint of trouble. Call me a snitch for that if you like, but I’m more interested in the welfare of UK waterways than I am in some puerile, school playground code of honour.

CEFAS would be a good port of call when reporting imbeciles like the one mentioned above. Even the local constabulary, when made aware that someone is intending to release non-natives into British waterways, will be obligated to do something. The release of non-natives is an illegal act, and we should all be guarded against it.

Anti-hobbyists would seize any opportunity to extirpate our industry, and it is essential that we don’t give them an easy opening to do so.

Environment degradation

This one isn’t something that we have too much say over, but where we do, we should.

Here’s a surprise for you. Some of the fish we currently keep are extinct in the wild. Red tailed sharks, for example, no longer have a native range. It was destroyed by damming, cities, irrigation and farming. Liquorice gouramis are going the same way, as their habitat is eaten up by Palm plantations. Certain African cichlids have vanished into the maws of Nile perch.

Degradation leads to extinction, and extinction means no new bloodlines. Eventually, that means inbreeding and variation. Now that’s fine if you fancy stores choc-full of Flowerhorns and the blandest of the bland in farmed staples, but with nothing interesting to offer, the trade might will be on its knees. It’ll certainly have no substance if there aren’t any decent fish left.

Legislation

A few paragraphs above, where I lamented the release of non-natives, I drew attention to the dangers of a few rogue aquarists jeopardising our hobby on a national scale.

Worse still is that our comrades in mainland Europe could just as easily spoil things for us by releasing fish there, too. Recall the recent debacle of the Golden apple snail. We Brits did nothing wrong on our own turf, but it transpires that a snail population was released and decided to make merry in the waters of Spain. After some investigation it was argued that the snails could just as easily invade and establish into certain water of East Anglia. Just like that, legislation was drafted and the snails banned from importation and movement between EU countries.

I choke every time I read about the likes of Pacu being found in Parisian rivers, or Cabomba strangling Dutch waterways. Each of these is the produce of an irresponsible aquarist out there somewhere, and all are potential trade cripplers for the whole continent.

It’s bad enough knowing that a slip up on our own shores could warrant investigation, but to know it’s possibly wrested from our hands altogether is outright harrowing. The idea that someone could upset the Euro trade of Callichthyds by being foolish enough to put Scleromystax into Italian rivers is a troubling one. Rhinogobius found in Austrian ponds could be the end of those little cuties for all of us, and so on.

Given how high the powers of Europe go, I’m not even sure we’d have the grounding or stamina to successfully fight our corner.

Autonomy is required, though how to gain it isn’t exactly clear. It’s certainly one for the regulatory bodies to ascertain, because I’m sure that like me, you don’t want to be held accountable for problems you were never part of.

Ethics

We’re all familiar with the idea of culture shock, and cross-generation differences. With each new generation the nation produces, the paradigm of attitudes and opinions alters ever so slightly.

It happens across so many different trains of thought that I’m almost stuck for choice, so examples are rife. Let’s start with obvious points like racism and sexism. If we go back 100 years, prevalent attitudes to females and foreign ethnicities were radically different to what they are today. That’s not to say that everybody was a xenophobic misogynist, but compared to today’s standard, the percentile of people who would have happily passed off derogatory comments about either was considerably higher than it is now.

Opinions and attitudes are often languidly slow to change, but change they do. The same applies to the world of animal ethics, too. Fifty years ago, the idea that someone might be tried for abusing a pig on a farm would have been near laughable. Flash forward to 2014, and the same person could expect to be near lynched, banned from working with animals, and possibly even subject to custodial sentence.

We’re seeing gradual encroachment into pet keeping, if you keep eyes peeled. How frequently do you now see cage birds on sale? Many retailers have abandoned them, and those that haven’t yet are often under pressure to do so. Again, just fifty years back a teenager wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at his or her mother keeping a canary in a cage. In the modern day, you’ll find increasing numbers of youngsters who would brand the act as cruel. It’s a gradual process.

We’ve already witnessed campaigns to get some fish out of aquatic stores. Giants like Pacu are increasingly considered ethically unsound, with the long term welfare consideration for the fish itself now ranking much higher than the novelty of keeping one for a while.

Retailers are becoming more switched on and savvy in their vetting of potential keepers. Ethics rank higher than pound signs in some stores, who will politely refuse a sale if they think the fish in question will not have its requirements yet. People care.

None of this is to say that we’re on a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a total rejection of fishkeeping by some future generation. We can, after all, dig our heels in before it gets runaway, and this is something that we should perhaps guard against. Showing ourselves in a positive light is essential, and perhaps more essential than ever if we’re to win over the minds of tomorrow’s keeper. Young people will be the future of the hobby, and if they reach hobby age having been influenced in such a way they think the trade negative, then it’s pretty much game over. No new fishkeepers, no continued hobby.

Zoonotic illness (Disease part two…)

I should probably include the caveat ‘once grabbed by the mainstream media’ for the above subheading.

Zoonotic illness alone is unlikely to wipe out fishkeeping, in the same way that recent TB cases acquired from cats won’t be leading to a global purge on felines any time soon.

But a devastating sob story pandering to our worst fears (I needn’t say which tabloids I brand as capable of this) and highlighting the loss of a hand or foot through some badly diagnosed, ill treated and runaway case of fish TB could quite easily inflict a wound from which we’ll never quite recover

The worst situation that could befall us would be a combination of tragic events. Someone young and immunocomprimised for whatever reason, picking up a particularly nasty strain of Leptospirosis, or something similar and dying would be a disaster in every way, not least of all for the individual concerned.

We know that hygiene is essential when working with tanks. We understand that getting unprotected hands with cuts in aquaria is to invite disaster, and we can eradicate this risk at source, just by being both aware of the hazards, and being aware of how to safeguard against them.

Just bear in mind that if you’re taking risks with your health for the sake of your hobby, then you’re not just putting your own neck on the line. If it all goes very, very wrong and you end up in a bad way, then you’re potentially messing it up for the rest of us.

Likelihood?

I’m upset that most of the factors above are in many ways beyond the remit of the day-to-day aquarist. Responsible buying can help to reduce the chance of disease and zoonosis, and voting with our wallets can promote retailers to purchase better quality and responsibly sourced stock.

Expenses are beyond our control, bar lobbying MPs and embracing efficiency where we can. Championing low running cost technology over higher wattage ‘budget’ alternatives will help such lines to grow, in turn safeguarding us in the longer run.

What is definitely in our grasp, and what I consider the biggest danger to us all, is not releasing fish in the UK. I cannot reiterate enough just how damning it would be for us to have subtropical species that are only sourced through our hobby turning up in native ponds and rivers.

I’ve harped on about it numerous times, but I’m not going to miss another opportunity to do the same. If you release your fish in to the wild, or are considering doing so, then shame upon you. I will have no truck with anyone who wants to jeopardise the hobby for all of us like that, and who also shows abject disregard for the wellbeing of their livestock.

Keep fish in their tanks where they are not a risk, and I beseech each and every one of you: if you know someone who’s planning to release, call the authorities and make them act on it. It’s your hobby at stake too.

Apr 112014
 

Original story by Jake Sturmer, ABC News

A new study of Australia’s dirtiest and cleanest beaches has revealed some surprising results.

A red-footed Booby on a polluted beach in Australia. Photo: Dr Denise Hardesty, CSIRO

A red-footed Booby on a polluted beach in Australia. Photo: Dr Denise Hardesty, CSIRO

CSIRO researchers have spent two years surveying Australia’s entire coastline, counting rubbish on sections of sand and sea every 100 kilometres.

Australia’s dirtiest and cleanest beaches

NSW

  • Dirtiest: Shelly Beach, Manly
  • Cleanest: Red Rock Beach, NSW North Coast

Northern Territory

  • Dirtiest: Cape Arnhem
  • Cleanest: Cape Hay

Queensland

  • Dirtiest: Barney Point Beach, Gladstone
  • Cleanest: Mackay

South Australia

  • Dirtiest: Border Village (SA)
  • Cleanest: Nora Creina

Tasmania

  • Dirtiest: East Kangaroo Island (West Gulch)
  • Cleanest: Cape Grim

Victoria

  • Dirtiest: Pearse’s Road Beach
  • Cleanest: Gibbs Track Beach, Lakes Entrance

Western Australia

  • Dirtiest: Ellensbrook Beach
  • Cleanest: 80 Mile Beach

Source: CSIRO

The survey of more than 175 beaches found the dirtiest beach in Australia was Border Village on the coast between Western Australia and South Australia.

This was typical of the study that found remote and hard to reach beaches were among Australia’s most grotty.

Lead researcher Dr Denise Hardesty says the rubbish did not float in from polluted oceans abroad.

By using ocean current data and examining the items, researchers could tell much of the mess fell from the hands of ordinary Australians.

“In general most of what we find is from us,” Dr Hardesty said.

“No matter how remote you are, how close you are to an urban city, we leave our litter everywhere.”

Illegal dumping, irresponsible mariners and careless beachgoers are all to blame, she says.

Researchers are suggesting increased regulation and enforcement, particularly of illegal dumping.

“We aren’t doing as well as we could, as we need to be doing, in terms of waste management,” Dr Hardesty said.

More than 150 million pieces of rubbish

The CSIRO study estimates more than 150 million pieces of rubbish litter Australia’s sand and shores.

The most common item was plastic following rapid growth in global plastic production.

“More than three-quarters of what we find in terms of rubbish is plastic,” Dr Hardesty said.

This had a disastrous effect on some 600 marine species who then consumed what researchers have termed “plastic food”.

Dr Hardesty said she had found cigarette lighters, toothbrushes, pill bottles and bottle caps in the stomachs of birds.

“We open turtles that have died and see that they’re jammed full of plastics,” she said.

“I’ve found over 200 pieces of plastic in a single bird.”

Communities cleaning up Australia

Retired plastic surgeon John Hanrahan and other former professionals have formed a group to clean up the waters off Western Australia’s sunny Abrolhos Islands.

They visit once a year to clean up the mess left by tourists and fishermen over the decades.

“To me they are unique islands in this part of the world, they’re coral islands, they’re well south of the usual position and it seems to be sacrilege to let them deteriorate,” Mr Hanrahan said.

“I think we all have a responsibility to look after these islands and part of looking after them, in my view, is cleaning up the refuse.

“What I’d like to see is other people take up the cause as it were and say ‘yes all right, we can do a little bit’.”

Migratory shore birds on 80 Mile Beach in Western Australia. Photo:  Matt Brann, ABC

Migratory shore birds on 80 Mile Beach in Western Australia. Photo: Matt Brann, ABC

Apr 092014
 

Original story by Tom Arup and Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald

At least half the world’s energy supply will have to come from low-carbon sources, such as renewables and nuclear, by 2050 as part of the drastic global action needed to cut greenhouse gases to relatively safe levels, a major United Nations climate change assessment will say.

The emission reductions pledged by nations for 2020 are found to fall short of the action needed. Photo: Graham Tidy

The emission reductions pledged by nations for 2020 are found to fall short of the action needed. Photo: Graham Tidy

A leaked draft of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by Fairfax Media, also warns the world is fast running out of time to make the cuts to emissions required to keep global warming to an average of two degrees – a goal countries, including Australia, have pledged to meet through the UN.

The draft comes as Lord Nicholas Stern, the author of a 2006 landmark review of the economics of climate change, chastised Australia for being ”flaky” on global warming. In an interview with Fairfax he said each country had to be ambitious in its approach to cutting emissions and developing a low-carbon economy because climate change was a such as serious and global problem.

Australia’s target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 “looks very small” and Abbott government policy changes such as the scrapping the carbon tax and its “tone of discussion” suggested it was “not very serious” about climate change.

The final version of the latest IPCC report – the third part of its fifth major assessment of climate change – will be released in Berlin on Sunday. It focuses on ways human-caused emissions can be mitigated.

The draft of the third section warns if the world puts off deep cuts to emissions until 2030 it will make the two-degree task significantly harder to achieve, and limit the options for mitigation.

The world has already warmed 0.85 degrees since 1880.

The emission reductions pledged by nations for 2020 are found to fall short of the action needed to have the best chance of keeping to two degrees, meaning deeper cuts will be required later, with higher costs and probably the need to develop technologies to draw significant amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

The draft finds greenhouse gas emissions rose faster between 2000-10 than in previous decades, driven largely by economic and population growth.It says the majority of scenarios studied that ensure just a two-degree rise in warming include a trebling, to a near quadrupling, of the share of clean energy in the global supply by mid-century.

That would require the share of renewable technologies, nuclear and fossil fuels using carbon capture and storage, to rise from about 17 per cent in 2010 to at least 51 per cent by 2050.

The draft also stresses climate change is a global problem requiring international co-operation. It warns the problems will not be solved if individual countries and companies advance their own interests independently of others.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Apr 092014
 

Transcript from Landline 6/4/2014, reporter Pete Lewis

Rivers of Dreams

Rivers of Dreams

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: For some, northern Australia is farming’s final frontier. A field of irrigated dreams just waiting for the right people and the right projects to unleash its full potential.

Yet others are cautious about triggering an unsustainable land and water grab that tramples over the natural and cultural significance of some of the world’s largest unspoilt tropical savannah country.

The ABC’s rural and regional reporter Pete Lewis headed to Queensland’s Gulf, where one single project has brought both sides of this agricultural development debate into sharp focus.

(Graeme Connors “A Little Further North”)

SONG: I head a little further north each year. Leave the cities behind, out of sight, out of mind. Up where my troubles all disappear I head a little further north each year.

KEITH DE LACY, I-FED: We believe that this is groundbreaking. This is going to change the way agriculture is carried out in Australia. For the last 50 years we’ve been talking about developing the north, the food bowl of Asia. We’ve had white papers and green papers. We’ve found a way of actually doing it. And the great thing about it, it’s absolutely sustainable.

PETE LEWIS, REPORTER: The grand plan is to harness the power of this river in Queensland’s Gulf Country for irrigated agriculture on an unprecedented scale.

CSIRO’s scientists spent two years and $10 million looking into the land, the water and the climate in the Flinders and Gilbert river catchments and they’re not quite so bullish, which some say is just as well.

GAVAN MCFADZEAN, WILDERNESS SOCIETY: We don’t want to see the mistakes of the past now characterise future development in northern Australia and we urge decision makers around this project, but also the Federal Government’s northern development inquiry, to look at sustainable long-term development options for this region, not the legacy of a failed business and development model of the past.

PETE LEWIS: Over the course of the next year, authorities both state and federal will assess the arguments for and against agricultural developments in northern Australia. Whether to opt for the CSIRO’s more precautionary approach to opening up more irrigated projects or a complete game changer, that might not just change the course of mighty rivers up here, but how the water in them is allocated.

So the first line in the sand between those for and against substantially more irrigated agriculture has been drawn here, where a private consortium, Integrated Food and Energy Developments, is seeking Federal Government imprimatur and formal State Government approval for its $2 billion project – and yes, in this case, size does matter.

I-FED is factoring in 65,000 hectares of irrigated crops, mostly sugarcane, fed by two large off-river dams. That justifies investment in a sugar mill, whose by-products in turn would be used to both generate electricity and ethanol to power the mill, as well as stockfeed for beef cattle that will also be processed onsite.

KEITH DE LACY: The message we’ve got to get across and this is really the breakthrough, is that you’ve got to have the scale to make this work. The scale that can – so that we can create all of the processing architecture that enables us to grow agriculture in this isolated part of the world. If they allocate water so that we can develop projects to this scale, then you will get enormous times more economic benefit or jobs, if you like, per megalitre.

(Speaking to audience) We’ll have 12 months supply of stock, then that justifies…

PETE LEWIS: Keith De Lacy, a former Queensland Labor Treasurer, told the recent ABARES Outlook conference that this project brings him full circle, back to where he grew up, but with a keener sense now of what’s possible, honed after careers in state politics and the corporate world.

KEITH DE LACY: (Speaking to audience) I’d just really like to see, as we say, bringing government policy to life. You just have to do it differently than you did it before. Analyse everything that’s been done, find out why it didn’t work and say, ‘Well, is there a way to make it work?’ and we believe we’ve found it.

PETE LEWIS: Someone with a more cautious outlook is CSIRO scientist Dr Peter Stone.

DR PETER STONE, CSIRO: History’s shown that capitalising on the north’s advantages has its challenges and uncertainties. And this erodes confidence, which in turn can deter investment. So unlocking significant new investment in the north’s agriculture requires confidence about the scale of opportunities and the risks that attend them.

(Speaking to audience) A high-level view of what we did and the sorts of results that we found as part of the Flinders Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment. I’m a kind sort of person, so I’m not going to take you through 4,000 pages. If you’re wanting a little bit more detail, there’s the 15 or 16-pager that you’re either sitting on or have in your hands. That’s where I probably prefer to start myself. It gives a nice high-level overview but also enough information to really wrap your head around what we did.

DR PETER STONE: In the Gilbert catchment, we found over 2 million hectares of soil that is at least moderately suited to irrigated agriculture production. That’s a lot of soil. We found sufficient water resources to irrigate 20,000 to 30,000 hectares of that 2 million. To some people, 20,000 or 30,000 hectares sounds like an awful lot of land and to others it doesn’t sound like much.

So just to put it into perspective, the Ord River irrigation area currently irrigates about 14,000 to 15,000 hectares. So the 20,000 to 30,000 hectares that we’ve identified in the Gilbert could increase all of the irrigation area in northern Australia – so, north of the Tropic of Capricorn – by 15 to 20 per cent – that’s a big increase.

PETE LEWIS: Any comparisons with the Ord River scheme in Western Australia’s east Kimberley tends to stir some sceptics into campaign mode. The Wilderness Society has made a detailed submission to the northern Australian development white paper, arguing less is more.

GAVAN MCFADZEAN: There’s two projects already on the drawing board in this catchment which far exceed what CSIRO say is possible. One project, the I-FED project, wants to, at a minimum, take out three times more water and use twice as much land as what CSIRO was suggesting is possible. And that’s just one project.

There’s another project which has already started land-clearing in the Gilbert and wants to clear up to 100,000 hectares of land.

So both of these projects together result in almost 200,000 hectares of land-clearing and vast extraction of water, far beyond what CSIRO say is possible.

(Sound of heavy machinery)

PETE LEWIS: Third generation Gulf grazier Greg Ryan isn’t a fan of I-FED or its super farm either. Indeed, he’s not cleaning up land for crops. He’s weeding chinee apple out of his floodplain pastures that sprouted after the first decent rainfall here after fires and a long drought.

GREG RYAN, GREEN HILLS STATION: You’d hope we’re just at the bottom of the cycle and things will sort of pick up if the weather’s kind to us and the markets are kind to us and everything else sort of turns around, well, yes, we’ll hopefully start working our way up the cycle to the boom end.

PETE LEWIS: While he’s not opposed per se to increased irrigated agriculture here on the Gilbert River floodplain, Greg Ryan says the huge I-FED proposal simply hasn’t had the due diligence it deserves and that’s split the community.

GREG RYAN: It does concern me. I think everyone would like to see a successful project in the district for the benefit of everyone within the district. But we’ll only get one shot at this and we have to get it right, so I think the split clearly indicates that there’s not enough information and enough research being done to tell us whether it’s a viable sort of project or not.

PETE LEWIS: On neighbouring Forest Home Station, cropping helped get Ken Fry and his family through the big dry. They grew stockfeed for hungry cattle. The family moved up from Queensland’s Burdekin region, the engine room of Australia’s sugarcane industry, for a crack at irrigated cropping Gulf savannah style.

KEN FRY, FOREST HOME STATION: This was the perfect spot for us at the end. It had irrigation potential, a 400-hectare irrigation licence, farmland, irrigators… Essentially we’re cattle people, but I figured we had to be able to diversify and for the last couple of years, it’s been keeping us going, being able to grow crops on our country with irrigation.

PETE LEWIS: Today he’s checking his emerging guar crop; a legume that’s sometimes referred to as poor man’s soybean. Guar gum is a thickening agent used in everything from fast food and toothpaste to coal seam gas fracking.

Forest Home Station’s rich alluvial soil profile is around 4m deep. They grow everything from cavalcade hay to peanuts and corn and are hopeful they’ll get not only approval to clear more scrub, but a crack at more water on the open market against I-FED and others.

Do you think there’s enough for all of you?

KEN FRY: Ah… Yes, I wouldn’t like to say. I don’t really actually know what water, what percentage of water will be released. I don’t have those figures. We need a considerable amount. The Gilbert River precinct needs a considerable amount. I-FED’s proposal, they’re asking for a considerable amount. A lot.

If we’re all equal, if we’ve got to go and put our tenders in for the water or go to auction and bid on it, it will all be fair, but if anything else besides that happens, they get granted water, they will be the biggest water holders and they will hold and they will organise the markets around that.

Saying that, I hope there is enough water here that we can survive and they can survive and it will be so much better for the area if we can both go in tandem.

PETE LEWIS: Huenfels Station was a soldier settler block that’s been in John Bethel’s family since the 1920s, mainly running cattle. But thanks to an agreement he signed with I-FED, it may eventually boast an expansive water feature, a header dam for the irrigated farm.

JOHN BETHEL, HUENFELS STATION: What is attractive about it is they’ll lease it back to us for a peppercorn rental for three years and then you’ve got the option to lease it back after all the development’s done, whatever’s left, so probably a godsend really for a lot of people that are under pretty stiff financial circumstances.

PETE LEWIS: And for John Bethel, that’s the rub. There just simply aren’t a host of development alternatives in this part of the country that could underpin economic growth quite like the super farm.

JOHN BETHEL: One of the things that holds the shire back is it has a very small rate base and projects like these are the only opportunity they’ve got to grow their rate base, but from my perspective I’m more concerned about the next generation that want to stay on the land and be involved in the area and I think that without these sort of projects, the future looks pretty grim really.

PETE LEWIS: Perhaps not surprising the local council is pretty excited about the potential windfall too. The population projections alone would result in a tenfold increase in Georgetown’s 250 residents.

WILL ATTWOOD, ETHERIDGE SHIRE MAYOR: I see that it’s going to be good for a town, to grow the economics of our town, the economics of our area. It’s going to make a lot of opportunity for people to have businesses around. But we’re doing it really tough just at the moment. I mean this is an absolutely huge boost, but really any boost to us at the moment would be great.

(John Denver “A Little Further North”)

SONG: Up where there’s silence and the night sky is clear I head a little further north each year.

PETE LEWIS: So where is that boost likely to come from?

KEITH DE LACY: Well let me say, we would go to the Australian capital markets first. We would prefer to get the money from Australia. Nevertheless, getting money from offshore is good for Australia anyway.

We expect there will probably be a mix of it, but we’ve had enormous interest from the United States, from North America, enormous interest, probably the most interest from there, I’ve got to say that. But, no – we’re ecumenical about that. We want to develop this project and we’ll raise the funds where we’ve got to raise the funds.

PETE LEWIS: First they’ll need to raise $15 million to get the project to the next stage, and undertake the environmental impact and detailed engineering assessments, before pitching for a half a million megalitres in water entitlements and tree-clearing permits. To say nothing about winning over all the locals.

JOHN BETHEL: I don’t think there’s ever been a community born where there wasn’t polarised views. This community – if I’m any judge of the community sentiment – I’d say there’s a small number that are strongly opposed. There’s a small number like myself that are very pro. And everyone else is sitting a leg on either side of the fence. And if you’re a business owner, you’re hoping like hell it’s going to go ahead but probably thinking that it’s too good to be true. And that’s where I think most of the community sit. I’m pretty sure of it actually.

 

Apr 082014
 

Original story by , Northern Rivers Echo

ENVIRONMENTAL science students at Southern Cross University got the chance to visit the Slaters Creek constructed wetland in North Lismore on Monday and learn about the positives of modern stormwater treatment techniques.
FIELD TRIP: Touring Lismore City Council’s constructed wetland at Slaters Creek are Southern Cross University natural resource management students Sam Walker and Trent McIntyre, with (back from left) council environmental strategies officer Anton Nguyen, SCU lecturer Dr Antony McCardell and the Water and Carbon Group’s Katrina Curran.

FIELD TRIP: Touring Lismore City Council’s constructed wetland at Slaters Creek are Southern Cross University natural resource management students Sam Walker and Trent McIntyre, with (back from left) council environmental strategies officer Anton Nguyen, SCU lecturer Dr Antony McCardell and the Water and Carbon Group’s Katrina Curran.

Third-year SCU students from the unit Ecotechnology for Water Management got to explore the wetlands with their tutor Antony McCardell, who said one of the great benefits of the environmental science courses at SCU was the wide range of natural and manmade environments available for students to visit on a field trip.

“With increasing human impacts on waterways there is a growing need for urban planning to approach stormwater and wastewater management in ways that benefit both humans and the environment,” Dr McCardell said.

Lismore City Council had commissioned the $180,000 wetland to improve the creek’s water quality – identified as containing high levels of pollution – before it enters the Wilsons River.

Now the wetland is showing good signs of working efficiently following a period of settling, is also attracting bird life and has improved the amenity of public open space in the area, the council has said.

A technical analysis of the wetland was provided for the students by Katrina Curran from the Water and Carbon Group, which designed the wetland and monitors it.

“Wetland habitats have been severely impacted as a result of urban development through changes to both water quality and quantity entering waterways,” Ms Curran said.

“New urban areas are now required to treat stormwater but this project is important as it seeks to improve water quality and biodiversity in an area that has already been developed.”

As well as treating stormwater effectively by mimicking nature’s own systems of filtration, the wetland complements restoration work undertaken by the Banyam/Baigham Landcare Group over the past few years.