government – Page 11 – ANGFA Queensland

What do young people really know about climate change?

Nov 092013

Original story by Vaille Dawson, Curtin University and Katherine Carson, Curtin University at The Conversation

The next generation will be the ones to feel the increasing effects of climate change. But how much do they really know about it?

After all, it’s one thing to say: yes, I believe in climate change. But another to say: yes, I understand it and how it works.

Young people are harbouring misconceptions about climate change. But what can be done about it? Photo: www.shutterstock.com

There is a lot of research which supports the idea that until a person understands the science behind climate change, they may not support political regulation or make personal decisions to help reduce greenhouse gas production.

Our new study, published in the latest edition of Teaching Science, has investigated the scientific understanding of 438 Western Australian Year 10 students in relation to the greenhouse effect and climate change.

The results are startling.

What we know they know

When asked for a written response to the question “what is climate change?” only half of the students gave an answer which showed some understanding of the science behind climate change. Furthermore, one-third of the students included some type of alternative conception in their answer.

When answering the question “what is the greenhouse effect?” the results were even more disappointing with only one third of students able to provide an answer showing some understanding of the science behind the greenhouse effect. Over 40% of the answers included at least one alternative conception.

So what does this mean? Well, on the surface, the results obviously show that the majority of Year 10 students do not understand the science behind the greenhouse effect and climate change. However if you look deeper, it is their alternative conceptions that reveal how misunderstanding climate change science can affect the decisions students make.

Mysteries and misconceptions

The most common misunderstanding we found was confusing the ozone layer with the greenhouse effect. This is also common in the general population and is completely understandable, given that the purpose of both is to protect the Earth from ultraviolet rays in one case, and infrared rays in the other.

The problem is that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are associated with the degradation of the ozone layer, whereas greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are involved in the enhanced greenhouse effect which contributes to global warming.

This is an important distinction because the moderating behaviour is different for each. To protect the ozone layer we need to decrease the escape of CFCs, still found in air conditioners and refrigerators. The release of one chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules.

But to mitigate the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect, we need to reduce our energy usage in all its varied forms or invest in low emissions technology.

Our study also found up to 15% of students thought carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. This really isn’t surprising given the focus carbon receives in our debate on climate change. After all, the media talks mostly about “carbon taxes” and “carbon footprints”.

It’s good there is some knowledge there, but this study shows it remains incomplete. And without the basic scientific understanding, students and the public in general do not fully understand the consequences of their decisions.

Water (the most abundant greenhouse gas), methane and nitrous oxide are all important contributors to the enhanced greenhouse gas and are affected by human activity. Methane in particular contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect and is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

It is important then for meat and dairy eaters to recognise that livestock (mostly cattle) are responsible for up to 20% of the world’s methane production. Farmers and scientists are currently investigating steps which can be taken to try and reduce this percentage.

What can be done?

So where do these misunderstandings spring from? And what can we do to improve young people’s information on climate change?

There are several problems with the way science is taught in Australian schools that makes improving young people’s understanding difficult.

To start with, climate change is not explicitly mentioned in the Australian Curriculum in Science until year 10, despite young people’s exposure to the topic in the media much earlier. In fact, the results of our survey showed that TV was the most frequent source of information about climate change, with school science coming second (although school science was seen as the most trustworthy).

Then there’s the fact that climate change science is multidisciplinary, drawing from chemistry, physics, biology and earth sciences. Even the recent Australian curriculum divides science into four discrete sections, which means young people are not able to make the links between the scientific aspects of climate change.

The fact that climate science is sometimes seen as a socio-scientific issue is also problematic. It means that some don’t see it as a legitimate topic for school.

And finally, young people are failing to select science in the final two years of secondary school thus depriving them of the opportunity to examine these types of issues in depth.

If we want to improve this situation, it needs to begin in school with a curriculum which promotes understanding of climate science as well as pro-environmental behaviour. Teachers need to be aware of common alternative conceptions (often held by teachers themselves) and be given the resources and skills to overcome them.

But without addressing this, through better education, we may see the current apathy around climate change, continue into the next generation.

Vaille Dawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Katherine Carson does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

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

Abbott’s climate change Achilles heel: the weather

environment, government

Nov 092013

Original story by Tom Allard, Sydney Morning Herald

Hotter days could bring with them a potent political wildcard.

It was a clarion call from the towering figure of Australian conservative politics, and John Howard's ode to climate scepticism this week seemed to galvanise the Abbott government.

In a speech titled ''One Religion is Enough'' in London on Tuesday, the former prime minister railed against ''sanctimonious'' climate change advocates, declared himself an agnostic on the science and said anyone who drew links between this year's early bushfires and global warming was an ''alarmist''.

It was a vehement and revealing dissertation from Howard, and was followed by an equally emphatic - and dismissive - statement of intent on climate change from the Coalition government.

Neither Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop nor Environment Minister Greg Hunt will now be attending global talks in Warsaw on how to reduce global greenhouse emissions. Not even a parliamentary secretary will represent.

Hunt's focus, he said, would have to be on repealing the carbon tax, this nation's primary - and tentatively successful - measure to reduce carbon emissions. Then there were revelations of the culling of up to 1500 jobs at CSIRO, one of Australia's pre-eminent climate change research institutions.

And, perhaps most ominously, the Queensland government launched its plan to develop the Galilee Basin coal deposits, flagging royalty concessions to miners - including Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart - who will build the mega mines slated for central Queensland.

Development could double Australia's coal output, and add massively to global carbon pollutants. Port developments and increased sea traffic also threaten the Great Barrier Reef.

It is the first initiative from Queensland Premier Campbell Newman since a deal with the Abbott government giving him oversight of the environmental assessment and approval of resources projects in the state.

Abbott famously decried climate change science as ''absolute crap'' and, as Howard observed, rose to the leadership of the Coalition and the nation by harnessing doubts about the reality of climate change.

The Prime Minister these days says he believes in climate science and that human activity has contributed to global warming but Abbott's actions since reaching power suggest his real views track closer to his earlier scatological assessment of the issue.

In the short-term, expect the government to milk the carbon tax issue further as it exploits Labor's opposition to its repeal.

Further out on the horizon though, the politics are far more tricky. The polling suggest that from a carbon tax-inspired nadir last year, concern about climate change is creeping up.

International momentum is building for a global regime pricing carbon and then there is perhaps the most potent political wildcard: the weather itself.

Howard remarked in his speech that he has always been a global warming sceptic but pushed a climate change policy in the 2007 election campaign because the politics, in part, were being driven by the weather at the time.

''Drought had lingered for several years in many parts of eastern Australia, leading to severe restrictions on the daily use of water; not for the first or last time the bushfire season started early,'' he said.

Abbott's climate scepticism became politically potent just as the drought broke and the dams filled again, thanks to the El Nino drought-inducing weather phenomena being replaced by the cooler, wetter La Nina phase in 2010. In 2006, 68 per cent of Australians thought climate was serious and required action, according to polling by the Lowy Institute. Now it is 40 per cent (up from 36 per cent in 2012).

The collapse of the Copenhagen climate talks; former prime minister Kevin Rudd's abandonment of the great moral challenge of carbon pricing; and Julia Gillard's broken promise on the carbon tax all served to pummel the popularity of action against climate change.

But two separate studies of polling show that people are more likely to be concerned about climate change if they have directly experienced hot, dry weather.

As the author of one of the studies Ye Li, from the Columbia Business School, observed: ''Global warming is so complex, it appears some people are ready to be persuaded by whether their own day is warmer or cooler than usual, rather than think about whether the entire world is becoming warmer or cooler.''

The La Nina-El Nino cycle is now in a neutral phase but Australia has still experienced record hot temperatures this year, and the fierce, early start to the bushfire season.

If El Nino reasserts itself, the weather will get even hotter, and the politics of climate change could swing again dramatically.

Abbott’s climate ‘diplomacy’ sends the wrong message

environment, government

Nov 082013

Original story by Matt McDonald at The Coversation

This week, the Australian Government announced that it would not send a minister to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Poland for the first time since 1997. This announcement came on the back of a cancelled stakeholder meeting on Wednesday, traditionally held in advance of UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (CoP) meetings.

It’s too early for the new government to lose interest in international climate negotiations. Photo: EPA/Nic Bothma

It’s been a bad week for advocates of climate change action in Australia. Former Prime Minister John Howard, in a speech to a gathering of climate denialists in the UK, questioned the scientific consensus on climate change. His “instinct” was that claims of climate catastrophe were exaggerated.

He also suggested that an international agreement was beyond the current climate framework, and praised Abbott’s climate policy.

Meanwhile the government continued to pressure opposing forces in the senate to support the repeal of the carbon tax. Environment minister Greg Hunt was telling anyone who would listen that the repeal of the tax would immediately drive down electricity prices across the country.

Aside from the issue that the government cannot determine electricity pricing, it was hardly inspiring for climate activists to hear Australia’s environment minister championing the cause for cheap electricity.

In that sense, the announcement that Australia’s chief representative in Warsaw would be the Climate Ambassador Justin Lee — rather than the Prime Minister, the foreign minister or the environment minister — is hardly surprising.

Yet as history shows, with the possible exception of the Howard era, Australia’s climate diplomacy has generally outpaced its domestic action on climate change.

Kevin Rudd personally attended two of the three climate meetings during his time as Prime Minister, acting as a “friend of the chair” at Copenhagen. He also took among the largest international delegations to these meetings. Yet in the face of political opposition and declining popular support, he famously dumped the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its centrepiece, the emissions trading scheme.

Bob Hawke ensured that Australia was among the leaders in promoting an international agreement. He also committed Australia to an interim planning target for greenhouse emissions reduction, well before other most other developed countries. Yet his government outlined few major policy initiatives beyond an investment in climate research.

Paul Keating promised that no domestic climate action would be undertaken if it had adverse economic effects. But he made it clear that Australia would not risk being isolated from an international agreement on climate change.

And even John Howard, who reduced funding for climate programs and by some accounts allowed a cabal of fossil fuel industry insiders unprecedented input into climate policy, continued to suggest that Australia would aim to meet Kyoto targets while pouring scorn on the treaty itself.

In that sense, the recent announcement suggests more of an alignment of domestic climate policy and climate diplomacy than has traditionally been the case. It also suggests that the suspicion of multilateralism, a hallmark of a conservative foreign policy agenda, is likely to continue in Australia’s foreign policy outlook.

But the climate conference snub is one with troubling implications for climate politics and Australian foreign policy generally. Post-election we’ve seen an assault on climate policy, and lingering suspicion over whether Abbott has genuinely put his denialist tendencies behind him. These negotiations provide an opportunity for the government to signal a commitment to action on climate change, both domestically and internationally.

Australia should be sending the message that it is an engaged and proactive member of the international community, concerned with helping to forge global solutions to global problems. The desire to be, and be seen to be, a “good international citizen” certainly shaped the Hawke and Keating Labor governments’ engagement with climate change diplomacy. And it allowed Australia to play a constructive role in the growing international efforts to act on climate change, even despite the limits of domestic climate policy.

There is a further, paradoxical dimension to Abbott’s UNFCCC snub. If climate change is viewed through the lens of the narrow and short-term national economic interest, the future of Australia’s coal exports actually hinges on the terms of international agreements on climate change. If the Abbott government is determined to prop up this industry for a little longer, the government needs strong representation to put this case to the international community as effectively as possible.

Either way, whether as a constructive member of the international community or a determined protector of Australia’s immediate economic interests, the Australian government needs to send strong representation to UNFCCC meetings. On the verge of 2015 talks that shape to be the most important since Kyoto in 1997, disengagement from the climate regime at this point sends entirely the wrong message, both domestically and internationally. And it suggests that the Coalition’s shaky foreign and climate policy start is set to continue.

Matt McDonald does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

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

High Court casts a line on right to fish

community, fisheries, government

Nov 072013

Originalstory by Mark Schliebs, The Australian

THE right of Aborigines to take any fish caught for traditional purposes from waterways and oceans has been confirmed after the High Court yesterday handed a father and son victory in a four-year legal battle, ruling that native title meant state fishery laws did not apply to them.

Narrunga man Owen Karpany at West Beach in Adelaide yesterday after the High Court upheld his right to fish on the Yorke Peninsula. Photo: Kelly Barnes, The Australian

The Aboriginal men had been embroiled in a legal fight with South Australia's Labor government since 2009, when they caught 24 undersized abalone at Cape Elizabeth on the Yorke Peninsula. In a unanimous decision yesterday, the High Court ruled that South Australian fishing laws enacted in 1971 did not extinguish native title rights as the government had argued and found the Narrunga men had done nothing wrong by keeping their catch.

At least two other states and the federal government have unsuccessfully argued that laws restricting the killing of fauna have extinguished native title.

The High Court ruled in August that federal and Queensland laws did not extinguish the native title right of Torres Strait Island communities to fish commercially without a licence.

In what was seen as a national precedent, Aboriginal man Murrandoo Yanner won a High Court battle with the Queensland government in 1999 after using a traditional form of harpoon to catch two juvenile crocodiles in the Gulf of Carpentaria five years earlier, despite state laws against the hunting of the young reptiles.

In yesterday's ruling, South Australia's Attorney-General John Rau was ordered to pay legal costs to the two men, estimated to be more than $400,000.

Owen Karpany and his son Daniel, 26, were charged by authorities with taking the abalone in their native title area at Cape Elizabeth, southwest of Moonta on the Yorke Peninsula, northwest of Adelaide. "I didn't expect it to go as far as it went, but it went to the highest court in all of Australia with an outcome in my favour," said Mr Karpany, 61.

He said other native title holders were "over the moon".

"I did have my doubters, but I just stuck to my guns," he said.

"I knew that I was right from the beginning."

The Magistrates Court had originally ruled the men could not be punished over the abalone as they had been exercising their native title rights, but the government appealed the case to the full bench of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court last year ruled that native title fishing rights across the state were extinguished with the introduction of the 1971 Fisheries Act, which was replaced by the Fisheries Management Act in 2007. Yesterday, the High Court overruled that finding.

"The (legislation) did not prohibit or restrict the applicants, as native title holders, from gathering or fishing for abalone in the waters concerned where they did so for the purpose of satisfying their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs and in exercise or enjoyment of their native title rights and interests," the High Court ruled.

"The conceded native title right of the applicants was therefore a right to take fish from the relevant waters. That right comprehended the taking of abalone, including undersize abalone."

Perth barrister Greg McIntyre SC, a member of the Law Council of Australia's native title working group, said the ruling built on the August decision that fisheries laws could not override native title.

He said although the rulings would not have a direct impact on other states' fisheries laws, a principle on native title rights had been set by the court.

Andrew Beckworth, a lawyer from South Australian Native Title Services, who assisted the men, said the four-year battle had cost the government, which was always unlikely to win, hundreds of thousands of dollars. "More than anything, we were just bewildered that our state government persisted with this argument," he said. "We're not sure what they were trying to achieve."

Mr Rau has sought advice from the crown solicitor on the impact of the ruling, but said he did not fear widespread taking of under-sized fish.

Rangers catch croc in Mary River near Maryborough

government, threatened species

Nov 072013

Original story by By Frances Adcock, ABC News

Rangers have captured one of the two crocodiles lurking in the Mary River near Maryborough in south-east Queensland.

Crocodile seen near Maryborough, another 3.5 metre crocodile sitting on the banks of the Mary River in May 2012. Photo: Brad Marsellos, ABC Wide Bay

The 3.1 metre female saltwater crocodile was harpooned by rangers on a boat patrol of the Mary River in Maryborough overnight.

This croc was first spotted by fishermen in July, but the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service has been patrolling the river since May 2012, when the first 3.5 metre crocodile was sighted.

Environment Minister Andrew Powell says the female croc had shown no interest in the tasty food traps on offer.

"This croc has been very wary of our rangers on the river for many months now," he said.

Mr Powell says it was quite an operation to catch the reptile.

"It surfaced about a metre away from one of our boats at about 2:00am (AEST) and [rangers] were able to fire a non-lethal harpoon and then wrap it up in a piece of rope and actually swim it in to a boat ramp," he said.

Saltwater crocodiles

One of two species in Australia - saltwater and freshwater - but both can live in either fresh or salt water
'Croc country' typically reaches as far south as the Boyne River near Gladstone, 500km north of Brisbane
Crocs mostly live in tidal reaches of rivers but also move in lagoons, rivers, and swamps up to hundreds of kilometres inland
An average male may be 3-4m long and weigh 200-300kg. Females rarely reach over 3.5m and weigh up to 150kg.
More aggressive in breeding season, which runs from September to April

Sources: Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

"Between my rangers and some very helpful police officers, they were able to remove it from the water and have it ready to transport to a croc farm in Rockhampton in central Queensland."

However, Mr Powell says despite the capture, residents should remain vigilant with the larger saltie still lurking.

"People do need to be croc-wise around the Mary River," he said.

"The one remaining is even larger again and people need to be very careful around boat ramps and fishing."

Rangers say they will continue boat patrols until it is caught.

Crocodile experts say the pair may have been breeding.

Disaster managers prepare for wet season at Gympie

community, government, waterways/wetlands

Oct 302013

Original story by Bruce Atkinson, ABC News

Disaster agencies are meeting today in Gympie, one of Australia's most flood-prone cities, to discuss preparations for the wet season.

View Larger Map

The south-east Queensland city has had five major floods in the last two years but is currently in the middle of a dry spell.

Police, State Emergency Service (SES), council and other emergency groups will discuss their disaster plans after a briefing from the weather bureau.

Acting Mayor Tony Perrett says Gympie is well prepared.

"One of the great lessons that has come out of it for us is to make certain that we are prepared right across the region," he said.

"Particularly flooding in the last few years has affected many of our outlying areas and we've managed to establish community information groups right across the region.

"They're our eyes and ears in respect of the way the community operates and what they're observing."

Councillor Perrett says the dissemination of information by the local disaster management group (LDMG) during and after disasters is vital.

"That's something, particularly in this region, we've been quite good at," he said.

"At the end of the day, we're only as good as the information we get.

"That's why we've established a broader network now - to provide that information directly to the LDMG so we can provide a more timely response and particularly to work on methods of distributing that information."

Economy and ecology on North Stradbroke

community, government, wildlife

Oct 302013

Original story by Melinda Howells, ABC News

Resource company Sibelco says it did not get everything it wanted in negotiations with the Queensland Government over its sand mining leases on North Stradbroke Island.

A parliamentary committee is examining new laws that would extend sand mining on the Island off Brisbane until 2035.

Sibelco CEO Campbell Jones was questioned about meetings with Premier Campbell Newman to negotiate the proposed legislation.

The sand mine on North Stradbroke Island. Photo: Giulio Saggin, ABC News.

"No we didn't get everything that we wanted," he said.

"There is not a restoration of all of our tenure."

Sibelco says it injects $130 million a year into the region and the new laws balance economic and environmental interests.

It says the previous government's plan to close the largest mine by 2019 would have hurt the local economy.

But environmental groups say an extension of sand mining on North Stradbroke will harm the island's ecosystem.

Evan Hamman from the Environmental Defenders Office says the legislation states that the Government must extend mining leases with no avenues for appeal in the courts.

"There shouldn't be special legislation in this regard, it's unprecedented," he said.

Paul Donatiu from the National Parks Association of Queensland says lakes and wetlands are under threat.

"It puts at risk these incredible, beautiful and rare places," he said.

Cleveland MP Mark Robinson's electorate takes in North Stradbroke.

He questioned the motives of some people giving evidence, asking about their links to the island.

"Are you just anti mining? How many of your members actually live on the island, are residents?" he said.

Climate debate must stick to the science

community, environment, government

Oct 272013

Original story by Heath Aston, Sydney Morning Herald

The author of a report that lays bare the connection between climate change and extreme bushfires has expressed his ''frustration'' with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Environment Minister Greg Hunt for their refusal to accept scientific consensus on climate change.

Professor Will Steffen, who co-authored the soon-to-be-released bushfire report by the Climate Council, was responding to Mr Abbott's assertion in a newspaper interview with leading climate sceptic Andrew Bolt that drawing a link between the savage fires now plaguing NSW and climate change was ''complete hogwash''.

We never go to secondary sources like that.

"We never go to secondary sources like that.": Professor Will Steffen. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The Climate Council report, a summary of which was revealed by Fairfax Media on Friday, found a clear link between rising temperatures and a longer, more dangerous bushfire season in south-eastern Australia.

''We would certainly prefer that this debate be elevated to the real scientific facts as are reported in the scientific literature and as are assessed very competently by the IPCC, the CSIRO and the Bureau [of Meteorology] and the scientists we rely on,'' Professor Steffen said.

''We'd like to see a debate in this country that gets beyond these futile arguments about the science, which have been settled for decades in the scientific literature, and get on with the real debate about what is really the best way forward with dealing with the problem.

''So, yes, it is frustrating having to go back again and again and again and talk about what the science actually says.''

He said if the climate keeps warming at the current rate, the number of days of extreme fire danger each year will double by the middle of the century.

''That's a worst-case scenario and we certainly hope we don't get there. But to make sure we don't get there we have to get emissions of greenhouse gases down very rapidly and very deeply,'' he said.

''For us it's very clear cut, we are seeing an influence of climate change on bushfire conditions, particularly bushfire risk.''

But Professor Steffen said it was too early to determine whether the NSW fires are ''unprecedented'' for their unseasonal ferocity - as has been asserted by the NSW Rural Fire Service.

The Climate Council, which was reformed as an independent body after Mr Hunt abolished it on his second day in the job, will release the report in full next month. It collates 60 pieces of peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate change and fire.

Professor Steffen said Wikipedia, the crowd-edited online encyclopaedia, was not one of his research tools: ''We never go to secondary sources like that.''

Mr Hunt has been criticised for citing Wikipedia as evidence that bushfires are a perennial Australian hazard, unrelated to a warming climate.

On Friday, the Australian Library and Information Association issued a public letter urging the minister to rely on ''well-researched facts''.

The letter states: ''If the slashing of government libraries continues, we will see more politicians quoting Wikipedia and fewer using high quality scientifically proven facts when making life-changing decisions. Hopefully this gaffe will encourage the minister to use his own specialist library and inspire other ministers to ensure that their libraries are fully funded and resourced.''

Threatened species list in need of a good edit

government, threatened species

Oct 272013

Original story by Stephen Garnett at The Australian

A hooded plover chick on a NSW South Coast beach.

ON July 9, 1904, Alan Owston shot a female rainbow bee-eater that had migrated north from Australia to the island of Okinawa south of Japan.

This bedraggled bird, now in the American Museum of Natural History, remains the only record of a bee-eater from Japan. Despite this, 70 years after the bird died, the bee-eater was appended to the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement.

JAMBA, as it is known, is one four international agreements that make migrants matters of national environmental significance under Australia's foremost environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Because bee-eaters appear on an EPBC Act list of migrants, every environmental impact assessment has to consider whether a proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the species.

None ever have, because bee-eaters are abundant and widespread. However, for the very reason that they are so common, almost every environmental consultant has a copy-and-paste paragraph justifying why bee-eaters should again be ignored - though they have sometimes had to argue hard to convince those setting conditions.

Forty years ago the author of the JAMBA schedules was probably pleased to get any bird recognised under international law. The same list includes several extinct species and one, the Roper River scrub-robin, which we now think never existed.

Today, however, such inclusions are seen as at best a waste of time, at worst a major unnecessary impediment. So too are the many marine species than never touch the sea - including some that never cross water at all if they can help it. Birds like Trumpet Manucodes that never fly across water, even to islands just offshore, are still listed as marine species.

Such errors in listing are more than petty mistakes. They can have major ramifications - both for the species they miss and the species wrongly included.

To take the first group - the ones that ought to be listed. In 2010 I led a review of the status of Australia's birds using mostly the same criteria used to list species under the EPBC Act. The experts around the country who contributed to that year-long review concluded that 125 species and subspecies of Australian bird are threatened. The EPBC list includes just 91 of those.

Similarly 53 per cent of the 206 birds that regularly cross Australian borders on migration are omitted from the migratory bird list attached to the EPBC Act.

As a result, birds well known to be threatened, like the Hooded Plovers that try to survive on the increasingly busy beaches of south-east Australia, remain unprotected despite ongoing declines.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which overseas listing, is well aware of the deficiencies of its lists and has been trying to do something about it. However, despite the efforts of the under-resourced and overworked staff in the Department of Environment, attempts to update the list are glacial given the processes currently used for assessment.

Listing currently involves detailed submissions by members of the public that are exhaustively reviewed one by one, each review taking months. Almost 85pc of species on the EPBC lists are unchanged since the Act was drawn up in 1999. Most of these were a legacy of lists developed earlier still. Despite huge changes in threats, numbers and knowledge, it will be 2060 before all listed species are reviewed let alone deserving new ones added.

Originally the Act did insist that the lists had to be kept up to date. However, after a review pointed out that this wasn't happening, amendments passed in 2006 simply deleted the obligation. Of course, every review of the Act since then has pointed out the same problem, the latest being a Senate committee report handed down just before the recent election.

Reviews have also noted that omissions to the list are only part of the issue. Equally problematic are the species that are included on lists erroneously.

For birds, our review suggested that 22 of the EPBC listed "threatened species" probably should not be there. Similarly 32pc of the listed 287 migratory birds do not meet the definitions of migratory under the Act and only 38pc of the nearly 293 bird species listed as marine occur regularly in Commonwealth waters.

Bad listings damage the credibility and legitimacy of the Act.

As an example, the golden sun-moth used to be found only in native grasslands and grassy woodlands. These have lost 99pc of their original extent and the species is listed as "critically endangered" - the closest category to extinction. Now the moth has learnt to eat Chilean needle-grass, a noxious weed. Some companies with sun moth habitat dominated by Chilean needle-grass they wish to develop, have not only had to buy areas of native grassland to offset sun-moth habitat loss but have also had to destroy the needle-grass in which the moth was found.

Another example is the southern subspecies of squatter pigeon. In the nineteenth century it disappeared from NSW. However, it remains widespread through eastern Queensland as far north as the Atherton Tablelands. It remains listed as threatened under the Act even though it has been known for at least 15 years that the subspecies does not meet the listing criteria. As a result, it comes up time and again in assessments and has to be accommodated in conservation plans.

Most companies roll over when faced with obligations, even if absurd, because they need the permit. They do what is needed and get on with their business. But the payments rankle and provide fertile ground for concerns over green tape.

Bad listings end up bringing the Act into disrepute by insisting on the protection of environmental values that are not threatened and holding up developments that, under other circumstances, would be seen as legitimate.

As recognised by the Senate Committee, the solution is not all that difficult. Under current arrangements nominations for listing are sent to experts for review. This then influences the recommendations of the committee. The solution would be for those experts to review the lists in their entirety, assessing public submissions as part of the review. For only a few contentious species would the committee's judgement be required.

Such reviews could also make recommendations for removal of non-threatened species from lists - something that can currently only be initiated by the TSSC itself. At the moment, this rarely happens because the committee is so busy trying to ensure the list of the genuinely threatened is complete.

Migratory and marine species could readily be dealt with through the same process, though this would need agreement from partner countries.

Money spent by companies on threatened species as part of development proposals far outstrips any direct conservation expenditure. However, such outlays are an investment by the people in biodiversity since many of these costs are tax-deductible. It is therefore essential that they do actually benefit conservation not just pay expensive lip-service.

Surveys have shown that by far the majority of Australians do not want extinctions to occur. Many people, however, have heard stories of developments being delayed to protect species that seem to them to be coping pretty well.

They are often right. It is only with better lists that the EPBC Act will regain its social license and environmental regulation will be seen again as a legitimate way of protecting natural heritage that is at genuine risk of being lost or damaged.

Stephen Garnett is professor of conservation and sustainable livelihoods at Charles Darwin University

Nations discuss fresh bid to create world’s largest marine park

fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Oct 252013

Original story by Tyson Shine, ABC News

The future of what would be the world's largest marine reserve could be decided at a meeting in Hobart this week.

A large iceberg in Antarctic waters, photographed from the Aurora Australis in January 2011. The CCAMLR meeting will again consider a push to protect 1.6 million square kilometres around East Antarctica. Photo: Emma Carlos

A fresh bid to have areas of the ocean off East Antarctica and a revised protection plan for the Ross Sea are being discussed by the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Hundreds of scientists began discussions on Monday and delegates will begin their meeting tomorrow.

Two main proposals will be considered.

High on the agenda is a proposal to create a series of marine protected areas off East Antarctica, covering 1.6 million square kilometres.

It would effectively ban fishing in the last pristine marine environment on earth.

Australia, France and the European Union are pushing for the change and most of CCAMLR's 25 members support it, but Russia's position is unclear.

Another proposed protected zone for the Ross Sea, jointly suggested by the US and New Zealand, has been reduced by 40 per cent, after Russia and the Ukraine blocked the plan at CCAMLR's last meeting in Germany in July.

Russia holds lucrative fishing licences in the area and raised legal objections.

If the new bid succeeds it would result in the protection of 1.25 million square kilometres.

What is CCAMLR?

A group of 25 bodies (24 nations and the EU)

Established by international convention in 1982 to conserve Antarctic marine life.

Set up in response to increasing commercial interest in Antarctic krill resources.

Secretariat based in Hobart, Australia.

It is understood Norway will now support the creation of the protected areas after holding initial reservations about the zones' impact on its fishing industry.

Conservationists lobbying for the park are being led by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance.

Spokesman Steven Campbell says it is important to protect the areas "while its key ocean ecosystems are still intact."

The countries that make up CCAMLR need to show real leadership to deliver on their commitments to establish a network of [Marine Protected Areas] on Antarctica," he said.

The alliance will attend the meetings to try to convince member nations to back the proposal.

The results of the meeting are not expected to be known until the meeting winds up in two weeks.

Older Entries Newer Entries