government – Page 17 – ANGFA Queensland

Let’s put threatened species on the election agenda

Aug 222013

Original story by Stephen Garnett, Charles Darwin University; Hugh Possingham, and John Woinarski, Charles Darwin University at The Conversation

The Coalition will instate a Commissioner for Threatened Species should it form government, according to shadow environment minister Greg Hunt. The minister says that, while management plans for threatened species exist, they are not being enacted thoroughly enough.

Our threatened species, like this young Leadbeater’s Possum, need some attention. Photo: Flickr/Greens MPs

For many the announcement is the first sign of relief in a campaign, from both major parties, that has been almost devoid of positive environmental policies. Most Australians do not want more of our species to become extinct, even if it does mean some constraints on development.

So, what needs to change if we’re to look after our threatened species properly?

The Coalition’s announcement also responds to messages underlying recommendations from a senate report on threatened species released last week – although a Commissioner was not explicitly recommended.

Out of the report’s 44 recommendations, five stand out.

The first is to bring the “official” roll-call of threatened species lists up-to-date. Review after review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) have recommended that the lists be updated regularly. Over 80% of the species on the list were simply adopted from an old list prepared in the 1990s.

Some should not be there at all – in fact there is one bird on the list, the Roper River Scrub-robin – that never existed – it was almost certainly a fraud.

Other species on the list are now known to be common, not threatened, and drive both government regulators and industry to distraction. Because they are on the list, conditions have to be imposed on proposals that insist on conservation work for species that need no protection.

Worse still are the species that should be on the lists but aren’t. The pace of threatened species bureaucracy is not keeping up with our growing knowledge about threatened species. Such unlisted threatened species live now in an administrative limbo in which they have no protection from development (or other factors).

While the existing vetting body (the Threatened Species Scientific Committee) does its level best to keep up with public nominations to get on the list, the process is hopelessly under-resourced and woefully slow.

The senate inquiry recommends that the process of adding or deleting species from the official list of threatened species should be expedited using the pool of talent and goodwill present in the wider community of experts.

The second major recommendation is for dedicated threatened species funding. A few years ago the Commonwealth began to emphasise a landscape approach to biodiversity conservation rather than funding many individual programs for particular threatened species. This policy change was hoping to focus on the causes and broader picture of landscape dysfunction rather than on the symptoms (individual threatened species).

But the change led to abandonment of the essential management of individual threatened species and their threats, and has had some catastrophic consequences. As recognised by the senate inquiry, there needs to be a balanced portfolio of investment in both landscapes and species.

Our research suggests that A$10 million a year should secure all Australian birds from extinction. We estimate that dedicated funding of about A$100 million a year could prevent further extinctions of just about all Australian species.

The amounts are not unreasonable. Importantly most of the money would go into creating jobs in rural and remote areas where the threatened species live, strengthening local community economies and giving value to lands that are often useless for farming or other commercial use.

Also, threatened species investments are highly effective. A submission to the inquiry from BirdLife Australia listed a string of extraordinary successes in threatened species management in Australia. We can turn things around and secure Australia’s natural heritage for the price of two cappuccinos per Australian per year. The latest success is the extraordinarily well-conceived and executed removal of rabbits and rodents from Macquarie Island, but there have been many others over the years.

The senate also recommends long-term funding be committed. AusAid now makes commitments to fund programs for eight years with potential to extend after reviews at four years. Threatened species funding should adopt the same approach. It is inconceivable that the deep-rooted problems affecting many Australian threatened species can be remedied in the one to three-year projects typical of conservation grants. The inevitable consequences of such ephemeral funding is chaotic project management, failure, frustration, waste and concern from auditors due to the poor return on investment. The management of threatened species is a long-term commitment.

The fourth key recommendation is to spend the money efficiently. Scattering the money to squeaky lobby groups and needy electorates will squander it. Australia leads the world in research on how best to allocate conservation funds. The Commonwealth, through the National Environment Research Program, funds a centre led by one of us for this very purpose. Research on cost-effective conservation allocation is already being followed by Tasmania, New South Wales and New Zealand. It is time for the Commonwealth to act on the findings of its own far-sighted research investments

Finally threatened species conservation needs proper research and planning. All successful conservation programs to date have been built on a good knowledge base. That then feeds into good planning. A random sample of recovery plans suggested that they fail as often as they succeed.

But the good ones, such as the South Coast Threatened Bird Recovery Plan in Western Australia, have proved critical to threatened species management, bringing together diverse teams with a common purpose to retain one or more species for our descendants to enjoy. The Senate committee recommends that a collaborative recovery planning approach, bringing together all key actors likely to be involved in recovery, be supported. We concur, provided such teams are managed properly.

There is still time for the major parties to commit to retaining all species in Australia. Such a commitment would be good value at twice the price. But it will require more than wishful thinking and platitudes: this recent senate inquiry provides the strategic approach on which enduring success can be built.

Stephen Garnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council and serves on committees advising BirdLife Australia and the Northern Territory Government.

Hugh Possingham receives his primary funding from The Australian Research Council, DSEWPaC National Environmental Research Program and international science-based non-government organisations, WWF Australia and small grants from other organisations. He is affiliated with The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, The Nature Conservation Society of Australia and Birds Australia.

John Woinarski receives funding from the National Environmental Research Program for research on declining native mammals, but this piece is not directly related to that support.

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

Australian Antarctic science is being frozen out by budget cuts

environment, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 222013

Original story by Matt King, University of Tasmania at The Conversation

A hundred years after Australian explorer and geologist Douglas Mawson returned from his epic scientific adventures in Antarctica, Australia’s scientific exploration of the icy southern continent has all but ground to a halt, for reasons I’ll discuss below.

Lack of funding is just the tip of the iceberg for Australian Antarctic research. Photo: AAP/Australian Antarctic Division

This matters to Australians because, if Antarctica sneezes, we get a cold. Whether it’s unusual weather affecting our agriculture, food prices and economy or the gradual loss of our coastline due to sea level rise, Antarctica matters.

So the fact scientists such as myself have experienced a near-total rundown in their ability to understand the most remote bits of Antarctica is of great concern.

What’s gone wrong?

If filling the tank of your car has sent you broke in recent times, then the idea of filling the 2.4-million-litre tank of Australia’s icebreaker, the Aurora Australis, will give you sleepless nights.

Aurora Australis icebreaker berthed in Hobart. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Rather than increase funding to cover these and related costs, the government this year handed an 8% budget cut to the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD).

Based on the outskirts of Hobart, the AAD is an agency of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) and, according to its mission, it:

advances Australia’s strategic, scientific, environmental and economic interests in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean by protecting, administering and researching the region.

Scientists collecting water samples from under the sea ice in 2007. Photo: AAP/Australian Antarctic Division

The recent budget cuts led a former AAD director to conclude that Australia’s Antarctic programme is now running on “the smell of an oily rag”.

The immediate science crisis can be fixed quite simply: restore the budget. That will allow moderate levels of remote fieldwork, although the most remote sections of the Australian Antarctic Territories, which may be most susceptible to climate change, will remain remote. Put simply, the AAD needs a reversal in the cuts, and more.

But funding cuts are not the only thing that’s gone wrong.

Risk associated with fieldwork has been reassessed in recent years and increasingly regulated. It is now not uncommon for helicopters to fly without a scientific purpose, burning expensive fuel, because of new requirements that they remain within visual contact of one another in case of an accident. Given each flight may depend on several earlier flights to deploy fuel, this is particularly insidious.

No-one can serve four masters

If supporting and conducting Antarctic science was the preeminent objective of the AAD, the spending decisions would be relatively simple, being largely based on scientific merit.

But the AAD has been given three other priorities by SEWPC and its predecessors:

provide advice to government
maintain a strategic presence within Antarctica
protect the environment

Within the bounds of a fixed budget, these are the equivalent of husky dogs competing for food. Has one emerged as a pack leader that dominates while the others must be content with scraps?

A husky pup on the first Australasian Antarctic Expedition, 1911-1914.

If the AAD is compared to its most similar cousin, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), evidence emerges that the science husky is not as preeminent within the AAD as it is within BAS.

From 2004 to 2012, BAS produced four times as many scientific papers as the AAD with half the institutional budget. Part of that efficiency is related to BAS (and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) having chosen to operate just two expensive permanent Antarctic stations compared to the AAD’s three – a decision that puts the strategic-presence “husky” further up the chain than BAS does.

The other key noticeable difference with BAS is the budget spent on researching human impacts in Antarctica. Under the Antarctic Treaty, all nations are rightly required to minimise the impact on their scientific endeavour within Antarctica.

But within a fixed-budget environment this means prioritisation. Should the AAD choose a new sewage plant for Davis station that is relatively cheap and does a 90% job, or a more expensive one that does a 99% job?

Which dog should they feed most? SEWPC has given clear direction by giving the AAD the job of:

protecting, administering and researching the [Antarctic and sub-Antarctic] region

thus reflecting the mission of SEWPC to:

protect our environment and heritage, and to promote a sustainable way of life.

This is reflected in staffing – BAS has just one person working on human impacts while the AAD has a major research stream that operates at the same level as its research on understanding the Antarctic Ice Sheet for instance.

South Korean researcher Lee Jong-ik collects meteorites on a blue ice field in Victoria Land, Antarctica, in 2012. Photo: AAP/Yonhap News Agency

Radical change is needed

Australia needs to rethink why it has a presence in Antarctica and then state the foremost priority of its Antarctic programme.

Since understanding Antarctica is critical to Australia’s future, and only the AAD can provide Australian scientists with access to the deep field, there is strong argument for prioritisation such that, when AAD budgets are changed, logistics are expanded first and cut last.

For the AAD to flourish as a nimble provider of world-class science and logistics its oversight likely needs to be moved from SEWPC with its foremost priority seemingly environmental protection and its embedded government bureaucracy.

The BAS is a world-leader because it is located within the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council – an equivalent of Australia’s Australian Research Council – and such a model needs to be considered for the AAD.

A vacuum of Australian science within remote Antarctica will be filled by other nations – South Korea, the US and China all have the ability to operate within the Australian Antarctic Territories, and they do so. Will Australians be satisfied with the complete lack of Antarctic field research and exploration our immediate future seems to hold?

Douglas Mawson, for one, would not be.

Matt King works for the University of Tasmania. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (operator of the British Antarctic Survey).

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

Newman vows to push ahead with sand mining on North Stradbroke Island

government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 202013

Original story by James Kelly, ABC News

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman says the State Government will press ahead with plans to extend sand mining on North Stradbroke Island to 2035.

He was responding to the release of a report that argues sand mining on the island, off Brisbane, should be regulated by federal rather than state environmental laws.

North Stradbroke Island residents gather today to call for an end to sand mining on the island. Photo: Glen Carruthers

Quandamooka traditional owners, Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) representatives, and North Stradbroke residents gathered on the island to unveil a giant banner calling on political parties to "Stand up for Straddie".

ACF chief executive officer Don Henry says the mine is affecting the adjacent 18 Mile Swamp wetlands because it interrupts the flow of water.

"It's internationally recognised as very important for birdlife and other endangered species," he said.

Mr Henry says a report commissioned by the Friends of Stradbroke Island suggests the activities of the Enterprise sand mine are of National Environmental Significance.

He says that means the mine should be regulated by federal environmental laws, not state laws.

Sue Ellen Carew from Friends of Stradbroke says it is an internationally significant wetland.

"The fact that those precious wetlands which overlay an enormous aquifer are being damaged is a great tragedy," she said.

Newman says people voted for jobs

The former Bligh Labor government ruled sand mining on the island would be phased out by 2019.

But Mr Newman says his Government will not be following that lead.

"During the state election campaign people voted very, very strongly on Stradbroke Island for mining to continue," he said.

"If Federal Labor or the Greens want to interfere and shut it down and stop jobs in Queensland well, let it be on their heads.

"We are delivering what we said we'd do - we're supporting jobs on the island."

Mine operator Sibelco says the operation adheres to environmental best-practice principles and there has been no negative impact on the wetlands.

Sandmining on Stradbroke Island. Some groups say the mine should be regulated by federal environmental laws, not state laws. Photo: Giulio Saggin/ABC News

Which politician will protect our unique species?

community, environment, government, threatened species, wildlife

Aug 152013

Original story by Bob Brown, ABC Environment

Voters uninspired by a choice between Labor and Liberal have a third option, writes Bob Brown.

AS AUSTRALIA'S PRESIDENTAL-STYLE election unfolds, the environment is being squeezed off the agenda. Neither Tony Abbott nor Kevin Rudd has an environmental bone in his body. Far from the environment being a non-issue, it is being undermined on a wide front by both party leaders.

Who cares about these guys? Only the Greens, says Bob Brown.

Both are committed to winding back the climate change laws which Christine Milne, Adam Bandt and I negotiated with Julia Gillard and her ministers. Both will allow mining in Tasmania's Tarkine rainforest. Both will let Japan send its whaling fleet back to Antarctica next summer. Both back thousands of coal seam gas wells in the nation's farmlands regardless of what the farmers think.

A vote for Labor or the Coalition is a vote for the continued loss of the habitat of rare and endangered wildlife like the swift parrot, koala, Tasmanian devil and Victoria's state emblem, Leadbeaters possum.

Older voters will remember Gough Whitlam signing the World Heritage convention in the wake of the bloody-minded destruction of Tasmania's Lake Pedder National Park by Tasmanian Labor Premier 'Electric Eric' Reece. That led directly to the Great Barrier Reef's protective listing. Malcolm Fraser stopped whaling and protected Fraser Island. Famously Bob Hawke saved the Franklin River thirty years ago and then the the Daintree Rainforest and Kakadu.

However, under mounting pressure from resource extractors such as miners and loggers, along with the greenwash industry, this process of protecting the nation's natural heritage with real teeth has slowed dramatically.

In the meagre Howard years, although the Prime Minister declared himself to be "greenish", no new world heritage nominations were made without the prior agreement of the state involved. Even so, after his celebrated 2004 stoush with Labor leader Mark Latham over Tasmania's forests, Howard protected the nation's largest temperate rainforest, the Tarkine, from imminent logging.

In 2013, Labor's environment minister, Tony Burke, goaded by NSW right power broker Paul Howes, dumped the National Heritage Council's advice to protect the same Tarkine from mining. Burke gave the go-ahead for the bulldozers to invade vital habitat for the Tasmanian devil and Tasmania's giant wedgetail eagle. Burke's successor, Mark Butler, moved quickly this month to agree to more mining even though it was subject to objection by environmentalists in the courts. Butler turned down requests from Save the Tarkine (I am the group's patron) to visit the Tarkine rainforest.

A vote for Rudd is a vote for Tarkine mining. Tony Abbott ditto. What can environmentally-alert voters do?

Not voting is not an option. Voting Green is. It is also the obvious alternative for major party supporters disgusted by that other potent vote-turner, the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers coming to this wealthy nation by boat.

If the Coalition wins the election as the polls suggest, the Senate becomes doubly important for the environment. The Coalition will be hoping it can win control of the Senate to convert it from the people's backstop to Abbott's rubber stamp.

While the Rudd-Abbott contest will produce no environmental dividend, it may well produce its own brand of greenwash. Watch for policy announcements with pictures of young people planting trees while, out of shot, Victoria's great forests continue to fall and Leadbeaters possum follows the Tasmanian tiger down that needless path to deliberated extinction.

Government department commits to science-based policy

community, government

Aug 152013

Original story by Sunanda Creagh, The Conversation

Two peak bodies for science researchers today welcomed the release of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Science Strategy 2013-2018, a document that aims to ensure government policy is informed by science.

Science should help inform policy aimed at tackling issues that extend beyond electoral cycles, peak bodies for researchers said today. Photo: NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

The strategy underlined the importance of science to public policy development, said Andrew Metcalfe AO, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

“Good science is the foundation of productive, competitive and sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries,” he wrote in the document’s foreword.

“The importance of that role will only get stronger in the future – not
only in DAFF, but across the Australian Public Service and within the Australian community as a whole.”

The science strategy aimed to ensure that “a thriving culture of science in Australia is something that we must contribute to and draw upon at every opportunity. Our peers and partners across all disciplines are central to our success,” he said.

Beyond the election cycle

Professor Les Field, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) at the University of New South Wales and secretary of science policy at the Australian Academy of Science, welcomed the release of the strategy.

“We are very keen to make sure that governments make better use of the research sector in providing informed comment and assistance in evidence based decision making into the future,” he said.

“The big issues — whether it’s climate change or how to manage the Murray Darling Basin — these things have horizons well beyond the election cycle and having a balanced, well-informed decision making process is crucial for tackling these problems into the future,” said Professor Field.

“At the moment, the government does have a much shorter term perspective on just about everything. Many of the issues we are talking about are larger issues that require a strategic understanding of technical concepts and you need to make the best use of the science sector.”

Chief Executive of Universities Australia, Belinda Robinson, said the DAFF science strategy “represents a genuine and substantial effort to recognise and embed scientific knowledge into the processes, organisational culture, and ultimately the policy development and management of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.”

“Embedding research into our culture, business and policy development processes, will enhance the well-being of all Australians and make us a more productive and prosperous nation.”

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

Coal’s damage is cumulative: let’s assess it that way

environment, government

Aug 142013

Original story by Matthew Currell, RMIT University at The Conversation

Queensland’s groundwater is vital to the continued success of its agriculture. Photo: Brian Yap

Mine operators have proposed nine major new coal mines for the Galilee Basin in central Queensland. Those proposals currently being assessed by the Queensland government could significantly impact water resources on a regional scale. But they are not being assessed as a whole.

Already some projects have received approval, though there has been no co-ordinated assessment of their combined effects on groundwater and surface water. This is a major oversight that has gone unchecked because of flaws in the way mining projects have been assessed to date in Australia.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee appointed by the Federal Government to look at new major coal and coal seam gas projects found there has been inadequate examination of cumulative impacts of multiple mining operations – as are proposed in the Galilee – on water resources.

This includes both groundwater and surface water. These are the lifeblood of agriculture and the environment, and are part of an interconnected system. Impacts in one area cannot be isolated from others.

The proposed Galilee projects include the Alpha mine and at least eight others under assessment or approved. They cover a stretch of land hundreds of kilometres long parallel to the Queensland Great Divide. Both open cut and underground longwall mining are proposed.

Both inevitably require high levels of interference with water – particularly, groundwater. In open cut mining, groundwater levels must be reduced by pumping to allow mining. If the Galilee mines go ahead, groundwater levels would need to be depressed in places by tens of meters at each site. In combination, this would likely create drawdown cones (regions where groundwater heights decline due to pumping), covering thousands of square kilometres.

Proponents of some mines acknowledge that after the mines are closed, recovery of water levels will be slow – in the order of centuries – and may never occur completely.

Longwall coal mining also fundamentally changes geological structure by inducing fracturing, which increases permeability and increases water leakage between layers. It can potentially cause serious land subsidence, and irreversible impacts on surface water and shallow groundwater. This has been extensively documented in New South Wales' Hunter Valley.

In the Galilee Basin, the proposed mines are close to areas where much of the recharge to the Great Artesian Basin is thought to occur. There may be effects on the groundwater flow field (the pressures controlling direction and rate of groundwater flow), that extend into these areas.

Shallower local aquifers are also important water supplies for agriculture, and are in many places connected to surface water resources. These would also be affected on a large scale across the region.

The projected total water consumption of the mines is tens of thousands of megalitres per year, but the estimates from individual mines are uncertain. In light of these issues, it is extremely concerning that cumulative impacts on water – that is, the combined impact of the full set of proposed mines – have to date not been examined.

Groundwater’s response to pumping depends on the properties of the geological materials in which it is stored, which can vary greatly. An aquifer’s response has no regard for the boundaries of a mine lease area – drawdown can and often does extend well beyond areas of pumping.

Many of the mines proposed are close together (including Alpha, South Galilee, Kevin’s Corner and China First). This raises the prospect of creating interfering and overlapping areas of drawdown, which could cause regional changes to groundwater flow. It makes no sense to assess impacts on a mine-by-mine basis, without examining combined effects of all proposed mines operating in concert.

We have the modelling tools to assess cumulative impacts of mining on groundwater. However, we need more data on the degree of connectivity between individual aquifer layers and their key hydraulic properties to run them effectively. Without this data, and unless we model the strata as a connected system that is simultaneously affected by combined stresses, the real impacts can’t be accurately captured.

The mining sector is increasingly affecting Australia’s precious water. Communities are reasonably concerned about long-term effects on livelihoods, the environment and our capacity to produce food. The federal government’s introduction of a better assessment process for coal and CSG impacts on water makes sense. But the process is clearly not working if individual mines in an area of intense new development can be approved on a staggered basis without a regional, cumulative assessment of total impact.

Everyone involved, from federal and state government, to the mine proponents and investors, should respect that this needs to be part of a proper assessment process. Statements about “unnecessary green tape” by politicians are counter-productive to such a process, which is required in order to safeguard some of our most important national assets.

Matthew Currell 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.

Birdsville croc wins a free trip to Dreamworld

community, government, wildlife

Aug 132013

Original story by Chrissy Arthur, ABC News

A croc catcher is due in south-western Queensland this morning in an effort to move the freshwater crocodile living at Birdsville.

For several months, the crocodile has been living in a waterhole in the Diamantina River at Birdsville, up to 1,000 kilometres away from its usual habitat.

The freshwater crocodile is being removed from the Diamantina River near Birdsville and taken to Dreamworld. Photo: Sandra McShane via ABC News

It was first spotted by a tourist.

The Diamantina Shire Council says it has been working with the Queensland Environment Department on ways to move the reptile.

Al Mucci from the Dreamworld theme park says the croc will be taken back to the Gold Coast.

"We would house it while expressions of interest go out to the broader community, the broader zoo industry," he said.

"The animal may not end up at Dreamworld but we will find a home for it."

Happy outcome

Diamantina Mayor Geoff Morton says while Birdsville will lose a talking point, relocating it is the best option for residents and the crocodile.

"Birdsville will lose a conversation point that's for sure," he said.

"If you'd have told me even 12 months ago we were going to have one in the river, I would have wondered what you'd been drinking.

"It was our primary intention to humanely relocate it.

"It's a win for everybody - it's a win for the community, they've got exactly what they want.

"It's a win for the crocodile - he is going to be looked after, probably better than he has been in his tiny shallow waterhole for the last couple of months."

Putting a foot in it: an election that ignores ecology

community, environment, government

Aug 132013

Original story by Robert Douglas at The Conversation

Australia’s ecological footprint is unhealthy and unfair; it’s time to talk about it.

As we ponder who will lead our next government we need to ask who will best deal with Australia’s overblown ecological footprint. It’s about seven global hectares per person, which is about the size of seven soccer fields and is among the largest per capita footprints in the world. It is an issue that demands attention at the highest level.

So far in the election campaign, we have seen some discussion about reducing our carbon footprint, but none about how our economic system is putting more pressure on the planet than it can bear.

The ecological footprint measures the demand humans make on nature. It estimates how much biologically active land and water a human population uses to support its way of life. This system of accounting also measures bio-capacity, which is how much biologically productive area nature has available to provide these essential and nonessential services.

The available bio-capacity of the planet is declining alarmingly as human numbers and their individual demands on environments continue to increase.

Footprint analysis takes account of the sustainability of our food production and purchases, our manufacturing, buildings, transport systems and our energy systems.

By measuring and monitoring the ecological footprint of an individual, household, community, city, business, nation or all of humanity, we can continuously monitor our pressure on the planet and make progress in reducing it. We can and must learn urgently to live within the resource constraints of a single Earth.

Footprint methodology is well-validated science and it is being used nationally and internationally by governments and civil institutions to monitor comprehensively human impact on the environment.

It estimates footprints in global hectares per person. These are about the size of a soccer field. The 15% who live in rich countries use about 6.5 global hectares per person.

The 48% who live in middle income countries use 1.98 hectares per person and the 37% living in poor countries have an average footprint of 0.8 ha per person.

It’s time Australia’s politicians checked our footprint. Photo:AAP/Alan Porritt

For a population of 7 billion people to live sustainably, we can use about 1.8 ha per person. We are using about 50% more that that and the planet is in ecological deficit.

We are surviving this overshoot by depleting the earth’s resources, raising the earth’s temperature and reducing further the stock of biologically active land and water at the very time that human demands for them are increasing. Our environmental overshoot will go on increasing unless we very quickly transform the human mindset and the global economy, contain the growth in human numbers and develop more equitable systems for sharing across national borders.

The really good news is that about half of the human ecological footprint is attributable to carbon dioxide emissions. We know how to reduce these and by weaning our species off energy derived from burning fossil fuels, humanity’s footprint could be very significantly and rapidly reduced towards Earth’s bio capacity.

How is all of this relevant to the coming election? We need to see evidence that our aspiring leaders understand this desperately serious issue, and its implications for Australians and other world citizens. Business as usual is no longer a responsible option. If we continue to expand our footprint, it further constricts the ability of poor countries to expand theirs and hastens the decline in existing biologically active land and water. Our next prime minister must be ecologically footprint literate.

We must engage our would-be political leaders in an urgent national discussion about the disgraceful inadequacy of our current carbon emission targets.

To avoid doing what we could so easily do in drastically cutting our carbon emissions is a culpable crime, not only against our own citizens of the future, but against the capacity of people in developing countries to achieve even basic standards of health and wellbeing.

And we need a national debate about the way our economic system affects our growing footprint. We need fundamental discussions about what we want from an economic system and how we should measure progress in achieving it.

Which brings us to the issue of human health and wellbeing. Increasing numbers of thoughtful Australians are recognising the impossibility of continuing with business as usual and are seeking leadership that will place population health and wellbeing at the heart of the national enterprise, which it is manifestly not at present.

The future survival of our species depends on us reaching an acceptable relationship with the finite resources of the planet. The mental health of our young requires that they can envision a viable future for themselves and their children. They need to know we are doing the things that as a nation make hope possible.

We must engage Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd in active consideration of these realities.

Robert Douglas is a Director of the NGO Australia21 - www.australia21.org.au - which seeks to expand national understanding of issues such as Australia's ecological footprint.

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

Port Stephens fish studies expand

fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 092013

Original story by Matthew Kelly, Newcastle Herald

OUT OF WATER: Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson and research scientist Dr Nick Otway examine a whaler shark at Port Stephens Fisheries Institute. Photo: Natalie Grono

A $1.2 MILLION extension to Port Stephens Fisheries Institute's tank and aquaria system will allow it to expand its world-leading marine research projects.

The institute's library has also been refurbished to house extra resources from the Cronulla fisheries centre and offices have been built for transferred staff.

The new works were officially opened yesterday.

The institute is a multi-disciplinary centre with staff from five divisions in primary industries.

Its units include science and research, aquaculture, conservation and marine parks, fisheries compliance and biosecurity.

Current research projects are being undertaken in the habitat of the Eastern King prawn, Sydney rock oysters and threatened sharks.

Three of the four fisheries research leaders are based at Port Stephens, as well as the Director of Fisheries Research, Bob Creese, and the executive director of Fisheries NSW, Geoff Allan.

"This enhancement of the Port Stephens Fisheries Institute is great news for the region and the international marine community," Port Stephens MP Craig Baumann said.

Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson said Fisheries NSW now had a critical mass of scientists and managers based at Port Stephens.

"These staff are leading the field and specialising in aquaculture and aquatic ecosystems research and aquatic biosecurity," she said.

"Scientists at the Port Stephens Fisheries Institute are involved in a number of internationally renowned research projects and enjoy a stand-alone reputation as the best in their field."

Hunter River erosion project creating ‘fish hotels’

community, fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Aug 092013

Original story at ABC News

The Department of Primary Industries says the fifth stage of a project to stop erosion in the Hunter River is now complete.

A fish "hotel" being swung into position in the upper Hunter River, near Muswellbrook. Photo: : NSW DPI

With funding from the State and Commonwealth Governments, the Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority has strategically placed more than 140 logs in the river near Muswellbrook.

The logs help stop erosion and provide native fish with shelter, a place to hide from predators and somewhere to breed.

Senior Fisheries Conservation Officer Kylie Russell says the log structures are known as 'fish hotels'.

"They're essentially like a big constructed pile of logs, a bit like how you use to put matchsticks or paddlepop sticks together," she said.

"They're bolted together and then put into the river.

"They do a number of different jobs - the main thing is to actually protect the bank from erosion but along they way they also provide really good fish habitat for the native fish."

Ms Russell says the project has been underway for five years and will continue if federal and state funding is available.

She says the logs are taking the place of trees that were removed many years ago.

"And really, in hindsight, that was a fairly poor decision so we really need to try and put that vegetation back in to help stop the erosion," she said.

"Of course those trees would have fallen in and created these kind of log structures naturally, and so we are really just trying to help replaced what's been lost naturally."

Older Entries Newer Entries