Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for June 2005

Talking Veg Tomorrow in Both Blackall & Canberra

By

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meets tomorrow (Friday) in Canberra. On the agenda is the need for an intergovernmental agreement on native vegetation.

This follows on from the findings of an August 2004 Productivity Commission Report on ‘The Impacts of Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Regulations’ which concluded that much of the legislation enacted to protect native vegetation has actually become an impediment to native vegetation protection.

A report by James Whelan and Kristen Lyons titled ‘Rethinking deliberative governance: dissecting the Queensland landclearing campaign’ gives some insight into what drove the campaigning in Queensland that drove the legislation in Queensland. (It would be great if the Queensland Conservation Council made the entire report accessible from their website as it is a fascinating read.) And I quote from their report:

Firstly, it (the legislation) represents a significant shift in Queensland, and indeed Australian history, by establishing a framework for the regulation of land use on both leasehold and freehold land. This represents a significant departure from dominant ideologies that accept private landowners retain sovereignty over land management.

Secondly, it indicates conditional support for regional governance processes by conservationists. In this case they were unwilling to support those with limited or flawed terms of reference despite acknowledging the potential for collaborative natural resource management to foster civil society, social capital and democratic legitimacy of land management decisions. These outcomes are important prerequisites for the implementation of regulation. However, the macro settings for these consultative processes attracted strident critique from the conservation movement. Regional processes, were identified as a “business as usual” approach to land use, which established a narrow framework for policy setting that limited the possibility of achieving significant positive conservation outcomes. Many ENGOs were consequently highly critical of these so-called collaborative models, and refused to participate.

The third insight to emerge from this landclearing campaign related to concerned the powerful impact of community action and political contestation by ENGOs. Rather than relying on partnership models of governance which may have been conducive to local ownership of management decisions and enhance social capital, the landclearing campaign was resolved through conflict and contestation. Rather than directing energies into collaborating within a flawed framework, and risk being captured by a process with a narrow and restricted agenda, ENGOs engaged in a diverse range of campaign strategies to pressure government to govern. Importantly, the landclearing case demonstrates the determination of the conservation movement to hold government accountable for responsible natural resource management, rather than deferring to problematic consultative processes. In conclusion, the success of this campaign suggests that the emphasis placed on a narrowly defined set of social capital indicators in prevailing natural resource management arrangements may overlook the broader range of political and social strategies that can effect social change.

Some western Queensland landholders will meet tomorrow to consider their options, their campaign, to get the legislation changed. They believe that in its current form it is impractical, and concurr with the Productivity Commission report that it is also an impediment to environmental protection. I will be a speaker at the meeting to be held at 2.00pm in the Memorial Sports Club, Blackall. BBQ and drinks to follow. All welcome.

Vague About Collapse

By

I watched Jared Diamond (Californian Professor of Geography, Pulitzer Prize winner for ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’)on the SBS Insight program last night. He is in Australia promoting his new book ‘Collapse’ and was interviewed last night with an audience of mostly farmers about the state of Australian agriculture including the drought.

I was a bit confused by his comments. They didn’t seem consistent with what he has written in the new book.

I have reviewed the chapter on Australia (Ch 13, Mining Australia) for the upcoming June issue of British Journal ‘Energy and Environment’. There are some extracts from this review on the IPA website.

I asked my 16 year old daughter (who hasn’t read his book, but watched the program with me) what she thought. She commented that he seemed vague and was good at avoiding the questions.

In ‘Collapse’ Diamond contends that the Australian environment is generally unproductive and has been irreversibly damaged by European farming, forestry and fisheries practices – and is on the verge of collapse.

I agree that the history of Australian agriculture and fisheries includes some examples of collapse and near collapse, but also examples of spectacular renewal.

Given his book is about “how societies choose to fail or survive” I was surprised that the book doesn’t include discussion of the importance of secure property rights, environmental activism or the role of modern technology.

Diamond did make an interesting comment on ABC Radio National on Monday morning. He said that in writing the book he discovered the important role of the elite in complex societies with collapse of societies resulting when the elite “insulate themselves from the consequences of their own actions”.

I thought of how removed Australia’s elite are from the consequences of many of the recent political decisions to close down industries in rural and regional Australia including fishing and timber.

I have looked for a ‘take away message’ in his book and just keep remembering his advice in the last few paragraphs of the last pages (pg 559-560). He suggests that we should all donate to environmental groups, for example WWF. And I wonder, so the elite can keep campaigning?

In reviewing the chapter on Australia I did look at some of our fisheries statistics. Fishery status reports are available at the AFFA website.
I was concerned to learn that the Southern bluefin tuna fishery is shared with Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and New Zealand. The total global catch peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes and was then in general decline for three decades. Since 1990 the total catch has ranged from between 13,231 tonnes (1994) to 19,588 tonnes (1999). Stock assessments suggest that the parental biomass is low but stable and unlikely to recover to target levels unless all countries agree to abide by national allocations as determined by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. While Australia apparently operates within its allocation, Japan has not agreed to operate within its allocation, and Indonesia does not recognise the Commission.

I have not found transcripts of any of the interviews he has done so far during this visit to Australia, but he did speak on ABC Radio National in January 2003. At the end of this interview he suggests Bill Gates believes our environmental problems will be solved with technology.