Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

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.

Stop Climate Change – Impossible!

By

When I see people holding ‘stop climate change’ placards, I wish for a new environmental movement. One that understands and accepts planet earth. An environment movement that understand, whether or not we do something about carbon dioxide emissions, there will be climate change. There has always been climate change on planet earth.

Interestingly, a Queensland University of Technology study released today has concluded that climate change during the latter part of the Pleistocene, not the arrival of aboriginals, drove the extinction of Australia’s megafauna.

“That culprit is climate,” Mr Price said. “It does appear that climate change was the major factor in driving the megafauna extinct.”

Mr Price says the dig has revealed dramatic changes in habitat – and consequently fauna – during the latter part of the Pleistocene epoch, which stretched from 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago.

“It tends to be the case that over the entire period of the deposition, the faunas and the habitats were changing so it reflected the contraction and possibly local extinction of different sorts of habitats, mainly the woodland and vine-thicketed habitat,” he said.

“That’s associated with different species going at least locally extinct over that same period.”

He says that in the oldest sections of the dig, which date back about 45,000 years, species that depended on woodland and vine thickets dominated.

In the mid-section, there was a mix of species that were either “habitat generalists” or preferred open areas, which Mr Price says suggests the environment was evolving toward grasslands.

“By the latest Pleistocene, species dependent on wetter conditions disappear from the fossil record, while animals such as long-nosed bandicoots that aren’t habitat-specific remain,” he said.

And I say,Greenpeace and WWF may be rich, may be multinational corporations, but the bottomline is, they can not stop climate change.

And at last, a new progressive and evidence-based environmental organisation, the Australian Environment Foundation (the AEF), will be launched this Sunday and almost has a website.

Exclude Cattle from National Parks?

By

Cattle can destroy a landscape. The Victorian Premier last week banned grazing in the Alpine National Park on the basis that:
Cattle:
* trample streambanks, springs and soaks
* damage and destroy fragile alpine mossbeds
* create bare ground, disturb soil and cause erosion
* pollute water
* are a significant threat to a number of rare and threatened plants and animals and plant communities
* reduce what should be spectacular wildflower displays
* spread weeds
* cover the landscape in cowpats and spoil the enjoyment of the area for visitors.

Incredibly the areas that have sustained this ‘degradation’ associated with grazing for about 170 years, are so ecologically important, that the Victorian Government will now seek World Heritage listing.

A key government report acknowledges that “Seasonal high country grazing is a long and ongoing tradition both within the park and in areas of the high country outside the park.”

The report suggests that this cultural heritage can be maintained and celebrated into the future in a variety of ways including “through books, poetry, films and festivals.”

Imagine the outcry if the Victorian Government proposed to “maintained and celebrated” mossbeds through books and festivals.

…………………………….
Some Background and a Question:

I was interested to learn that grazing in the High Country has been increasingly regulated since the 1940s including a ban on sheep and horses and burning-off, restrictions on the length of the grazing season, maximum stocking levels set, and grazing progressively removed from several areas including the highest peaks.

According to the same Victorian Government Fact Sheet, 47 percent of the Alpine National Park has been licensed for grazing.

But according to member for the Central Highlands, Hon. E.G. Stoney, speaking in the Victorian Parliament last Wednesday, “The announcement of the total removal of the cattle from the park breaks a legislated promise to have seven-year renewable licences. The promise was made by the Cain government in order that agreement could be reached to create the massive Alpine National Park, and that happened in 1989. Part of the agreement was that cattle were to be taken off the higher exposed peaks on the north Bogongs and the Bluff. The cattlemen sacrificed vast tracts of grazing land, with 10 families losing everything, which meant 90 per cent of the new park was closed to grazing back then. The Bracks government has broken the agreement; it has now taken the remaining 10 per cent of the land for cheap political gain.”

So up until now has grazing been allowed in 47 percent or 10 percent of the Alpine National Park?

CSIRO & The Australian Get It Wrong on Rice

By

The front page of The Australian on Wednesday (May 25th) included the headline: “Thirstiest crop: 21,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of rice.”

The figure was based on a “new CSIRO study, which found that of 135 industries analyzed, rice was one of the nation’s most costly – financially, socially and environmentally.”

The Rice Growers’ Association issued a media release, “If it was remotely true that it took 21,000 litres the Australian rice industry would use more water to grow a crop than currently even exists in the whole Murray-Darling system.”

(Based on the figures in The Australian, and given rice growers produce on average one million tonnes of rice a year, I calculate they would use 21,000 gigalitres of water! Unbelievable given 24,000 gigalitres is the average inflow into the entire Murray Darling system.)

Also on Wednesday, CSIRO issued a media release titled “Correction on water usage figures assigned to rice industry” that stated, “Industry sources note that the water intensity per kilogram of rice is between 1,500 and 2,000 litres per kilogram. We accept this figure.”

So how did our national newspaper get it so wrong?

According to the CSIRO media release, “in preparation of some promotional material, specifically the cover of the CD version of the Balancing Act report, an error was inadvertently made.”

But there are also problems interpreting the information in the CSIRO report.

The report states that “The water intensity of (rice) production is … 8,400 litres per dollar of final consumption.” (Interestingly this figure was revised down to 8,000 litres in the media release issued on Wednesday).

Given rice is selling at $0.31 per kg, I calculate that rice uses 2,604 litre per kilogram – based on the 8,400 litres per dollar figure.

This is far higher than the “accepted industry figure” of between 2,000 and 1,500 litres per kilogram!

The reports authors worked from the assumption that: “There is a general consensus that ‘leaving it all to market forces’ will not effectively serve the interests of our children’s children.”

Yet the report is couched in ‘dollars per unit of water’ terms, never mind how bizarre the result. Indeed because commodity prices fluctuate, the method as a comparison across the economy appears to be only valid for a particular point in time i.e. for any given year. For example, the price of rice has been dropping over the last few years – down from A$ 0.45 per kg in 1998-99 to $0.31 per kg in 2003-04. Using the CSIRO methodology and based on a water usage of 1,500 litre per tonne, when rice is selling at $0.31 then rice is using 4,838 litres per dollar of final consumption, while with rice selling at $0.45 then rice is using 3,333 litres per dollar of final consumption. And if the CSIRO accepts the industry figure of 2,000 litres per kilogram, with rice selling at $0.31, then rice is using 6,452 litres per dollar of final consumption. Crazy stuff!

Yet the report has been promoted as providing a “relatively simple presentation of highly complex issues” to enable people “who are interested in sustainability to move beyond decisions based on dollars and cents and enable them to make decisions based on a contribution to society, environment, and economy.”

No. It is more like rather a lot of game playing, and posturing, and then back-peddling when caught-out.

Interestingly journalists at our respected daily national newspaper were taken in, but then confused by the analysis. And how did they let the so very wrong 21,000 litres slip through the editorial process?

Then again it has been my experience that The Australian has been too quick, for too long, to print almost anything that is highly critical of agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin.

And brace yourself for a week of even worse, probably beginning tomorrow when Jared Diamond addresses the Sydney Writer’s Festival.

On Drought & Cubbie Station

By

“There is much to be said for a policy of abolishing all drought relief assistance. Drought is a normal, natural, cyclic factor of our environment and if you can not understand and cope with that, maybe you should not be farming” concludes Warwick Hughes in his latest drought assessment(30 kbs).

And some of the farmers I met over the last couple of days would agree with Warwick.

Yesterday I was driven from Brewarrina (100 kms east of Bourke) all the way north to the Queensland border, and beyond, to check out Cubbie Station and the water infrastructure associated with this now large cotton farm.

Many farmers in this Border River’s region are more concerned about the possibility of their Coolibahs no-longer being flooded because of the Cubbie water diversions than ‘the drought’.

Pop Petersen of Brenda Station, which straddles the NSW-Queensland border on the Culgoa River, has data on river heights back to 1890. Her records suggest 110 floods over the last 100 years. The last flood was in March 1999. Pop claims that there should have been a flood just last year with a river height of 5.76 metres, but that it didn’t happen because of the new upstream diversions.

I plan to test Pop’s hypothesis by plotting the historical data on river heights for Brenda Station against the historical rainfall records for that catchment.

I have some pictures (30-70 kbs in size) from the trip:

Dawn at Bokhara Huts, Brewarrina: View image

The Culgoa at Brenda Station: View image

Some signage at Weilmoringel (3 floodway signs perhaps equals wishful thinking): View image

I saw more emus than sheep: View image

Part of a Cubbie Station bund wall that we followed for 31kms: View image

Intake channel for Cubbie from the Culgoa: View image

End.