Ten Commitments: Reshaping the Lucky Countrys Environment

Ten Commitments Reshaping the Lucky Country’s Environment

Editors: David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton

Mark Stafford Smith • Suzanne M. Prober • Richard J. Hobbs • John Woinarski • Brendan Gleeson • Phil McManus Ove Hoegh-Guldberg • Alan Butler • Stephen E. Williams • Joanne L. Isaac • Ken Green • Richard Kingsford Neil Lazarow • Timothy F. Smith • Beverley Clarke • Robert Kearney • John Williams • Fiona McKenzie Gavin M. Mudd • Richard Price • Ralf Buckley • Lesley Hughes • Will Steffen • Peter Cullen • Mike Young Jim McColl • Hugh P. Possingham • Max Bourke • Barney Foran • Nicole Gurran • Anthony J. McMichael A. Malcolm Gill • John Handmer • Naomi Brown • Ian Lowe • Jon Altman • Sue Jackson

TEN COMMITMENTS

TEN COMMITMENTS Reshaping the Lucky Country’s Environment

Editors: David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton

© The authors 2008 All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, duplicating or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Contact CSIRO PUBLISHING for all permission requests. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Ten commitments : reshaping the lucky country’s environment editor David Lindenmayer … [et al.]. Collingwood, Vic. : CSIRO Publishing, 2008. 9780643095854 (pbk.) Includes index. Bibliography. Environmental monitoring – Australia. Environmental policy – Australia. Nature – Effect of human beings on – Australia. Land use – Environmental aspects – Australia Lindenmayer, David. 333.73160994 Published by CSIRO PUBLISHING 150 Oxford Street (PO Box 1139) Collingwood VIC 3066 Australia Telephone: Local call: Fax: Email: Web site:

+61 3 9662 7666 1300 788 000 (Australia only) +61 3 9662 7555 [email protected] www.publish.csiro.au

Front cover (from left): © Nick Pitsas; © iStockphoto; © CSIRO Set in 10/12 Adobe Minion and ITC Stone Sans Edited by Janet Walker Cover and text design by James Kelly Typeset by Desktop Concepts Pty Ltd, Melbourne Index by Indexicana Printed in Australia by Ligare The paper this book is printed on is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) © 1996 FSC A.C. The FSC promotes environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forests. CSIRO PUBLISHING publishes and distributes scientific, technical and health science books, magazines and journals from Australia to a worldwide audience and conducts these activities autonomously from the research activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of, and should not be attributed to, the publisher or CSIRO.

Contents

List of contributors Dedication Acknowledgements

ix xxi xxiii

Eulogy for Peter Cullen John Williams

xxv

Introduction David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton

1

Ecosystems

3

Deserts Steve Morton

5

Rangelands Mark Stafford Smith

11

Temperate eucalypt woodlands Suzanne M. Prober and Richard J. Hobbs

19

Tropical savannas John Woinarski

27

Urban settlements Brendan Gleeson and Phil McManus

37

Forests, forestry and forest management David Lindenmayer

43

Tropical marine ecosystems Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

51

Temperate marine systems Alan Butler

59

Tropical rainforests Stephen E. Williams and Joanne L. Isaac

67

Alpine ecosystems Ken Green

73

vi

Ten Commitments

Rivers, wetlands and estuaries Richard Kingsford

79

Coasts Neil Lazarow, Timothy F. Smith and Beverley Clarke

87

Sectors Fisheries Robert Kearney

95 97

Agriculture John Williams and Fiona McKenzie

105

Mining Gavin M. Mudd

113

Grazing Richard Price

119

Tourism Ralf Buckley

125

Cross-cutting themes

131

Climate change Lesley Hughes

133

The future of Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene Will Steffen

143

Water Peter Cullen, Mike Young and Jim McColl

149

Biodiversity Hugh P. Possingham

155

The private sector Max Bourke

163

Population Barney Foran and Nicole Gurran

169

Sustaining Australia’s health Anthony J. McMichael

179

Contents

Landscape fires A. Malcolm Gill

187

Emergency management John Handmer and Naomi Brown

193

Energy Ian Lowe

201

Indigenous land and sea management Jon Altman and Sue Jackson

207

Policy and institutional reforms Stephen Dovers

215

Synthesis and overview Synthesis and overview David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton Index

225 227

233

vii

List of contributors

Jon Altman Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University Jon Altman is Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research established at The Australian National University in 1990. Professor Altman has an academic background in economics and anthropology and has researched Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander economic development, with a strong emphasis on remote regions, for over 30 years. In recent years much of his research has focused on land rights and native title and the role that Indigenous Australians must play in managing the growing massive Indigenous estate; and the issue of Indigenous rights in new and emerging forms of property like water, carbon and biodiversity. Max Bourke Max Bourke AM has been a jackaroo/shearer, agricultural scientist, science broadcaster, Ministerial adviser, public servant (CEO of two statutory authorities) and chairman of a farming investment business. He has had a lifelong interest in ecology and history which he continues to pursue along with his roles as board member of both The Thomas Foundation and The Nature Conservancy (Australia). Naomi Brown Australasian Fire Authorities Council Naomi Brown has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Australasian Fire Authorities Council (AFAC) since December 2006. Naomi is also a board member of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) and the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC). Naomi took up the role of Director Community Safety at the Country Fire Authority (CFA) of Victoria in 2003. She had previously worked in her home state of Western Australia with the WA Fire and Emergency Services (FESA) for five years. She spent time there as Executive Director Community Safety and also Executive Director State Emergency Service and Volunteer Marine Rescue. Ralf Buckley Griffith University Ralf Buckley is Director of the International Centre for Ecotourism Research, and Research Director of the Climate Response Program at Griffith University. His interests focus on the interactions between tourism, conservation and climate change, with past publications on ecotourism and adventure tourism, tourism in parks, ecology and environmental management, and climate change adaptation. He is a member of World Heritage advisory bodies and IUCN commissions and taskforces, a judge and auditor for international tourism awards, and an active contributor to relevant policy processes and research in Australia and internationally. Further info: www.griffith.edu.au/centre/icer.

x

Ten Commitments

Alan Butler CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research For many years Alan Butler taught and studied marine ecology in the Zoology Department, University of Adelaide. For the last 12 years he has worked in the Perth, Brisbane and Hobart laboratories of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, where he is currently leader of the Southern Marine Systems Research Program. His research interests have been broad, but especially in the ecology of sessile marine animals; dynamics of populations, composition and dynamics of communities. This has included a variety of applied projects, interests in aspects of marine pollution, new anti-fouling techniques, deep-sea surveys and habitat mapping, environmental reporting and the development of systems of marine protected areas. His particular interest is in the management implications of ecological theory, and the application of theory to effective management. This interacts strongly with the concept of adaptive, ecosystem-based, integrated management of human uses of marine and coastal systems. Beverley Clarke School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management, Flinders University Dr Beverley Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Geography, Population and Environmental Management, Flinders University. She has experience in public and environmental policy evaluation specialising in coasts. Over the last 10 years she has been conducting research in environmental planning and governance, environmental impact assessment, community participation and integrated coastal management. She has published on topics such as measuring the effectiveness of community participation, needs assessment and capacity building, and the policy implications of sea level rise. Peter Cullen At the time of his death in 2008, Peter Cullen was a Commissioner of the National Water Commission, Chair of the Victorian Water Trust Advisory Council, a member of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee, a Director of Land and Water Australia, and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He was founding Chief Executive of the CRC for Freshwater Ecology at the University of Canberra from 1992–2002 and a Visiting Fellow at CSIRO Land and Water. He was a graduate in Agricultural Science from the University of Melbourne, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and a Member of the International Water Academy and the International Ecology Institute. Professor Cullen was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2004 for services to freshwater ecology, particularly in the areas of policy development, implementation and sustainability in relation to water and natural resource management, and to education. He was a leading commentator on land and water issues in Australia. Stephen Dovers Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University Stephen Dovers is Professor and Research Convener with the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University (ANU), undertaking research and education in environment and sustainability policy, climate adaptation, institutional change and disaster management. His recent books include Environment and Sustainability Policy

List of contributors

(Federation Press 2005), The Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions (Earthscan 2007, with J. Handmer), Institutional Change for Sustainable Development (Elgar 2007, with R. Connor) and the edited volume Managing Water for Australia (CSIRO 2007, with K. Hussey). Barney Foran Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University Barney Foran has degrees in agriculture and ecology which led to professional eras spanning rangeland ecology, agricultural systems, environmental science and long-term analysis of Australia’s physical economy. He led research teams in CSIRO’s Resource Futures group which produced long-term analyses of Australia’s physical economy focusing on human population (Future Dilemmas), marine fisheries (Fish Futures), land and water (Decision Points) and a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy (Balancing Act). His current work focuses on integrated solutions to Australia’s challenges of energy security and greenhouse mitigation. He is a research fellow at the ANU’s Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Institute of Land Water and Society at Charles Sturt University, and the Physics Department at the University of Sydney. He now lives in regional Victoria. A. Malcolm Gill Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University; CSIRO Plant Industry; Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre Dr A. Malcolm Gill is a research scientist who has been studying bushfires and their effects for nearly 40 years, largely with CSIRO Plant Industry, but more recently with The Australian National University as well. His interests include fire weather, fire behaviour, fire effects and fire management. The effects of fires studied by Dr Gill include those on eucalypts, biodiversity, water quality and urban interfaces. He is widely published and enjoys an international reputation. He has been the co-author or co-editor of a number of books. He was a member of the Victorian Bushfire Inquiry that followed the widespread fires of 2003. Brendan Gleeson Griffith University Brendan Gleeson is Director of the Urban Research Program and Professor of Urban Management and Policy at Griffith University. He has published widely in urban research, including books on making space for hope in the suburbs, and creating child-friendly cities. His new Griffith Review essay, ‘Waking from the Dream’, examines the sustainability threat facing our cities. Ken Green National Parks and Wildlife Service, Snowy Mountains Region Ken Green began his cold climate research as an undergraduate at the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the ANU where he studied synthesis of antifreeze in grasshoppers for his MSc qualifier, and insectivorous mammals and their prey beneath the snow for his PhD. He spent eight years with the Antarctic Division including full years at Davis in Antarctica and on subantarctic Heard Island. He has published widely in the field and is currently the National Parks and Wildlife Service alpine ecologist based in the Snowy Mountains.

xi

xii

Ten Commitments

Nicole Gurran Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney Nicole Gurran is an Associate Professor in the Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of Sydney. She is the author of the book Australian Urban Land Use Planning; Introducing Statutory Planning Practice in NSW (Sydney University Press 2007). Her research focuses on local planning, housing and managing urban development in highly sensitive environmental contexts. In 2007 she established the online Australian Urban Land Use Planning Policy Monitor, revealing how Australian local plans address matters like urban growth, housing diversity and affordability. John Handmer Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre; Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University John Handmer is Innovation Professor of Risk and Sustainability at RMIT University in Melbourne where he is head of the Centre for Risk and Community Safety and the Human Security Program, and one of four Research Program Leaders for the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Australian National University. A geographer, he holds a BA and PhD from ANU, and a MA from the University of Toronto. His current research is dedicated to improving community resilience and sustainability through providing the evidence base for policy and practice. Molly Harriss Olson Eco Futures Molly Harriss Olson is a Director of Eco Futures, an Australian-based international policy firm, and is the Founder and Convenor of the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development. Ms Olson was the Founding Executive Director of President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development at the White House (1992–1996). She serves on the Boards of the Green Building Council, The Australia Institute, and is Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board of Ecos Magazine (CSIRO Publishing). Ms Olson earned her joint Bachelor degrees in Environmental Studies and Economics with thesis honours from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She was a distinguished Bates Resident Scholar at Yale University where she earned a Masters in Environmental Policy from the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. In January 1995, Ms Olson was selected to be a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Leaders for Tomorrow program, made up of individuals worldwide born after 1950, who have distinguished themselves as recognised leaders in the world community. Richard J. Hobbs School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University Richard Hobbs is Professor of Environmental Science at Murdoch University, where he holds an Australian Professorial Fellowship, and leads the Ecosystem Restoration Laboratory. His particular interests are in vegetation dynamics and management, invasive species, ecosystem restoration, conservation biology and landscape ecology. He is the author of over 250 scientific publications and author/editor of 17 books. He serves or has served in executive positions in a number of learned societies and on numerous editorial boards, is currently Editor in Chief of the journal Restoration Ecology, and was elected to the Australian Academy of Science in 2004.

List of contributors

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has held academic positions at UCLA, Stanford University, the University of Sydney and the University of Queensland and is currently a member of the Australian Climate Group, the Royal Society (London) Marine Advisory Network and is a Reviewing Editors at Science Magazine. He also heads a large research laboratory (over 25 researchers and students) at the University of Queensland that is focused on the impacts of global warming and ocean acidification on marine ecosystems now and into the future. He completed his BSc (Honours) at the University of Sydney and PhD at UCLA in 1989, and was recognised in 1999 with the Eureka Prize for Research into the physiological mechanisms of coral bleaching. Lesley Hughes Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University Professor Lesley Hughes is a community ecologist from Macquarie University who has been studying the potential impacts of climate change on Australian species and ecosystems for over 15 years. Her research group is conducting a wide variety of investigations using bioclimatic modelling, field surveys, and experimental work on the impacts of elevated CO2 and temperature. She was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report and is a member of the Expert Advisory Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity for the Department of Climate Change. She is also Chair of the NSW Scientific Committee, responsible for listing threatened species in NSW, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of WWF Australia. Joanne L. Isaac Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, James Cook University Joanne Isaac is currently a post-doctoral researcher in the Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, School of Marine and Tropical Biology at James Cook University, Townsville. She is particularly interested in understanding how environmental change will influence life history and population persistence in animal populations and is using Wet Tropics vertebrates as a model system to investigate the links between life history, ecology, rarity and extinction risk. She has previously worked on a variety of native Australian mammals, and in particular explored the life history and ecology of common brushtail possums on Magnetic Island, Queensland. Sue Jackson CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Sue Jackson is a research scientist with CSIRO’s Division of Sustainable Ecosystems. She is a geographer with over 10 years experience researching the social dimensions of natural resource management in north Australia. During that time she has studied the interactions between the introduced environmental management and planning systems of the settler society and Indigenous values and customary management practice. The social impact of development projects on Indigenous communities has been a complementary research interest. Sue’s current research focus is the Indigenous rights and values associated with water and their successful incorporation into contemporary water resource management frameworks.

xiii

xiv

Ten Commitments

Robert Kearney Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra Bob Kearney is Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra. He is Chairman of the Research Committees of the Hermon Slade Foundation and the Australia and Pacific Scientific Foundation. Previous positions include: Director of the Skipjack and Tuna Programs for the South Pacific Commission, Chief Scientist of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Director of the NSW Fisheries Research Institute and Chairman of the Board of the World Fish Center. His current research interests include assessment of Australia’s future supply and demand for seafood and improving the standard of science used to underpin natural resource conservation and allocation. In 2005 he was awarded the Order of Australia in recognition of his contribution to international and Australian fisheries research and management. Richard Kingsford School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales Professor Richard Kingsford has focused his research over about the last 20 years on the waterbirds, wetlands and rivers of arid Australia, which cover about 70% of the continent. He has particularly been interested in flow patterns of some of the great desert rivers in Australia such as Cooper Creek. He has identified the significant impacts of water resource development on the rivers and wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basin and contributed to policy development. Aerial surveys of water-birds, mapping of wetlands and development of software for delivering knowledge about catchments are other areas of his work. His research has demonstrated the ecological values of many rivers and impacts of water resource in arid Australia, for which he received a Eureka Award in 2001. He has more than 100 publications including three books, including one on the desert rivers of the world. In 2007, he received the Hoffman Medal for contribution to global wetland science. Neil Lazarow Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University; Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Griffith University Neil Lazarow’s PhD research at the Australian National University focuses on a number of coastal planning and management challenges in Australia, including institutional challenges and better ways to incorporate local knowledge into decision-making. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University. He has qualifications in philosophy, political science and public policy. His research interests include coastal planning and management, climate adaptation, outdoor recreation and serious leisure, anthropology and economics. In 2006, along with Rob Fearon, Regina Souter and Stephen Dovers, he edited the monograph Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management, which was published by the Coastal Cooperative Research Centre. David Lindenmayer Fenner School of the Environment and Society, The Australian National University David Lindenmayer is a Professor of Ecology and Conservation Biology in the Fenner School of Environment and Society. He has published 500 scientific articles and 20 books in the fields of forest management, biodiversity conservation, landscape change and habitat fragmentation, woodland ecology and plantation design. He has won several awards for his research including

List of contributors

the Eureka Prize for Environmental Research, the Whitely Award (3 times), the Inaugural DaimlerChrysler Prize, The Australian Natural History Medallion, and the Bulletin Award for Australia’s most innovative environmental thinker. He was made a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2008. Ian Lowe School of Science, Griffith University Ian Lowe AO FTSE FQA is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. He directed the Commission for the Future in 1988 and chaired the advisory council that produced the first national report on the state of the environment in 1996. In 2000 he received the Queensland Premier’s Millennium Award for Excellence in Science and the Prime Minster’s Environmental Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement. He wrote a weekly column for New Scientist for 13 years and received the 2002 Eureka Prize for promotion of science and technology. Fiona McKenzie Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists Fiona McKenzie grew up on a farm in north-western NSW where she learnt first hand that to live within the natural limits of the Australian landscape has implications for rural communities as well as the ecosystems in which they reside. Fiona has a passion to discover new approaches to agriculture and natural resources management where both can prosper. Currently, Fiona is a Policy and Natural Resources Analyst with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists where she has demonstrated creativity in synthesising ideas from across a range of disciplines and turning scientific knowledge into concrete solutions. She previously worked in the former Healthy Rivers Commission, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and the Ministry for Science and Medical Research. Phil McManus School of Geosciences, University of Sydney Phil McManus is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney. He has tertiary qualifications in urban planning (Curtin), environmental studies (York, Canada) and a PhD in geography (Bristol). He is the author of Vortex Cities to Sustainable Cities: Australia’s Urban Challenge (UNSW Press 2005) and numerous journal articles and book chapters on the topics of sustainable cities, concepts of nature and urban environmental management. His current research includes urban forestry, and thoroughbred breeding and the uses of nature and tradition. Anthony J. McMichael National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University Tony McMichael, medical epidemiologist, is an NHMRC Australia Fellow at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, ANU. He was previously Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1994–2001. His research focuses on environmental influences on disease occurrence, both infectious and non-infectious. He has pioneered research into the health risks of climate change. During 1993–2007 he coordinated the assessment of health impacts for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

xv

xvi

Ten Commitments

Change (IPCC) – and shared with IPCC colleagues the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His books include Human Frontiers, Environments and Disease: Past Patterns, Uncertain Futures (Cambridge 2001) and Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses (WHO 2003). Steve Morton CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Steve Morton received his PhD in animal ecology from the University of Melbourne. After postdoctoral studies at the University of California, Irvine and the University of Sydney, he worked with the Office of the Supervising Scientist at Jabiru, Northern Territory, before joining CSIRO in Alice Springs. He then transferred to Canberra, became Chief of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, and joined the CSIRO Executive Team to oversee research in environment and energy. Following a year’s leave in Alice Springs, he has returned to CSIRO’s Executive with responsibility for manufacturing, materials and minerals. His interest continues to be the challenge of finding pathways towards sustainability. Gavin M. Mudd Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University Gavin Mudd has been an active researcher and advocate on the environmental impacts and management of mining for over a decade, with particular experience in brown coal ash, uranium mining and environmental management. He maintains an independent perspective, including research for mining companies, community groups and Aboriginal organisations. With strong qualifications and experience, he has developed a unique understanding of the multidisciplinary nature of the environmental aspects of mining, culminating in a distinctive view on an apparent oxymoron – that of ‘sustainable mining’. Additionally, he has active research interests in groundwater management, and urban water, especially with respect to climate change and sustainability. Gavin is presently Course Director for Environmental Engineering at Monash University. Hugh P. Possingham The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland Hugh Possingham topped Mathematics Honours at The University of Adelaide in 1984. Hugh completed his DPhil at Oxford University in 1987 as a Rhodes scholar. In 1995 he was appointed Foundation Chair of Environmental Science at the University of Adelaide. He is currently an ARC Federation Fellow (2006–2011) in Mathematics and Ecology at the University of Queensland and Director of a Commonwealth Environment Research Facility – http://www.aeda.edu. au/. The Possingham lab includes 30 people working on conservation and applied population ecology. Hugh’s public roles include: member of the Wentworth Group and former Chair of the Federal Biological Diversity Advisory Committee. In 2005 he was elected to the Australian Academy of Science. He suffers from obsessive bird watching. Richard Price Kiri-ganai Research Richard is Managing Director of Kiri-ganai Research. He has substantial experience in developing and managing national inter-disciplinary and multi-organisational programs in the environmental arena. In 1992 he established and managed Australia’s National Dryland Salinity Program until 2004. As a senior manager with Land & Water Australia, he also established and managed the National Climate Variability in Agriculture Program, National Soil

List of contributors

Acidification Program, the Research Integration and Adoption Program and the Social and Institutional Research Program. Richard has a PhD in the sociology of science, and currently coordinates Grain & Graze, a program involving 66 diverse research, industry and NRM institutions across the country. Richard won a Banksia Environmental Award in 2008 for his collaborative work on biodiversity in agriculture. Suzanne M. Prober CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Suzanne Prober is a plant ecologist at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Perth, and has worked for many years in temperate eucalypt woodlands of southern Australia. Her research is centred on understanding and restoring ecological function and diversity in woodlands and other ecological communities of fragmented agricultural landscapes, with a focus on plant-soil interactions, weed invasion, fire ecology and native grasses. She has been closely involved in the development of novel policy initiatives for conserving and restoring fragmented and degraded temperate woodlands. Current projects focus on understanding and restoring ecological resistance and resilience in woodlands and shrublands under climate change. Mark Stafford Smith CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Mostly based in Alice Springs, Mark Stafford Smith has lived and worked in the rangelands for nearly three decades. His initial research focused on arid zone ecology and sustainable management of grazing, particularly decision-making and financial returns in the face of climate variability. His work broadened to look at sustainable habitation of the remote Australia more generally, as a result of which he was the inaugural CEO of the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre. Today he divides his time between the Science of Desert Living, and his role as science director of CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship. Timothy F. Smith Regional Sustainability Research Group, University of the Sunshine Coast Associate Professor Tim Smith is the Director of the Regional Sustainability Research Group, and Research Coordinator for the Faculty of Science, Health and Education, at the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC). Prior to joining USC he was a senior research scientist with CSIRO and has also led research portfolios for national environmental research centres (e.g. Coastal Cooperative Research Centre and Catchment Hydrology Cooperative Research Centre). His research interests focus on transforming society towards sustainability. He lives in Doonan with his wife and three children, and is happiest when immersed in the ocean. Will Steffen Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University Professor Will Steffen is Director of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University, Canberra, and is also Science Adviser, Department of Climate Change, Australian Government. From 1998 to mid-2004, he served as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, based in Stockholm, Sweden. His research interests span a broad range within the field of Earth System science, with a special emphasis on terrestrial ecosystem interactions with global change, the global carbon cycle, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis, and sustainability and the Earth System.

xvii

xviii

Ten Commitments

John Williams Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists John Williams is one of Australia’s most respected scientists, and has led the national debate about sustainable land management. Prior to joining the Natural Resources Commission of NSW in 2006, he was Chief Scientist and Chair of the Department of Natural Resources’ Science and Information Board and Adjunct Professor in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management at Charles Sturt University. He retired from CSIRO as Chief of Land and Water in 2004 and is a founding member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. In 2005, he was awarded the prestigious Farrer Memorial Medal for achievement and excellence in agricultural science. He has extensive experience in providing national and international thought leadership in natural resource management, particularly in agriculture production and its environmental impact. Stephen E. Williams Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, James Cook University Stephen Williams is the Director for the Centre of Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change in the School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville. His research was the first to identify global climate change as a severe threatening process in the Australian Wet Tropics and since 2003, he has published 23 articles and reports on climate change impacts on biodiversity. His findings have been incorporated into the Wet Tropics conservation strategy, Queensland’s climate change policy, the National Biodiversity & Climate Change Action Plan, the ‘State of the Worlds Birds’ Report, and IUCN Climate Change reports. His work has resulted in the IPCC recognising the Australian Wet Tropics rainforests as a biodiversity hotspot that is highly threatened by global climate change. John Woinarski NT Department of Natural Resources, Environment and The Arts; School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University John Woinarski has worked on many issues related to the ecology, conservation and management of northern Australia, over the last 20 years. He is a Principal Scientist with the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and The Arts, an Adjunct Professorial Fellow with Charles Darwin University and a member of the Science Council of the Wild Country project. He has published about 200 scientific papers and book chapters, mostly about Australia’s tropical savannas. Mike Young University of Adelaide Mike Young is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and holds a Research Chair in Water Economics and Management at the University of Adelaide. A Member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, in 2006, Mike Young was awarded the Land and Water Australia Eureka Award for Water Research. The award recognises the significant contribution of his research with Jim McColl on the introduction of improved water entitlement, water allocation systems and trading systems. He is best known for his capacity to integrate biophysical and economic information to produce innovative policy proposals that catalyse change.

List of contributors

He holds Adjunct Professorships with the University of New England and Charles Sturt University. Prior to joining the University of Adelaide, he spent 30 years with CSIRO where amongst other things he established their Policy and Economic Research Unit with offices in Adelaide, Canberra and Perth. In 2003, he was awarded a centenary medal ‘for outstanding service through environmental economics.’ In 2005, the Canberra Times recognised him as ‘Green Australian of the Year.’ In 2006, the Canberra Times listed him as one of the 10 most influential people in water policy reform. More information can be found at www.myoung.net.au.

xix

Dedication

This book is dedicated to the memory of Peter Cullen and his extraordinary efforts in better managing Australia’s environmental resources.

Acknowledgements

The editors thank Rachel Muntz for her extensive work in co-ordinating the contributors of the chapters. John Manger and the other staff at CSIRO Publishing championed this project and admirably steered the book through the many hoops involved in getting it published.

Peter Cullen 1943–2008

There were so many facets to Peter Cullen’s life – agricultural scientist first then river ecologist, science communicator, reformer and champion of the rivers, the landscape and its people. All are equally important … I can only touch on a just a few. Peter began his working life as a science teacher with his feet on the ground and mud on his boots. As a young man, he plodded around irrigation farms, an agricultural scientist who conducted surveys on water use and irrigation efficiency in the 1960s. In the 1970s he became interested in rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. He was a highly skilled scuba diver, which offered completely new observation opportunities for aquatic science ... you could be in it, see it and measure it. Now Peter had his head under water. Eventually, he became a freshwater ecologist working in the field of water in the landscape. He worked on rivers, wetlands, nutrients in lakes and environmental flows. From being a young man with mud on his boots and his head under water, he became a great scientist celebrated by colleagues at the top of the international scientific community. But that was only the beginning ... that was the easy stuff. Peter managed to bridge science from practice to policy and politics. What made him a household name in Australia was not only his scientific expertise, but also his humanity. He cared how change, particularly radical change, affected people. He was tireless in his efforts to work with people from all backgrounds, to carve out a way to get the country from where we are to where we need to be. Peter took the science and turned it into an actionable policy. He pioneered and found ways to bring scientific knowledge into the conversation and experience of people and communities. We are yet to see a better communicator of water science than Peter. He was master of metaphor. He was adept at using simple and straightforward language when discussing complex problems. That was his great gift, and one he worked very hard at. He often had to voice uncomfortable truths, but he was able to lend insight, empathy and courage to what needed to be said. He softened hard facts with a mix of science, compassion, honesty, wicked good humor and great foresight. He was witty, articulate and inclusive. He did not seek to lay blame. He said: ‘While politicians like to blame other levels of government, the reality is that our politicians reflect what we as a community are telling them. We are all responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.’ He was one of the architects of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the National Water Initiative. He advised Prime Ministers and Premiers in nearly every State. It was Peter who stood at the initial meeting of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and said: ‘it’s up to people like us to say what needs to be said.’ Most scientists work in the public sector. There are a lot of pressures on people to remain silent and not say things that would make governments uncomfortable. Peter and others decided they were coming towards the ends of their careers and if they did not stand up and speak out on what they believed, no-one would.

xxvi

Ten Commitments

The courage it took for Peter to speak out cannot be underestimated. He kept talking, questioning everything that we do with water in this increasingly waterless country. Peter and the Wentworth Group were really challenging the way that we have managed land and water in Australia for over 200 years. There are a huge number of vested interests with a lot of money behind them to defend the status quo. All that people like Peter have are themselves, their knowledge and beliefs and their own energy. Peter committed himself to the public service of speaking up for what he thought was right. To this end he travelled untiringly, from remote woolsheds to the great hall of Parliament House. He questioned and challenged the existing ways of doing things. He transformed environmental debate from mere slogans to science to solutions. He knew how important it was to be able to provide solutions. He tried to teach us when to listen, when to sit still, to think, and when to speak. That is genuine wisdom – wisdom he was willing to share. Peter Cullen was a big man in every sense of the word. He was comfortable with Prime Ministers and Premiers, scientists, journalists, irrigators, farmers. He was a man of great courage who could never be bought or intimidated. He was always cool under pressure, always respectful. He was a great scientist, a great statesman and an even greater man. We feel the loss of this pillar of environmental leadership. We remember his humour and warmth, his foresight and wisdom. His will be sorely missed but he leaves behind a solid technical and public policy legacy for us to build on. Peter was a big man. He was strong, He was soft … He was gold. Yet he was no saint. He hated hypocrisy and double talk … we must not do that here. He encouraged us, challenged us, and he changed us. And he loved us ... and we loved him. And ... his legacy will live on. John Williams 19 March 2008

INTRODUCTION David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton

There can be no doubt that environmental problems and issues are a major concern to many Australians. They are firmly on the nation’s political agenda at all levels of government. They are also of increasing importance for many parts of the business sector. Our hope has been to produce a ‘must read’ book for politicians, policy makers, practitioners and others with interests in Australia’s environment. It has been written for a broad readership concerned about which issues must be tackled if Australia’s environmental problems are to be resolved – in terms of policies, practical actions and research. We asked each contributor to write in a straightforward, direct style, recognising that our audience is a broad one and believing that there is value in sometimes cutting through the complexities inherent in solving environmental problems. The book comprises a series of short, pithy essays about what the nation’s environmental leaders are thinking. The theme of each chapter is: ‘What are the 10 key issues that must be addressed urgently to improve Australia’s environment?’ All the authors of the chapters in this book are leaders in the field. Each was encouraged to expound his or her personal view in an important area of expertise, but with a particular focus on solutions to the challenge of environmental sustainability. Some have chosen to take a general perspective on options for action, whereas others have been more specific in their suggestions.

The structure of the book and the layout of the chapters Each chapter in this book has been kept deliberately short and to the point. This was done for good reason – today’s information ‘super-glut’ means that few people have the time to sift through the volume of detail available on any given topic, but in particular, environmental ones. The challenge to all authors was to summarise their ideas in a few thousand words. To this end, each chapter is structured in a similar way: 1 2 3 4 5

A box with the 10 key issues that the author believes need to be addressed. A short introductory paragraph with brief background on the topic. A paragraph on each issue explaining its essential importance. A concluding paragraph. A small set of references directing readers to additional literature on the topic.

This book is divided into four main parts. Environmental issues and problems over a wide range of Australia’s major ecosystems are dealt with in the first section of the book. The second targets environmental issues in particular sectors: mining, agriculture, fisheries, etc. The third contains chapters focused on cross-cutting themes such as climate change, energy and fire. The final section is one short synthesis chapter drawn from the preceding 29 chapters.

1

2

Ten Commitments

Caveats and notes As with any book comprising many topics written by different authors, there is variation in style and flavour. The author of each chapter was responsible for the content of the contribution, and as editors, we exercised only a light touch. We apologise to those of our colleagues who might have liked to have written on some of the topics in the book but have not had a chance to do so. However, our aim was to complete this book quickly so that the ideas might stand the best chance for adoption. We are acutely aware that there may well be more than 10 issues requiring attention in each sector, ecosystem or cross-cutting theme. Even so, we feel that asking key individuals to highlight their ‘top 10’ was a good place to start down the path of environmental action. We are also aware that the resolution of any given environmental problem is more complex than can be elucidated in a single paragraph, but again we believed that it was important for readers to gain a sense of what leading environmental thinkers are emphasising. Some readers will identify ecosystems (e.g. Antarctica) or sectors (e.g. horticulture) that were not examined; such omissions proved unavoidable. A big concern we had at the start of this book was the risk of extensive overlap between chapters. Indeed, this was why we did not commission a chapter on forests in the ecosystem section – key issues were covered in the contribution on forestry. In reality, we believe that there proved to be important synergies but limited overlap between chapters. Finally, we want readers to know that none of the authors will receive payments. Instead of royalties to the authors, funds generated from sales will be used to send copies of the book to interested people and organisations.

ECOSYSTEMS

DESERTS Steve Morton

1. Recognise the primacy of Indigenous interests through policy support. 2. Assist creation of resilient Indigenous settlements. 3. Develop reliable, meaningful and cheap measures of biodiversity and ecosystem health for a vast landscape. 4. Further develop the Indigenous Protected Areas program to ensure transparent achievement of natural resource benefits and integration with Aboriginal cultural life. 5. Manage outback adventure tourism so that it continues to prosper by providing a unique sense of space while benefiting Indigenous people. 6. Further engage resource companies in achieving sustainability. 7. Develop new approaches to the challenge of feral camels. 8. Invest in the next generation of rabbit control. 9. Choose natural assets to be targeted for fire management. 10. Attract philanthropic investors to a visionary program of large refuges for the original mammal fauna.

Introduction The Australian deserts lie beyond the fences. They are the lands that proved too tough for European settlement, too poor to support the cattle and sheep that elsewhere have transformed our perception of the country from desert into rangeland. If the rangelands are the outback, the deserts are the far outback. Some of this terrain possesses names familiar to many Australians, such as the Simpson Desert. Other areas may not be so widely known – the Gibson, Great Victoria, Great Sandy, Little Sandy and Tanami deserts. The deserts comprise 2 million km 2 of red sand. Sometimes the sand is swept into ridges, whereas in others there is featureless sandplain. Occasional rocky outcrops sometimes shed enough water after rain to create small creeks, and a few rivers penetrate from outside, but they all peter out. Three ecological features stand out: there is very little surface water; the leached sands are among the least fertile soils of our continent; and yet the country is covered with a wealth of plant life. The harsh physical background leads to a tiny human population. Of the 350 000 residents of inland Australia only about 40 000 live in the deserts. Many among the few non-Indigenous people fly in and out of mining camps. The vast 5

6

Ten Commitments

majority of residents are Aboriginal people, who live on their traditional lands on scattered settlements, often far out into the country. The land is not ‘empty’; it is Aboriginal land. Infertility and lack of water have resulted in the deserts being only marginally affected by European-style land uses and, hence, by the environmental changes experienced elsewhere in Australia. There is no commercial grazing and no land clearing, but there are ecological challenges from wildfire, weeds and feral animals, and the future risks of climate change. As a result, the potential exists for one of the last great natural spaces on the face of the planet to be conserved in association with one of the oldest human cultures. The following 10 points explore this unusual combination of environmental and social conditions.

Key issues 1. Recognise the primacy of Indigenous interests through policy support I have two aspects of Indigenous interest in mind. Firstly, ownership of most of the deserts by Aboriginal people is a reality through various titles, and the remaining areas of Crown Land may be expected to come under native title. Australia has legally recognised what our Indigenous compatriots have long argued, that their custodianship of these lands is vested in them through the Jukurrpa. The Jukurrpa (from Anmatyerre, with equivalents in other languages) is the body of knowledge and beliefs about creation of the country, and the moral code or law for desert Aboriginal people. Consequently, any natural resource management simply must start from the premise that Indigenous views are vitally significant. Second, Aboriginal people are the principal long-term residents. Although estimates are not easily matched to the definitions of the deserts used, the residential population of remote Australia is nearly 50% Indigenous, a proportion predicted to increase (Taylor 2006). Aboriginal people want to live in the deserts to a far greater degree than other Australians, and consequently they comprise the obvious workforce for activities that are culturally meaningful to them, such as natural resource management. In short, future policy for natural resource management would be strengthened greatly by recognition of the primacy of Indigenous interests, and in my view this constitutes the most significant challenge among all the points mentioned here. 2. Assist creation of resilient Indigenous settlements Debate about appropriate policies for remote Indigenous settlements is intense and topical (for the contrasts, see Altman 2006; Hughes 2007; Stafford Smith et al. 2008). I wish to make only one point within this much larger context – that without resilient settlements the chances of Indigenous people being able to undertake natural resource management are slim, and that their involvement in such work could in turn help create the desired resilience. Indigenous people bring invaluable traditional ecological knowledge to natural resource management, and offer a much more cost-effective alternative to government than using personnel from outside the deserts. Aboriginal people are well equipped through their remarkable skills, commitment, and location to undertake such work (Altman et al. 2007). Yet if people are not resident on their lands, then obviously there are fewer opportunities to exercise these skills. In turn, involvement in such activities may well assist in developing resilience by creating healthier people (Burgess et al. 2005). Such work is inherently of value in Aboriginal eyes. If it can be linked effectively with wider cultural interests then it is even more desirable and rewarding (Davies et al. 2008). Policies that support resilient settlements and those that develop deep Indigenous engagement in natural resource management may be mutually supportive.

Deserts

3. Develop reliable, meaningful and cheap measures of biodiversity and ecosystem health for a vast landscape The effectiveness of natural resource management in any region of Australia must be measurable. This imperative requires special attention in the deserts, where people and resources are dramatically fewer per unit area. Biodiversity science has so far not served policy well because, in general, it fails to provide reliable, meaningful, and cheap measurement at appropriate scales. Smyth and James (2004) made substantial progress in distilling too wide a variety of potential indicators into a conceptually manageable total. Policy makers should continue to pressure the scientific community to develop applicable monitoring tools, because benefits will only flow from sound implementation born of the most reliable data. 4. Further develop the Indigenous Protected Areas program to ensure transparent achievement of natural resource benefits and integration with Aboriginal cultural life The Commonwealth Government’s Indigenous Protected Areas program is a particularly apt response to the opportunity presented by Aboriginal ownership of land, the skills of Indigenous people, and the conservation values of land only slightly modified from its pre-European condition. Six Protected Areas have been declared in the deserts, with three more under development (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008). The common ground between mainstream natural resource management and Aboriginal cultural aspirations gives cause for optimism; both strive to integrate environmental, social and economic values (Altman et al. 2007; Rea and Messner 2008). If natural resource management services can be delivered simultaneously with cultural activities, then conservation and Indigenous livelihoods will both benefit. If the cultural connections are strong, some of the tensions between Indigenous objectives and wider conservation goals can be resolved. Three areas might be further developed. First, setting of measurable goals for Protected Area management and monitoring of effectiveness in achieving them deserve attention. Second, engagement of Aboriginal people can be increased if jobs contain valued cultural components. Rea and Messner (2008) report a telling comment by an Aboriginal person concerning failure to take up employment in the horticulture industry near Alice Springs ‘because there isn’t any Jukurrpa for grapes’. In contrast, most natural resource activities do not suffer from this challenge. Finally, transparent responsibility and accountability are required for investment of public funds (e.g. Stafford Smith et al. 2008). 5. Manage outback adventure tourism so that it continues to prosper by providing a unique sense of space while benefiting Indigenous people Tourism with 4-wheel drive vehicles offers simultaneous potential for economic development in desert Australia and challenges in manageability. Among the challenges is management of the environmental and cultural impacts of this kind of tourism (Carson and Taylor 2008). Environmental management is essential for maintenance of the sense of isolation and undisturbed nature that is the very reason for the visitor’s attraction. The extent to which economic potential can be realised for Indigenous communities, thereby assisting in meeting point 2, does not appear well understood and requires policy attention. 6. Further engage resource companies in achieving sustainability As the most economically significant industry of the deserts, mining has a powerful role in their future management. Most companies take their environmental responsibilities very

7

8

Ten Commitments

seriously, and the need for restoration seems now to be taken for granted. Some companies are striving to boost Indigenous employment to assist in the objective expressed in point 2 (e.g. Rio Tinto 2008). Discussion continues about the environmental and social roles and responsibilities of extractive industries. The energy sector too may play an increasingly important role in helping to reduce the financial and emissions costs of electricity and liquid fuels, which are major considerations for natural resource management and Indigenous livelihoods. 7. Develop new approaches to the challenge of feral camels Camel populations are growing explosively. In one of the first overviews of camels in Australia, McKnight (1969) predicted ‘a slow general decline in the overall population’. Regrettably he was wrong; estimates now suggest that in the camels’ desert strongholds there are as many as a million (Desert Knowledge CRC 2008). Numbers presently seem to be doubling about every eight years, and to be more persistent during droughts than other pests such as rabbits. The consequence is growing environmental damage through over-browsing in desert ecosystems, which hitherto have generally been spared the consequent undesirable change experienced in other parts of Australia. The Desert Knowledge CRC and its partners are now exploring options for dealing with this challenge, and policy makers would do well to follow these efforts closely. 8. Invest in the next generation of rabbit control Rabbits demand attention precisely because they have dipped below our radar screens into the zone of a dangerous ‘sleeper’. Following the introduction of rabbit calicivirus (or haemorrhagic disease) in 1995, and the consequent dramatic reduction of arid-zone populations of rabbits (Cooke and Fenner 2002), most Government agencies have been able to turn their eyes and their resources towards other issues. The unfortunate upshot of this success is that my own agency, CSIRO, has been unable to maintain much of its expertise in rabbit biology; I was Chief of the relevant Division at the time when financial support for this work evaporated in the wake of calicivirus, and with great regret oversaw the closure of our research group. There can be no doubt that resistance to calicivirus will inevitably build up, just as it did following the earlier introduction of myxomatosis, and the rabbit will again afflict Australian ecosystems. Because of the particularly severe effect of rabbits on key fertile and vulnerable parts of the deserts, we should be preparing our responses now. 9. Choose natural assets to be targeted for fire management Fire is a major force in the deserts because spinifex, a flammable grass, flourishes universally on the infertile sands. Spinifex re-grows over several years following a fire in response to subsequent rainfall. Indigenous people traditionally used fire to clear the spinifex away so as to encourage the growth of food plants, but their movement into settlements has resulted in burning shifting from smaller-scale fires towards wildfires (Burrows et al. 2006). Regional fire management strategies need to be developed to limit these wildfires (Edwards et al. 2008), for which two elements appear crucial. In a vast landscape and with thinly-spread resources, choices must be made about prioritising natural assets for management. Second, developing even greater Indigenous involvement, through Indigenous Protected Areas or otherwise, could provide many advantages. 10. Attract philanthropic investors to a visionary program of large refuges for the original mammal fauna Australia’s deserts have not suffered the same degree of degradation that has characterised the rangelands, but they have lost as many as 30 species of medium-sized mammals (McKenzie et

Deserts

al. 2007). Fortunately, most of the species remain extant on off-shore islands. The idea of reintroductions to fenced mainland refuges has been widely discussed and although still technically challenging could well become achievable in future (Gillen et al. 2000; Department of Conservation and Land Management 2004). Indigenous interest is high because such animals have a prominent place in the Jukurrpa. Large-scale restoration may well be attractive to philanthropists committed to creating large-scale conservation impact in association with Indigenous people.

Conclusion The Australian deserts constitute one of the last great natural spaces on the face of the planet. Simultaneously they are home to one of the oldest human cultures. This combination presents our nation with an extraordinary opportunity to husband and to benefit from that resource. It requires only modest financial resources and careful policy.

References Altman JC (2006) In search of an outstations policy for Indigenous Australians. CAEPR Working Paper 34/2006, 1–22. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Altman JC, Buchanan GJ and Larsen L (2007) The environmental significance of the Indigenous estate: natural resource management as economic development in remote Australia. CAEPR Discussion Paper 286/2007, 1–65. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Burgess C, Johnston F, Bowman D and Whitehead P (2005) Healthy country: healthy people? Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous natural resource management. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 29, 117–122. Burrows ND, Burbidge AA, Fuller PJ and Behn G (2006) Evidence of altered fire regimes in the Western Desert region of Australia. Conservation Science Western Australia 5, 272–284. Carson DB and Taylor AJ (2008) Sustaining four wheel drive tourism in desert Australia: exploring the evidence from a demand perspective. Rangeland Journal 30, 77–83. Cooke BD and Fenner F (2002) Rabbit haemorrhagic disease and the biological control of wild rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus, in Australia and New Zealand. Wildlife Research 29, 689–706. Davies J, White J, Wright A, LaFlamme M and Cunningham T (2008) Applying the sustainable livelihoods approach in Australian desert Aboriginal development. Rangeland Journal 30, 55–65. Department of Conservation and Land Management (2004) Western Shield Review. Conservation Science Western Australia 5(2), 1–257. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008) The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme. Australian Government, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/ indigenous/ipa/index.html. Desert Knowledge CRC (2008) ‘Cross-jurisdictional management of feral camels to protect NRM and cultural values’. Project Newsletter No. 3. Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs. Accessed at www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/research/feralcamels.html. Edwards GP, Allan GE, Brock C, Duguid A, Gabrys K and Vaarzon-Morel P (2008) Fire and its management in central Australia. Rangeland Journal 30, 109–121.

9

10

Ten Commitments

Gillen JS, Hamilton R, Low WA and Creagh C (Eds) (2000) Biodiversity and the Reintroduction of Native Fauna at Uluru – Kata Tjuta National Park. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Hughes H (2007) Lands of Shame: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘Homelands’ in Transition. Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. McKenzie NL, Burbidge AA, Baynes A, Brereton RN, Dickman CR, Gordon G, Gibson LA, Menkhorst PW, Robinson AC, Williams MR and Woinarski JCZ (2007) Analysis of factors implicated in the recent decline of Australia’s mammal fauna. Journal of Biogeography 34, 597–611. McKnight TL (1969) The Camel in Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Rea N and Messner J (2008) Constructing Aboriginal NRM livelihoods: Anmatyerr employment in water management. Rangeland Journal 30, 85–93. Rio Tinto (2008) Indigenous Employment in Australia. Rio Tinto, Melbourne. Smyth A and James CD (2004) Characteristics of Australia’s rangelands and key design issues for monitoring biodiversity. Austral Ecology 29, 3–15. Stafford Smith M, Moran M and Seemann K (2008) The ‘viability’ and resilience of communities and settlements in desert Australia. Rangeland Journal 30, 123–135. Taylor J (2006) Population and diversity: policy implications of emerging Indigenous demographic trends. CAEPR Discussion Paper 283/2006, 1–78. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra.

RANGELANDS Mark Stafford Smith

1. Protect and manage water-remote areas, especially in the more densely settled pastoral areas. 2. Create large-scale meta-reserves to protect diffuse evolutionary processes. 3. Ban any further flow controls on arid river systems. 4. Resource a truly national rangelands monitoring scheme, encompassing biodiversity and other land values properly. 5. Establish a regionally integrated system of tourism and conservation management. 6. Resource local (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) stewardship of public natural and cultural heritage values as proper jobs with well-defined goals. 7. Replace all drought-related subsidies and tax provisions for grazing with incentives supporting ecological responses to climate variability. 8. Define a new concept of a rangelands multiple use and have its implications flow through all institutions. 9. Establish formal regional learning systems that develop persistent community local knowledge. 10. Establish an Outback Capital Trust with powers to set and receive natural resource use rents, modelled on the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Introduction Conventionally, ‘rangelands’ were the outback grazing lands of Australia, over 50% of the continent’s land area between the core deserts and the marginal agricultural lands, overlapping with the tropical savannas in the north and extending to the Great Australian Bight in the south. As people find new values in these lands (Holmes 1997), they have come to incorporate a variety of values beyond grazing; tourism, mining, conservation, Aboriginal, defence and localised horticulture values. The rangeland economy is dominated by mining and, a distant second, tourism, but livestock grazing is still by far the main use by area. Except where these uses are creating pockets of patchy population, their non-Aboriginal population component is declining at the same time as the Aboriginal component is increasing (Brown et al. 2008). Management of weeds, ferals, fire, carbon stocks and natural values, as well as support for mining and tourism, all mean that occupation of the rangelands is in the national interest. Further, since some people want to live there, including significant numbers of Aborigines, it 11

12

Ten Commitments

may be much cheaper to support them to do so and carry out the services required by the nation than to fly in people from outside. In many regions there is a major shift in focus occurring, from grazing to multiple land use and the maintenance of the environmental and cultural heritage on which the majority of the comparative advantages of rangelands rest (Hunt 2003). This shift informs many of the following key issues.

Key issues 1. Protect and manage water-remote areas, especially in the more densely settled pastoral areas In the grazed rangelands the most precious remaining parts of the landscape for biodiversity are patches which happen to be a long way away from artificial water points, especially when they are in vegetation types preferred by livestock. These are key repositories of flora and fauna that are sensitive to grazing (Landsberg et al. 2003). With increasing numbers of artificial waters, such areas are rapidly disappearing (James et al. 1999). Urgent action is thus needed to protect the remaining water-remote areas from development and to manage the impact of feral animals and weeds. This action should be undertaken in the context of a regional plan (Morton et al. 1995; James et al. 2000) with some form of stewardship approach that engages the landholder in looking after the protected areas where these are embedded in a pastoral enterprise (Biograze 2000). 2. Create large-scale meta-reserves to protect diffuse evolutionary processes Australia’s rangelands are among the last semi-arid areas in the world where selective forces like rain and fire still operate over large areas in a highly spatially patchy and temporally variable mode in otherwise relatively homogeneous vegetation, driving ‘diffuse evolutionary processes’ (Stafford Smith and Ash 2006). Aside from their intrinsic conservation worth to Australia, being able to observe the continued outcomes of these evolutionary forces may be very significant to understanding evolutionary processes within species. Priority should therefore be given to maintaining the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in these selective forces over sizable regions of similar vegetation (this will be compatible with many other land uses, so the areas might be described as ‘meta-reserves’). This means maintaining the continuity of the vegetation, and allowing the natural diversity of fire regimes to continue. This management goal should be adopted in the key extensive vegetation types, since changing fire regimes and the impacts of grazing are otherwise homogenising some of the selective effects. Appropriate areas of spinifex grasslands and dunefields are probably already accidentally (un)managed to this end, though this explicit goal should be added to their management. However, no such extensive areas of Mitchell grass nor chenopod shrublands are protected and this should be rectified urgently (Mulga woodlands may also require similar action). 3. Ban any further flow controls on arid river systems The rivers of the Lake Eyre Basin are now recognised as unique. The Basin contains the last uncontrolled arid river system in the world, and the most temporally-variable stream flows in any large catchment globally (McMahon et al. 2008). This variability is known to create and sustain massive resource flushes that support unique populations of biota, including huge water-bird populations (Roshier et al. 2001). There is clear evidence in other basins that the effect of reducing the variability through river extractions and other controls on flow is to rapidly destroy the ability of a river system to support this rich biota (Kingsford et al. 2004).

Rangelands

Given the degradation of the Murray-Darling in this regard, arid rivers in general, and those of the Lake Eyre Basin in particular, probably represent the last large-scale support for many of these populations. Since the only formal way to prove this might destroy these river systems, under the precautionary principle no further major flow controls or extractions on any arid rivers should now be permitted. Further, the burden of proof for small uses such as stock waters needs to fall on the user showing that they will not cause harm rather than on society showing that they will. 4. Resource a truly national rangelands monitoring scheme, encompassing biodiversity and other land values properly ‘What you don’t measure you don’t manage.’ There have been major, if tortuous, advances towards national integration of rangelands pastoral monitoring information in the past decade, resulting in the Australian Rangelands Collaborative Information System (ACRIS 2008). The complexity of this achievement has arisen from trying to draw out common threads from Statebased systems which were implemented independently, with different levels of sophistication and for different purposes. Despite these advances it is acknowledged that the system is barely adequate in its greatest area of strength – monitoring the drivers and outputs of ecosystem services of importance to pastoral production. It is even weaker in monitoring other ecosystem services such as biodiversity, water resources, and landscape values, and has almost no capacity in relation to measures of social and cultural capital, such as the rapid destruction of linguistic cultural heritage (AIATSIS/FATSIL 2005). The progressive picture of languages and culture dying out is observed as poorly as that of species decline and loss of ecosystem services. At the same time, there is a diminishing will on the part of many State governments to continue with their biophysical monitoring programs, let alone diversify them into other required areas. There are other monitoring efforts that are not integrated into this effort, such as developing schemes under the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement (http://www.lebmf.gov. au/index.html), and extensive monitoring under other programs such as health, education and indicators of Aboriginal disadvantage (SCRGSP 2007). In most sectors it is recognised that there is national value in having a consolidated picture with regional resolution of the state of rangelands for planning and reporting, as well as providing context for policy and programs in specific regions. All of these should be unified into a single capital accounting system for outback Australia, which monitors indicators of health for the environmental, social, human, cultural, institutional and built capital of the rangelands. The system could be appropriately modular and multi-scaled, but allow analysis of inter-sectoral causal relationships, such as whether changing land values cause degradation, or better functioning institutions result in improved biodiversity outcomes. These indicators should be developed around the key ecosystem, cultural and social services ultimately delivered by rangelands, including biodiversity as an initial high priority for better measurement. Such a monitoring system will help to indicate where intervention is needed but also to demonstrate the environmental credibility of rangelands management for marketing in the future, and to back up carbon sequestration budgets. 5. Establish a regionally integrated system of tourism and conservation management There is a curious reluctance in Australia to recognise that the management of many major conservation parks is hugely distracted by coping with tourism. This is coupled with an out-ofdate perception of parks as wilderness, untrammelled by human impact. One of the implications of this attitude is a widespread failure to plan parks at a regional scale, integrated with

13

14

Ten Commitments

other land uses including tourism (Tremblay 2008). Conservation objectives of the reserve system would be better served by embracing and zoning human activity in areas being managed at least partially for conservation, and by levying far more realistic fees from those enjoying these areas to pay for conservation. By taking on a regional approach to development and conservation, with better evaluation measures that are acted upon, governments and industry could greatly improve their regional resource allocation decisions to the benefit of all (Tremblay 2008). Last, whilst pastoral management can draw on numerous best practice management manuals, there are no such guides for integrated approaches to rangeland conservation (Stafford Smith and McAllister 2008), and research, conservation and industry bodies need to develop these. 6. Resource local (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) stewardship of public natural and cultural heritage values as proper jobs with well-defined goals Across the rangelands (as for all of outback Australia) there are environmental and cultural values that require management despite the current trends of declining (or increasingly patchy) human population. Fire, invasive species, endangered species, carbon stocks and water all require managing; the presence of people carrying out this management also contributes to national priorities of security, safety and sustainability. Some management can be provided by fly-in-fly-out rangers and environmental teams, but this is expensive compared with seeking the services of people who actually want to live there, and does not deliver the ancillary national security and safety benefits. As an example, the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area with its ranger program in the Top End has been estimated to cost about $1.40/ha annually, compared with the cost of managing Kakadu National Park at $8.90/ha (P. Whitehead, personal communication, 2001); similarly, stewardship salaries paid to pastoralists in western New South Wales to carry out conservation management in a trial program were estimated to cost $2–4/ ha compared to typical costs of managing that region’s parks of about $20/ha. These comparisons are not perfect, since park management may result in more general conservation outcomes than the two stewardship programs, but they make a powerful point about efficiency. At present the concepts of ‘stewardship’ and ‘stewardship payments’ are being devalued by their diverse and loose use in policy. There is an urgent need to refine this usage (or find a better term) to apply to tasks that have a well-defined public benefit, possibly linked to private benefits that are also assessable, and that have clear procedures for defining a contractual arrangement between government (representing the national or regional public interests) and individuals or communities, for outcomes which are mostly hard to measure. This is already possible in many arenas, but also requires continued research effort to clarify the holistic costs and benefits more transparently, noting that some of these deliver ancillary benefits in very different sectors (e.g. linked health, cultural and natural resource management benefits from Aboriginal work on-country: Burgess et al. 2005; Campbell et al. 2007). 7. Replace all drought-related subsidies and tax provisions for grazing with incentives supporting ecological responses to climate variability Grazing will continue as the extensive land use presence in many areas of the rangelands for the foreseeable future, albeit concentrating steadily in the regions that are ‘core pastoral’ (Holmes 1997; Holmes 2008). At present, these enterprises are recipients of a string of policy instruments related to drought or climate variability, many of which are universal to agriculture with specific effects in rangelands. These include provisions for livestock valuation, drought de-stocking provisions (‘livestock elections’), ‘income averaging’ provisions, farm management deposits, accelerated depreciation provisions for various infrastructure, as well as the whole cluster of state and national subsidies and support triggered by ‘exceptional

Rangelands

circumstances’. There is now abundant evidence (backed up by the strategic views of many producers themselves) that most of these instruments create perverse incentives such that the public purse ends up providing incentives to pastoralists to damage their own resource base and then pays relief for the impact that this has on their enterprises (e.g. Drought Policy Review Task Force 1990; Heathcote and Stone 2002; Stafford Smith 2003; Nelson et al. 2008). The short-sightedness of paying support on the basis of events which are likely to dramatically increase in frequency with climate change in the next few decades (Burke et al. 2006) also demands a rapid overhaul of the system. In short, there is a strong case that all of these provisions should be phased out as quickly as possible, with the exception of farm management deposits which may enable financial reserves to be built in a non-distortionary way (Stafford Smith 2003). If some sort of support is required to handle extreme events, and particularly to assist industry transformation, as suggested by Nelson et al. (2008), this should comprise resources placed in the hands of regional groups to develop locally-relevant drought preparedness activities compatible with the maintenance of biodiversity and other public objectives (see point 9). This could include the establishment of agistment support systems which facilitate modern-day nomadic herding (McAllister et al. 2006), as well as other management in tune with our variable landscapes (Stafford Smith and McAllister 2008). 8. Define a new concept of a rangelands multiple use and have its implications flow through all institutions In regions that are not ‘core pastoral’ (Holmes 1997), land use is turning increasingly to ‘pluriactive’ diversification (Holmes 2006), with ownership by mining companies and Aboriginal interests, involvement in conservation and tourism, and many other multiples uses becoming more important than conventional commercial grazing. Given these changes, the continued focus on grazing as the primary land use in most States is creating barriers to a more ecologically, socially and economically sustainable future for outback land managers. A new concept of rangelands multiple use needs to be developed and enshrined in tenure systems and other aspects of State legislation, and supported by changes to government agencies. Tenure legislation needs to be revised to allow multiple use but with overriding obligations to the maintenance of natural and cultural heritage. Thought should be given to reorganising State and Territory departments to combine all rangelands developmental activities related to all land uses and values in one department, preferably independent of other regions’ issues in those states where rangelands constitute a large enough proportion of the landscape to warrant this; regulatory roles should stay separate. The next issue is closely related. 9. Establish formal regional learning systems that develop persistent community local knowledge Rangelands function at scales in space and time that are beyond those of individual managers. Their management therefore requires a regional system of learning that links land managers with policy and research in ways that ensure the persistence of local knowledge beyond the experiences of individual managing lifetimes, and takes advantage of cross-cultural learning (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006; Stafford Smith et al. 2007). There are specific needs for this in terms of developing community-owned approaches to safe carrying capacities and drought alerts for the pastoral industry (McKeon et al. 2004). However, there is a wider issue of developing contextually-relevant, local- to regional-scale governance of natural resources that are common property. While the appropriate balance of interests in a region will depend on its specific trajectory (Holmes 1997), roundtable discussions are needed on Aboriginal/grazing/ conservation/mining/tourism management at regional scales with a view to formal peer group

15

16

Ten Commitments

oversight at property scales. The current development of integrated natural resource management groups is a useful step in this direction, but undermined by the lack of devolution of true decision-making rights (Marshall 2008), and anyway, these groups are not provided with the power to apply sanctions for land management that is not in the collective interest. A wider remit for this level of regional governance of natural (and eventually other) resources will provide significant economies of scope to allow for smaller and more locally-relevant regions in the long-term; this could also promote the necessary retention of human capital in the regions. 10. Establish an Outback Capital Trust with powers to set and receive natural resource use rents, modelled on the Alaska Permanent Fund It would not be flippant to say that the single best action for the rangelands would be to dissolve the State boundaries and enable remote Australia to be treated as a single entity, rather than the low priority backyard of five States and a Territory. This would provide it with a more coherent voice and ability to seek consolidated funding. Since this is not realistic in the nearterm, it is time nonetheless to take seriously the proposal to establish a rangelands-wide body. Various options for a rangelands commission have been touted in the past, but an effective body needs to be able to raise its own funding so that it becomes independent of fluctuating central government attentiveness. The rangelands have been a source of wealth to the nation for the past century and a half, principally through mining and grazing exports, and through cheap labour obtained from Aboriginal people in earlier years, and in tourism today. This export of natural and social capital has only been very partially compensated by return flows of financial capital from national beneficiaries. The capital status of the rangelands environmental, social and human capital has therefore been greatly run down. The past cannot now be re-visited, but this situation can be corrected for the future by establishing an Outback Capital Trust, through collaborative state, territory and federal legislation, modelled on the Alaska Permanent Fund (Barnes 2006). This would have the power to levy rents on all uses of natural resources in rangelands, and the trustees would obey a charter to invest the financial capital from those levies to the best effect in environmental, social, human and physical infrastructure of the rangelands. The Trust beneficiaries would be defined as all inhabitants of the rangelands. A variety of natural resource management, conservation, Aboriginal and social, but also communications and transport projects would be funded by the Trust. (In parallel with this effort to rectify the under-investment in rangelands capital, the proposals by Dillon and Westbury (2007) to amend the Grants Commissions processes would help to rectify the leakage of recurrent government spending from the rangelands.)

Conclusion These items are not all of the same scale. Responding to point 10 would eventually resource all the other changes. However, in the meantime, the others are worth doing for their own benefits. They in turn are the mixed responsibility of community, industry, government and researchers. For the dominant land user of the rangelands, the pastoral industry, the long-term need is for points 8 and 9 in order to see a real change in the approach to grazing in the rangelands. This change will vary by region according to its productivity but would see a major move towards multiple land use values and stewardship, and a future inhabitant who is by nature a rangelands manager, not simply a grazier. This will take time, though, and points 6 and 7 could hasten progress in this direction.

Rangelands

Points 1–5 are more immediate and specific actions that will help to ensure that the eventual transition to sustainable management can occur on landscapes that are still worth conserving. The investment required is really quite small and will be matched by private inputs to the benefit of an extraordinary area – half of our continent. The changes will help drive a transition towards a more Australian view of living in Australia.

Acknowledgements My thanks to Ian Watson and Margaret Friedel for thoughtful review. The opinions expressed are my own.

References ACRIS (Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System: Rangelands) (2008) ‘Rangelands 2008 – Taking the Pulse’. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. AIATSIS/FATSIL (2005) ‘National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005’. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Canberra. Barnes P (2006) Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Biograze (2000) Biograze: Waterpoints and Wildlife. CSIRO, Alice Springs. Brown D, Taylor J and Bell M (2008) The demography of desert Australia. Rangeland Journal 30, 29–43. Burgess CP, Johnston FH, Bowman D and Whitehead PJ (2005) Healthy country: Healthy people? Exploring the health benefits of indigenous natural resource management. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 29, 117–122. Burke EJ, Brown SJ and Christidis N (2006) Modeling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the twenty-first century with the Hadley Centre climate model. Journal of Hydrometeorology 7, 1113–1125. Campbell D, Davies J and Wakerman J (2007) Realising Economies in the Joint Supply of Health and Environmental Services in Aboriginal Central Australia. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre Working Paper No.11, Alice Springs. Dillon MC and Westbury ND (2007) Beyond Humbug: Transforming Government Engagement with Indigenous Australia. Seaview Press, West Lakes, South Australia. Drought Policy Review Task Force (1990) Managing for Drought. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Heathcote RL and Stone RC (2002) Braving the Bull of Heaven: Drought Management Strategies, Past Present and Future. Royal Geographical Society of Queensland, Brisbane. Holmes J (1997) Diversity and change in Australia’s rangeland regions: translating resource values into regional benefits. Rangeland Journal 19, 3–25. Holmes J (2006) Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142–160. Holmes J (2008) The multifunctional transition in Australia’s tropical savannas: Regional complexity and diversity in rural occupance modes. Journal of Rural Studies (in press). Hunt LP (2003) Opportunities for the future in Australia’s grazed rangelands. Rangeland Journal 25, 183–195. James CD, Landsberg J and Morton SR (1999) Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. Journal of Arid Environments 41, 87–121.

17

18

Ten Commitments

James CD, Stafford Smith DM, Landsberg J, Fisher A, Tynan R, Maconochie J and Woinarski JCZ (2000) Biograze – Melding off-reserve conservation of native species with animal production in Australian rangelands. In Nature Conservation 5: Managing the Matrix – Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. (Eds D Saunders and J Craig) pp. 290–300. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney. Kingsford RT, Jenkins KM and Porter JL (2004) Imposed hydrological stability on lakes in arid Australia and effect on waterbirds. Ecology 85, 2478–2492. Landsberg J, James CD, Morton SR, Müller WJ and Stol J (2003) Abundance and composition of plant species along grazing gradients in Australian rangelands. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 1008–1024. Marshall GR (2008) Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. International Journal of the Commons 2, 75–97. McAllister RRJ, Gordon IJ, Janssen MA and Abel N (2006) Pastoralists’ responses to variation of rangeland resources in time and space. Ecological Applications 16, 572–583. McKeon G, Hall W, Henry B, Stone G and Watson I (Eds) (2004) Pasture Degradation and Recovery in Australia’s Rangelands: Learning from History. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Brisbane. McMahon TA, Murphy RE, Peel MC, Costelloe JF and Chiew FHS (2008) Understanding the hydrology of the Lake Eyre Basin. Part 2 – Streamflow. Journal of Arid Environments 72, 1869–1886. Morton SR, Stafford Smith DM, Friedel MH, Griffin GF and Pickup G (1995) The stewardship of arid Australia: ecology and landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 43, 195–217. Nelson R, Howden M and Stafford Smith M (2008) Meeting the multiple goals of Australian drought policy: insights from adaptive governance. Global Environmental Change (in press). Roshier DA, Robertson AI, Kingsford RT and Green DG (2001) Continental-scale interactions with temporary resources may explain the paradox of large populations of desert waterbirds in Australia. Landscape Ecology 16, 547–556. SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) (2007) ‘Overcoming indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2007 report’. Productivity Commission, Canberra. Stafford Smith DM and McAllister RRJ (2008) Managing arid zone natural resources in Australia for spatial and temporal variability – an approach from first principles. Rangeland Journal 30, 15–27. Stafford Smith DM, McKeon GM, Watson IW, Henry BK, Stone GS, Hall WB and Howden SM (2007) Land change science special feature: learning from episodes of degradation and recovery in variable Australian rangelands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 20 690–20 695. Stafford Smith M (2003) Linking environments, decision-making and policy in handling climatic variability. In Beyond Drought in Australia: People, Policy and Perspectives. (Eds L Botterill and M Fisher) pp. 131–151. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Stafford Smith M and Ash A (2006) ‘High conservation value in the rangelands, report of a workshop for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage’. Report No.19. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs. Tremblay P (2008) Protected areas and development in arid Australia – challenges to regional tourism. Rangeland Journal 30, 67–75. van Kerkhoff L and Lebel L (2006) Linking Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31, 445–477.

TEMPERATE EUCALYPT WOODLANDS Suzanne M. Prober and Richard J. Hobbs

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

End woodland clearing. Secure conservation of the historic travelling stock route network. Protect the Great Western Woodlands. Achieve 40% revegetation in selected landscapes NOW. Restore functioning ecological communities instead of simply fencing stagnating remnants or planting lines of trees. Support achievement of 30% perennial production systems through research and policy initiatives. Achieve a representative set of diverse, weed-free woodlands. Find better ways of dealing with the pervasive threat of feral predators. Initiate or reinstate fire regimes that encourage woodland regeneration. Coordinate and support the vision through a national system of management networks and stewardship schemes.

Introduction Major Mitchell’s ‘Australia Felix’ or ‘Fortunate Land’, Hans Heysen’s majestic landscapes of red gums and merinos, Dorothea McKellar’s land of sweeping plains. These typify Australia’s temperate eucalypt woodlands, the open park-like country with scattered trees over productive grasslands, abundant wildflowers and low shrubs that offered the answer to early European Australia’s search for grazing and cropping lands. But this very productivity has resulted in the same woodlands becoming some of the most threatened ecological communities in Australia. Few pristine woodlands remain. Clearing, fertilisation, grazing and cultivation have led to dramatic losses of woodland biodiversity and to the collapse of ecological and hydrological processes, resulting in the decline of remnant trees, salinisation, erosion and acidification of productive land, and widespread weed invasion. The plight of this country is disheartening, but scientists, policy makers and land managers are converging on a vision: putting the pieces back together to create healthy, vibrant and viable woodland landscapes and rural communities. The target for sustainability is 40% remnant and restored native vegetation, 30% perennial production systems and 30% annual or intensive cropping systems (McIntyre et al. 2002). Storehouses of woodland biodiversity still remain in some of the most unlikely places, such as old cemeteries set aside for never-to-be-realised towns, the iconic travelling stock routes of the drought-stricken graziers and drovers, and water reserves 19

20

Ten Commitments

Figure 1: The Great Western Woodlands forms the largest remaining tract of temperate eucalypt woodland, occurring as a mosaic with heathland and mallee over an area of 16 million hectares.

capturing water from granite outcrops in the Western Australian wheatbelt (see Figure 1). These ‘jewels in the crown’ of remaining woodlands can provide the building blocks for restoring the 40% native vegetation that many scientists believe would provide viable habitat for much of the woodland flora and fauna and heal landscape-scale problems such as salinity, erosion and fragmentation. Production systems based around deep-rooted perennial pastures or trees like the valuable native sandalwood would add to sustainability of landscape processes and provide further resources for wildlife, while providing sustainable incomes for rural communities. Together, these restored landscapes will be more resilient to a changing climate. Achieving this vision will not be easy. Here we describe the 10 most important actions we believe are needed to work towards it.

Key issues 1. End woodland clearing It is difficult to believe that we are still clearing woodlands, pressing further and further into drier country. Not the least under threat are the iconic coolibah woodlands – about 20% of these have been cleared since 1985 (Cox et al. 2001). Also, the collective woodland resource provided by the many scattered small remnants and paddock trees across cleared districts suffers ongoing ‘death by a thousand cuts’ through widening of roads, making way for irrigation systems, collection of firewood and so on (Gibbons and Boak 2002). Progress has been made in the last decade, with many States introducing clearing controls and threatened ecological community legislation, but there is no excuse for any further loss. We must not continue

Temperate eucalypt woodlands

the mistakes of the past; our first key step towards woodland conservation should be to ensure that large-scale clearing ends and small-scale clearing is minimised and adequately offset in all Australian States. 2. Secure conservation of the historic travelling stock route network A great legacy of the droving days, the travelling stock route and reserve networks conserve considerable tracts of temperate eucalypt woodland that would otherwise have been cleared and ploughed. These State-managed public lands support a range of woodland plants, and are especially important for their grand trees and the habitat corridors they create across landscapes (Prober and Thiele 2005). Woodland trees can take over a hundred years to develop the hollows needed to provide homes for declining woodland fauna such as the squirrel glider (Vesk et al. 2008). But times are changing and livestock are transported by truck instead of walking these routes these days. Hence stock reserves and routes are threatened by sell-off and leasing for intensive production management. A second key step for woodlands would thus be to design and establish a new funding model to secure the conservation of the travelling stock route and reserve networks to maintain this rich resource. 3. Protect the Great Western Woodlands The world’s largest and most diverse example of temperate eucalypt woodland lies east of the Rabbit Proof Fence in Western Australia’s south-west. Too dry for cropping, with no readilyaccessible underground water to support rangeland livestock grazing, these woodlands escaped early European impacts, but are now threatened by road construction, mining, logging and altered fire regimes, and require legislative protection (Watson et al. 2008). Not only are they the greatest surviving example of temperate eucalypt woodlands, these remote woodlands are an immense carbon store and provide a model for understanding how woodland ecosystems work at landscape scales, which can in turn inform how we might restore and manage woodlands in degraded areas. Protecting the Great Western Woodlands offers a unique opportunity to invert the conservation paradigm – from one of conserving biodiversity within a landscape dominated by human use to one of allowing limited human disturbance within an intact conservation landscape. 4. Achieve 40% revegetation in selected landscapes NOW Ecological evidence indicates that 30-40% representative native vegetation cover is desirable for maintaining biodiversity and supporting healthy woodland landscapes (McIntyre et al. 2002; Radford et al. 2005). While it is a long way to achieving this across all woodland landscapes, an important step towards this goal would be to achieve it in selected landscapes, now. There is a variety of innovative funding models to facilitate this process. These include the increasingly ambitious goals of Natural Resource Management councils, the purchase and conservation management of woodland properties by philanthropic organisations, and carbon credit schemes to capitalise on the carbon storage values of vegetation. A revolving fund proposed by Greening Australia to purchase, transform and on-sell groups of farms as sustainable conservation-production systems also provides a potential new mechanism for achieving transformation of degraded woodland landscapes. Additionally, a new era of broadscale revegetation programs, linking biodiversity across regions, has already begun. These programs, such as Gondwana Link in Western Australia, aim to help native plants and animals adapt to a changing climate. Integration of these efforts with catchment scale 40:30:30 targets will enhance the likelihood of lasting outcomes for woodland biodiversity under climate change.

21

22

Ten Commitments

5. Restore functioning ecological communities In our efforts to reach our target of 40% native vegetation, more creative approaches are needed to achieve the restoration of diverse ecological communities that support key natural processes such as regeneration and nutrient cycling, and that are likely to be more resilient to climate change. Putting a fence around a degraded woodland remnant or planting lines of trees can provide some conservation outcomes (Spooner and Briggs 2008), but in many cases more substantial intervention is needed (Vesk and Mac Nally 2006). This can include altering soil conditions, providing fallen timber for fauna habitat, dealing with weeds and reintroducing species no longer present in the seed store (Yates and Hobbs 2000; Prober and Thiele 2005; Vesk and Mac Nally 2006; Standish et al. 2008). This does not mean that all revegetation needs to restore all woodland plants and animals; rather some intensive revegetation and restoration efforts might target high native plant diversity, others high habitat quality for woodland birds, with other areas of simpler revegetation targeting restoration of landscape processes and connectivity. Some of these we already know how to achieve. Others require further scientific and technological advances. 6. Support achievement of 30% perennial production systems Many wheatbelt farms that once supported woodlands are now planted almost entirely to shallow-rooted annual crops and pastures. The absence of deep-rooted perennials has led to widespread soil erosion, and caused saline groundwater to rise, killing native vegetation, crops and pastures alike. To maintain ecological processes at the landscape scale, an upper limit of 30% intensive annual land uses is commonly recommended (McIntyre et al. 2002). To fill the gap between 30% annual crops and 40% native vegetation, new policy and research initiatives are needed to promote 30% perennial production systems in degraded woodland landscapes. Not only will these support landscape processes, they can augment resources for native species, and help restore viable farm incomes. A wide range of perennial production options is available, including forage shrubs, oil mallees, sandalwood, tree crops and plantation forestry. In addition, carbon sequestration is likely to become an important management goal that will drive increases in woody perennial systems. Some woodland regions already support large areas of perennial native pasture and scattered woodland trees, and maintaining these under low intensity grazing and minimal fertilisation will similarly promote woodland biodiversity and help achieve the 30% target (Dorrough et al. 2006). 7. Achieve a representative set of diverse, weed-free woodlands Invasion by exotic plant species poses one of the greatest threats to temperate eucalypt woodlands (ASEC 2001). Weeds that have invaded woodland ecosystems are an ongoing, difficult challenge. However, our understanding of conditions that promote their persistence and spread is increasing (e.g. Prober and Lunt 2008). We cannot expect to control all weeds in all woodlands, but an important step for woodlands would be to limit their spread and achieve representative sets of weed-free woodlands. In addition we need to avoid the introduction of new invasive species. For example, in our search for new perennial production systems, indigenous species should be utilised in preference to exotics. 8. Find better ways of dealing with the pervasive threat of feral predators Many native marsupials that once roamed temperate eucalypt woodlands, such as numbats, bettongs and woylies, have been predated to near-extinction by foxes and cats (Lunt and Bennett 2000). Some species now survive only in purpose-built exclosures or on offshore islands. Loss of these species has probably impacted dramatically on woodland ecosystem

Temperate eucalypt woodlands

processes; for example, many played an important role in soil processes through their habit of digging for food (Martin 2003). Targeted use of toxic baits for fox control has allowed populations of native marsupials to increase greatly in parts of south-western Australia; however, population numbers have recently declined again, possibly due to disease and/or cat predation. Clearly there is an ongoing need to find better ways of dealing with the pervasive threat of feral predators to conserve woodland fauna and re-establish associated ecosystem processes. 9. Initiate or reinstate fire regimes that encourage woodland regeneration Compared with other vegetation types in Australia, relatively little is known about impacts of fire in many temperate woodlands (Hobbs 2002). While it is recognised that fire and other types of disturbance are needed to promote regeneration and plant diversity in some woodlands (e.g. Knox and Clarke 2006), few woodland remnants are actively managed using fire. On the other hand, fire in fragmented and degraded woodlands may also cause weed invasion and further degradation (Standish et al. 2008). Another important step for woodland conservation is thus the reinstatement of effective fire management, through an integrated approach that considers not only historical fire regimes but also accounts for other factors that may now prevent woodland regeneration and restoration. Targeted studies in intact woodlands such as the Great Western Woodlands, as well as in degraded woodland remnants, are needed to inform these decisions. 10. Coordinate and support the vision at the national level Finally, we emphasise that making a real difference in temperate eucalypt woodlands will only be achieved through coordination and support of individual efforts. Every woodland remnant and every on-ground action to restore woodland landscapes contributes to the 40:30:30 vision. Some new ‘off-reserve’ conservation models, such as Conservation Management Networks, Natural Resource Management councils and the box-gum woodland stewardship program, have already been established to help coordinate and support the plethora of actions being undertaken. These programs require ongoing development and integration, to support landholders at the local level and ensure we achieve the best possible outcomes from the collective effort at bioregional and national scales (e.g. Fitzsimons and Wescott 2005).

Conclusions Prevention is better, and much cheaper, than cure. The first three steps we have recommended for conservation of temperate eucalypt woodlands are about avoiding further damage. Not only are these the most cost-effective options, they also offer outcomes that may be otherwise unattainable. Their implementation simply requires policy will. No matter how well we do, revegetation and restoration efforts will rarely achieve the integrity, diversity and condition of the best undisturbed woodlands, so conservation of remaining woodlands must be given the highest priority. Six steps focus on repair and restoration of sites and landscapes. Revegetation of 40% of the landscape is a mammoth task, but 20 years of effort through Landcare, Greening Australia and the Natural Heritage Trust has already begun to make a difference. This task requires considerable advancements in knowledge and methodology to achieve restoration of self-sustaining, diverse woodland communities. Ongoing efforts would thus benefit from a learn-by-doing approach with appropriate scientific input. As well, the considerable adjustment required in rural communities and farming systems means that achieving the 40:30:30 goal is a long-term view. Dealing with feral animals and weeds too are difficult tasks that will not be completely

23

24

Ten Commitments

solved without novel technologies. We can be heartened by some existing successes though, such as improved rabbit control through calicivirus and effective fox control programs in Western Australia. While an enormous task remains ahead, we are optimistic that the outlook for woodlands in 20 years can be better than it is today. The final step we have recommended helps us to pick up the pieces of the woodland puzzle, and place them into a framework that ensures optimal landscape configurations for habitat connectivity, adequate representation of all aspects of woodland biodiversity, due consideration of climate change issues and support to the many individual land managers involved, be they farmers, park rangers, or local council workers. Progress has already been made in the past two decades towards many of the steps we have described. Achieving them will bring us a long way towards the new Australia Felix.

References Australian State of the Environment Committee (2001) ‘Australia State of the Environment 2001’. Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Cox J, Sivertsen DP and Bedward M (2001) Clearing of native woody vegetation in the NSW Wheatbelt: extent, rate of loss and implications for biodiversity conservation. Cunninghamia 7, 101–155. Dorrough J, Moxham C, Turner V and Sutter G (2006) Soil phosphorus and tree cover modify the effects of livestock grazing on plant species richness in Australian grassy woodland. Biological Conservation 130, 394–405. Fitzsimons JA and Wescott G (2005) History and attributes of selected Australian multitenure reserve networks. Australian Geographer 36, 75–93. Gibbons P and Boak M (2002) The value of paddock trees for regional conservation in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Management and Restoration 3, 205–210. Hobbs RJ (2002) Fire regimes in temperate woodlands. In Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent. (Eds R Bradstock, J Williams and M Gill) pp. 305–326. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Knox KJE and Clarke PJ (2006) Fire season and intensity affect shrub recruitment in temperate sclerophyllous woodlands. Oecologia 149, 730–739. Lunt I and Bennett AF (2000) Temperate woodlands in Victoria: distribution, composition and conservation. In Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology, Conservation, Management and Restoration. (Eds RJ Hobbs and C Yates) pp. 17–31. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney. Martin G (2003) The role of small ground-foraging mammals in topsoil health and biodiversity: implications to management and restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 4, 114–19. McIntyre S, McIvor JG and Heard KM (Eds) (2002) Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Prober SM and Lunt ID (2008) Restoration of Themeda australis swards suppresses soil nitrate and enhances ecological resistance to invasion by exotic annuals. Biological Invasions. DOI 10.1007/s10530-008-9222-5. Prober SM and Thiele KR (2005) Restoring Australia’s temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands: integrating function and diversity. Ecological Management and Restoration 6, 16–27.

Temperate eucalypt woodlands

Radford JQ, Bennett AF and Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biological Conservation 124, 317–337. Spooner PV and Briggs SV (2008) Woodlands on farms in southern NSW: a longer-term assessment of vegetation changes after fencing. Ecological Management and Restoration (in press). Standish RJ, Cramer VA and Yates CJ (2008) A pragmatic approach to the restoration of eucalypt woodlands in Western Australia. In New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration. (Eds RJ Hobbs and KN Suding) Island Press, USA (in press). Vesk PA and Mac Nally R (2008) The clock is ticking – Revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 112, 365–366. Vesk PA, Nolan R, Thomson JR, Dorrough JW and MacNally R (2008) Time lags in provision of habitat resources through revegetation. Biological Conservation 141, 174–186. Watson A, Judd S, Watson S, Lam A and Mackenzie D (2008) ‘The Extraordinary Nature of the Great Western Woodlands’. The Wilderness Society, Perth. Yates CJ and Hobbs RJ (2000) Temperate eucalypt woodlands in Australia – an overview. In Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology, Conservation, Management and Restoration. (Eds RJ Hobbs and C Yates) pp. 1–5. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

25

TROPICAL SAVANNAS John Woinarski

1. Implement a carbon trading scheme that provides reward to landholders for the retention and conservation management of native vegetation. 2. Establish secure long-term resourcing for conservation land management by Indigenous people on their lands, tied to explicit outcomes and performance measures. 3. Mitigate pastoral impacts, and deliver institutional change to provide substantially more scope for conservation management on what are currently pastoral lands. 4. Establish processes and institutions to drive systematic long-term land-use planning, that appropriately recognises and retains conservation values as the foundation for a sustainable future. 5. Implement broad-scale programs designed to understand and staunch the ongoing pervasive decline in biodiversity. 6. Implement a suite of actions to attempt to safeguard the species and environments most susceptible to impacts of global climate change. 7. Recognise and correct the distortion in Australia’s national environmental perspective and resourcing. 8. Consolidate comprehensive and robust biodiversity monitoring programs, linked to measurement of the efficacy of management. 9. Develop a research and management program aimed at understanding and maintaining the dynamic in this system. 10. Establish better links across the tropical savannas and with international networks of tropical managers.

Introduction Tropical savannas are defined as environments where the ground layer is dominated by (often very tall) grass, there is a sparse to absent shrub layer, and the tree layer may vary from absent to moderately dense. The defining ecological features of Australia’s tropical savannas are: (1) dominance by a strongly seasonal monsoonal climate; (2) a dynamic fusion of pan-tropical and distinctively Australian biota; (3) proximity to Asia; (4) the largely intact nature of the environments and biota; (5) an extremely low human population (500 000 – about 3% of Australia’s total population, and outside the region’s five largest cities, a population density of appreciably less than 1 person per 10 km2); (6) high Indigenous representation (with Indigenous lands 27

28

Ten Commitments

comprising about 20% of the tropical savannas as a whole); (7) a meagre economy and hence limited capacity for natural resource management; (8) a characteristically high incidence of fire, with consequential detrimental impacts upon biodiversity and very substantial output of greenhouse gases; and (9) occurrence within them of large (and often seasonal) river and wetland systems, that are unusually little modified (Woinarski et al. 2007a; Garnett et al. 2008). Tropical savannas occur across large areas of the wet-dry tropics of Africa, South America and Asia. In Australia they extend almost over about one-quarter of the continent (1.9 million km2), continuously from Broome in the south-west Kimberley to mid-eastern Queensland. In an Australian context, all are considered rangelands. Australia’s tropical savannas represent an extraordinary opportunity, in a national and international context, to maintain vast natural landscapes supported by largely intact ecological processes. This opportunity is gradually diminishing through ad hoc incremental development; the pervasive spread of exotic plants and animals; the diffuse and subtle impacts of the hegemonic land use, pastoralism (comprising about 70% of the total area); lack of resources available for environmental management, particularly on Indigenous lands; and, relatedly, to the broad-scale imposition (or incapability of controlling) fire regimes that are inimical to biodiversity (Russell-Smith et al. 1998; Pardon et al. 2003). More recently, there has been a more deliberate and systematic attempt to accelerate the transformation of these lands, to develop them for horticultural production as a direct response to the (climate change forced) current and expected decline in the capacity of established agricultural regions of temperate Australia.

Key issues 1. Implement a carbon trading scheme that provides reward to landholders for the retention and conservation management of native vegetation Many landholders regard the tropical savannas as largely worthless, and hence see their only hope for economic benefit to be clearing and transforming their lands (Woinarski and Dawson 2001). This applies particularly in the often impoverished Indigenous communities. It is an unreasonable imposition on such landholders to expect them to retain native vegetation on their lands if such retention comes at the cost of them remaining destitute. Given that tropical forests and woodlands sequester more than 190 t/ha of CO2 – equivalent than if cleared (Price et al. 2008), and a reasonable estimate of carbon trade value would be about $25/t, such a market would mean that it would be more profitable for landholders in this system to retain native vegetation rather than clear it for pastoral intensification (the most common driver of clearing in this region) (Price et al. 2008). But current accounting systems do not provide explicit recognition of the carbon contribution of such ‘avoided deforestation’. Institutional change is needed to provide incentives to landholders to retain vegetation. But landholders can do more than simply draw benefit by passively retaining native vegetation: they should also be able to be funded to manage those lands appropriately to reduce carbon emissions. In a recent landmark deal (the vanguard of now many more examples), a company that established a major industrial gas plant in Darwin has offset its emissions through substantial annual payment to Indigenous landholders in remote Arnhem Land to manage their lands in such a way that the frequency and severity of fires (and consequent GHG emissions) is reduced to explicit targets. Such a deal has substantial benefit to Indigenous landholders (by supporting active management and an Indigenous ranger group) and to biodiversity (that benefits through amelioration of unfavourable fire regimes).

Tropical savannas

As there is increasing international interest in carbon offset schemes, such win-win options will become extremely attractive. But programs will be institutionalised and strategic only when a carbon market is properly established: the current situation is chaotic and blighted by uncertainties and short-term planning. 2. Establish secure long-term resourcing for conservation land management by Indigenous people on their lands, tied to explicit outcomes and performance measures Following from the above, it is increasingly evident that there cannot hope to be enduring beneficial management for biodiversity across much of Australia’s tropical savannas unless it can be accompanied by and aligned with improvement in the socio-economic status of the Indigenous communities that own much of that land. One of the few celebrated successes in the depressing history of Indigenous Australians since European settlement has been the recent expansion and recognition of Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) (Gilligan 2006), whose charter is to conserve biodiversity through management by Indigenous land owners. The number and extent of IPAs has increased substantially in the last few years, but most remain reliant on insecure and short-term funding. A complementary initiative has been the widespread recognition of Indigenous ownership and joint management of previously established national parks and conservation reserves across much of the tropical savannas. This has helped redress some historic injustices and provided scope for incorporating Indigenous knowledge into management of these lands. But until now there has been little assessment of the performance of such jointly managed parks, and it may remain challenging to attempt to meet objectives for biodiversity outcomes and Indigenous aspirations on the same land (Robinson et al. 2005). A feature of the tropical savannas is that, in some areas, Indigenous people have continued management practices that have extended unbroken for tens of thousands of years, and that an intricate and intimate ecological knowledge has been retained (Russell-Smith et al. 1997; Yibarbuk et al. 2001). But both the management and the knowledge have eroded rapidly over the last few decades, through population drift to larger settlements, through the changing aspirations of younger generations, and through the early deaths of many of the most knowledgeable. Where traditional management is still practised, those involved are far healthier, with substantial ancillary savings to health budgets. Hence, support for such management is a key element of Indigenous policy, with benefits across multiple portfolio areas (Garnett and Sithole 2007). A recent welcome initiative that addresses this issue is the Australian Government’s commitment to fund 300 Indigenous ranger jobs (at $90 million), mostly in northern Australia, as part of the Caring for our Country program. 3. Mitigate pastoral impacts, and deliver institutional change to provide substantially more scope for conservation management on what are currently pastoral lands There can be few other places in the world where a single industry and land-use occupies such a high proportion of such a large region. Pastoralism is so pervasive in northern Australia, and that hegemony has extended throughout almost the entire period of European settlement of the region, that, somewhat paradoxically, it is now difficult to discern its environmental impact: the whole landscape has changed at least subtly because of it. Nonetheless, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that it has had, and still has, a substantial impact upon biodiversity (Woinarski and Ash 2002; Woinarski and Catterall 2004) and ecological processes,

29

30

Ten Commitments

although this impact may be muted in some environments. Impacts were probably most detrimental in the early years of pastoralism, when the most susceptible species were first exposed and when pastoral managers may have been largely ignorant about the capacity of the land. However, impacts may again be increasing as a consequence of an ongoing pressure to intensify pastoral production both to overcome increasing management costs (largely driven by rise in fuel prices, interest rates and employment costs) and to take advantage of increasingly affluent Asian markets. The need in northern Australia is to have the land seen as other than one giant paddock purposed particularly for the grazing of cows. There needs to be institutional change in pastoral leasehold conditions and regulations, to make it more explicit that society expects landholders to include biodiversity conservation as a component of property holder’s duty of care, and to make it easier and more attractive to manage these lands with conservation outcomes. To some extent, current reviews of pastoral regulation in each of the three northern jurisdictions are addressing these issues (e.g. DNRW 2007). There needs to be substantially more balance in the representation of productive lands in the conservation reserve estate. A specific feature of pastoralism in the tropical savannas has been an orchestrated drive to transform the landscape through the replacement of native grasses with putatively superior exotic grasses (mostly from Africa) (Cook and Dias 2006). Given that so much of the native biodiversity of Australia’s tropical savannas is intricately linked to the characteristics of native grasses, and that the exotic grasses have spread rapidly beyond their points of introduction, this is a design whose detrimental impacts have reverberated widely. The issue is now compounded by interaction with fire, given that the exceptional biomass of the exotic grasses now fuels fires of an intensity far greater than those sustained by native grasses (Fairfax and Fensham 2000; Rossiter et al. 2003). The need here is to regulate much more tightly the use of exotic grasses, to restrain cattle production within the sustainable bounds set by native pastures, and/or to institute appropriate polluter-pays regulation. 4. Establish processes and institutions to drive systematic long-term land-use planning, that appropriately recognises and retains conservation values as the foundation for a sustainable future Australia’s tropical savannas are a shared resource managed and regulated idiosyncratically across two States, one Territory and by various Federal Government agencies. The savannas include large areas of leasehold lands, and increasingly large areas held under varying tenures by Indigenous people. Across the savannas, environmental governance is a mish-mash, without long-term target or integrated planning. Australia’s tropical savannas provide an opportunity to use our nation’s hard-won environmental knowledge to plan a long-term future hinged on environmental sustainability. This option was squandered long ago most everywhere else. With some regional exceptions, such systematic planning hasn’t been progressed in the tropical savannas, and developments have progressed piecemeal and sub-optimally, with cumulative impact, and options foreclosed. What is needed, particularly given the impetus to substantially expand the region’s agricultural production, is to recognise that the essential fabric that should be retained in the future is the integrity of the tropical savannas and its underlying ecological processes. Hence, the normal planning paradigm should be inverted (Nix 2004), and development contemplated only where and of a nature that it does not diminish that essence. Such a planning process should ensure that the connectivity of the landscape is retained, thereby probably providing greater resilience to the impacts of climate change than is likely for any other part of the continent.

Tropical savannas

What is needed is a long-term vision for northern Australia, and community acceptance of that vision. A reasonable proposition may be that 50% of these lands are managed with biodiversity conservation as a primary aim, and that development in the remaining 50% is planned in such a manner that it does not compromise environmental sustainability at the regional level. 5. Implement broad-scale programs designed to understand and staunch the ongoing pervasive decline in biodiversity The higher rainfall areas of the tropical savannas (notably including the North Kimberley and ‘Top End’) are recognised as the largest areas in Australia that have retained their full complement of species since European settlement (NLWRA 2002). But elsewhere in the tropical savannas, it is a disquieting conundrum that in a landscape so apparently intact and natural, there are increasing and consistent signs of biodiversity decline (Woinarski et al. 2001; Franklin et al. 2005; Woinarski et al. 2007b). If the conservation value of the tropical savannas lies largely in their intactness, then this is an evaluation that may increasingly be undeserved. A particular problem here is that many of the declines have been gradual and spatially blurred, but nonetheless insidious and apparently inexorable. In contrast to much of the biodiversity decline in the more sharply etched modified landscape of temperate Australia, the mix of causes is more diffuse in northern Australia. Biodiversity decline in northern Australia is largely a detrimental outcome and consequence of some of the other factors considered here, notably including broad-scale (but often subtle) vegetation change associated with pastoralism and with changed fire regimes, the spread of exotic biota (particularly feral cats), and possibly the spread of new diseases. These factors operate to varying degrees amongst different components of biodiversity. We need a sustained research program extending over at least a decade that examines the relative impacts of these contrasting threats on contrasting components of biodiversity at different sites, linked to carefully targeted management, and a program of monitoring biodiversity and its responses to management intervention (see also point 8). 6. Implement a suite of actions to attempt to safeguard the species and environments most susceptible to impacts of global climate change As with all other parts of Australia, the tropical savannas are likely to face a transformation in climate that may be of largely unprecedented rapidity and scale. Such change may undermine much of the nuanced structure in these ecological communities, particularly given that the severe wet-dry climate already drives many species along an ecological knife-edge (Woinarski et al. 2005), and because the systems are so dependent on the annual return of the monsoonal rains. The most likely adverse impacts of global climate change in the tropical savannas are the loss, through seawater inundation, of the region’s most productive environments, the coastal floodplain wetlands (Bayliss et al. 1998); increase in fire severity; increase in the incidence of destructive cyclones; increased risk of invasion by exotic organisms (particularly virulent Asian diseases); and loss of species with particularly narrow habitat specificity. There may be no achievable response to some of these unavoidable changes, but for others there is some scope for anticipatory and remedial management. For example, it may be feasible to reconstruct some of the coastal floodplain systems in the inland lakes of the arid fringe of the tropical savannas. What is needed is a sober assessment of the risks and potential impacts, and a carefully modulated strategy to manage the most susceptible elements, and retain as many landscape options as possible to allow flexibility in species’ responses and the management of re-constructing ecological communities.

31

32

Ten Commitments

7. Recognise and correct the distortion in Australia’s national environmental perspective and resourcing Most Australians live in the narrow fertile coastal zone of temperate Australia. Hence, the environments of those areas are what most Australians regard as typical and familiar. The tropical savannas, with their harsh light and strange assortment of non-Australian elements, are writ low and odd on the national psyche. With the exception of the ‘gee-whizzery’ of spectacular places such as Kakadu or the Kimberley, most Australians have little affinity or care for this part of their land. Further, the concentration of most Australians in the temperate south has inevitably meant that most of Australia’s most abrupt environmental problems (and those that are most costly to deal with) are in those areas. Because there are few people in the tropical savannas, because there is little national affinity for it, and because other environmental problems seem more pressing, resourcing for environmental management in northern Australia is a minuscule proportion of that in southern Australia. In fairness, I suspect that this entirely understandable bias is gradually being balanced, not least because of the increasing recognition that there is more chance of success and more cost-effectiveness in investing to maintain healthy systems than in trying to restore or resuscitate failed systems (Morton et al. 2002). 8. Consolidate comprehensive and robust biodiversity monitoring programs, linked to measurement of the efficacy of management Australia notably lacks a national biodiversity monitoring program. In contrast to the ready assessment of progress in the nation’s social and economic status, it is unreasonably difficult to measure the pulse of our environments (Beeton et al. 2006). It is also difficult to measure the effectiveness of our environmental management and the cost-efficiency of resources allocated. At least in the tropical savannas of the Northern Territory, we have established robust and substantial programs that monitor the status of plants and of terrestrial vertebrates, based on consistently-applied sampling of all plants and vertebrates in >200 sites per year (e.g. Edwards et al. 2003; Woinarski et al. 2004). Such a program could be effective more broadly across the entire tropical savannas, and be applied to measure management efficacy. What is needed is a recognition that biodiversity monitoring should be a foundation for measuring environmental sustainability, and thence appropriate long-term and adequate resourcing for a strategically-crafted monitoring program. 9. Develop a research and management program aimed at understanding and maintaining the dynamic in this system The tropical savannas are notable for their temporal and spatial dynamic. Many animal species move around the landscape, in response to seasonality, fire patterning, and resource availability. Indeed for some of these species, movements link Australia’s tropical savannas with the nearby countries to the immediate north. We cannot hope to maintain the character of these landscapes or retain such species without a far more sophisticated understanding of the dynamic and the factors that control it (Woinarski et al. 2005). What is needed is a ‘big picture’ research program examining ecological processes, sustained over at least a decadal scale, and incorporating advances in remote sensing, satellite tracking and other tools for spatial analyses. To some extent, this is being attempted for aquatic

Tropical savannas

environments of the tropical savannas, through the recent establishment of the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge program (http://www.track.gov.au). 10. Establish better links across the tropical savannas, and with international networks of tropical managers Consistent with the north’s low proportion of Australia’s population generally, the community of ecologists and conservation managers across northern Australia is small and widely dispersed, and the networks across the north are tenuous. Ecologists working in Australia’s tropical savannas have been productive, but may have been relatively insular in their context and perhaps shy of broadening their perspective to include also the ecology and fate of tropical systems elsewhere (Laurance 2007). But Australia’s tropical savannas may share more characteristics with these than with temperate southern Australia, and their fate may be at least as closely linked to the conservation status of tropical systems in other continents. There should be greater incentive for, and institutional support to allow, the research and management community to mix.

Conclusion Probably more so than any other Australian system, the tropical savannas provide an opportunity to conserve biodiversity within natural ecological systems that operate over large scales. We have a reasonable level of expertise, we have relatively few acute pressures, and we have the capacity to use natural resource management as a driving mechanism to achieve needed socioeconomic progress, along with world-class biodiversity conservation outcomes. Such a vision can be achieved only through the institutional and regulatory advances considered here, and with the establishment of a more substantial, strategic and large-scale research and management program.

Acknowledgements The ideas presented here have evolved over many years of shared discussions, experience and advocacy with Stuart Blanch, Alaric Fisher, Stephen Garnett, Alex Kutt, Barry Traill and Peter Whitehead in particular.

References Bayliss BL, Brennan KG, Eliot I et al. (1998) ‘Vulnerability assessment of predicted climate change and sea level rise in the Alligator Rivers region, Northern Territory, Australia’. Report 123, Supervising Scientist, Canberra. Beeton RJS, Buckey KI, Jones GJ et al. (2006) Australia State of the Environment 2006. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Cook GD and Dias L (2006) It was no accident: deliberate plant introductions by Australian government agencies during the 20th century. Australian Journal of Botany 54, 601–625. Department of Natural Resources and Water (2007) State Rural Leasehold Land Strategy. The State of Queensland, Brisbane. Edwards A, Kennett R, Price O et al. (2003) Monitoring the impacts of fire regimes on biodiversity in northern Australia: an example from Kakadu National Park. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 427–440.

33

34

Ten Commitments

Fairfax RJ and Fensham RJ (2000) The effect of exotic pasture development on floristic diversity in central Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 94, 11–21. Franklin DC, Whitehead PJ, Pardon G et al. (2005) Geographic patterns and correlates of the decline of granivorous birds in northern Australia. Wildlife Research 32, 399–408. Garnett S and Sithole B (2007) Sustainable Northern Landscapes and the Nexus with Indigenous Health: Healthy Country, Healthy People. Land and Water Australia, Canberra. Garnett S, Woinarski J, Gerritsen R and Duff G (2008) Future Options for North Australia. Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin. Gilligan B (2006) The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme. 2006 Evaluation. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Laurance WF (2007) Why Australian tropical scientists should become international leaders. Austral Ecology 32, 601–604. Morton S, Bourne G, Cristofani P et al. (2002) ‘Sustaining our natural ecosystems and biodiversity: an independent report to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council’. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and Environment Australia, Canberra. National Land and Water Resources Audit (2002) Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment. Land and Water Australia, Canberra. Nix H (2004) Inverting the paradigm. Pacific Conservation Biology 10, 76. Pardon LG, Brook BW, Griffiths AD and Braithwaite RW (2003) Determinants of survival for the northern brown bandicoot under a landscape-scale fire experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 106–115. Price O, Drucker A, Edwards G et al. (2008) ‘Review of threats to biodiversity in the Northern Territory’. Report to Natural Heritage Trust. Department of Natural Resources Environment and The Arts, Darwin. Robinson CJ, Smyth D and Whitehead PJ (2005) Bush tucker, bush pets, and bush threats: cooperative management of feral animals in Australia’s Kakadu National Park. Conservation Biology 19, 1385–1391. Rossiter NA, Setterfield SA, Douglas MM and Hutley LB (2003) Testing the grass-fire cycle: alien grass invasion in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Diversity and Distributions 9, 169–176. Russell-Smith J, Lucas D, Gapindi M et al. (1997) Aboriginal resource utilization and fire management practice in western Arnhem Land, monsoonal northern Australia: notes for prehistory and lessons for the future. Human Ecology 25, 159–195. Russell-Smith J, Ryan PG, Klessa D et al. (1998) Fire regimes, fire-sensitive vegetation and fire management of the sandstone Arnhem plateau, monsoonal northern Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 35, 829–846. Woinarski J, Mackey B, Nix H and Traill B (2007a) The Nature of Northern Australia: Natural Values, Ecological Processes and Future Prospects. ANU e-press, Canberra. Woinarski J, Pavey C, Kerrigan R et al. (2007b) Lost from Our Landscape: Threatened Species of the Northern Territory. NT Government Printer, Darwin. Woinarski JCZ and Ash AJ (2002) Responses of vertebrates to pastoralism, military land use and landscape position in an Australian tropical savanna. Austral Ecology 27, 311–323. Woinarski JCZ and Catterall CP (2004) Historical changes in the bird fauna at Coomooboolaroo, northeastern Australia, from the early years of pastoral settlement (1873) to 1999. Biological Conservation 116, 379–401. Woinarski JCZ and Dawson F (2001) Limitless lands and limited knowledge: coping with uncertainty and ignorance in northern Australia. In Ecology, Uncertainty and Policy:

Tropical savannas

Managing Ecosystems for Sustainability. (Eds JW Handmer, TW Norton and SR Dovers) pp. 83–115. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England. Woinarski JCZ, Milne DJ and Wanganeen G (2001) Changes in mammal populations in relatively intact landscapes of Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. Austral Ecology 26, 360–370. Woinarski JCZ, Armstrong M, Price O et al. (2004) The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of Litchfield National Park, Northern Territory: monitoring over a 6-year period, and response to fire history. Wildlife Research 31, 1–10. Woinarski JCZ, Williams RJ, Price O and Rankmore B (2005) Landscapes without boundaries: wildlife and their environments in northern Australia. Wildlife Research 32, 377–388. Yibarbuk D, Whitehead PJ, Russell-Smith J et al. (2001) Fire ecology and Aboriginal land management in central Arnhem Land, northern Australia: a tradition of ecosystem management. Journal of Biogeography 28, 325–343.

35

URBAN SETTLEMENTS Brendan Gleeson and Phil McManus

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Create a national settlement strategy and Commonwealth urban portfolio. Reinvest in public housing and undertake major expansion of social housing sector. Reset urban transport policy to improve accessibility. Recast infrastructure to enhance sustainability and security. Promote healthy food production and consumption. Restore the urban public realm and urban civil society. ‘Green’ the cities. Reduce consumption of energy and the generation of emissions and waste. Generate sustainable design for all urban areas. Reinstate children to urban environments and policy.

Introduction Australia is an urban nation. Most Australians live in the suburbs of our largest cities. Australian cities, like those in other countries, have grown primarily to organise production and consumption in economically efficient ways. This has created a vortex effect, where cities import resources from the hinterland and other parts of the planet, and use the waste assimilation capacities of areas outside their boundaries (McManus 2005). Globalisation and growing material wealth have greatly increased the urban vortex (Gleeson 2006). We have created urban areas with relatively high environmental amenity, although it is not equitably distributed. Our cities, however, are deeply unsustainable. The four principal sustainability threats facing Australia’s cities are: growing social polarisation; the decline of the public realm and social solidarity; resource depletion and insecurity, and overconsumption of energy and the related generation of emissions and waste. All are linked in various ways to the dire threat of climate change. Strengthened social solidarity and a fairer distribution of resources are preconditions for a successful response to climate threat. Resource depletion reflects overconsumption and urban inefficiency, which in turn generate excessive greenhouse emissions. The following 10 steps are necessary to address the growing insecurity and unsustainability of Australia’s urban settlements.

37

38

Ten Commitments

Key issues 1. Create a national settlement strategy and Commonwealth urban portfolio The Commonwealth must take an active interest in the management of our cities and towns. There should be a multi-lateral effort to establish cross-Party support for Federal urban policy. It should be recognised that there exists a credible conservative position that supports Federal urban policy. A national settlement strategy should be devised and implemented in partnership with the States, Territories and local governments. The strategy should be one part of an ‘Australia Plan’, which will include a population strategy and an economic development strategy. The Australia Plan will not continue the innocent view of material growth that has characterised government policy at all levels for decades. It will focus on making Australia secure and sustainable and on the maximisation of well-being, not material wealth. This national settlement strategy should be grounded in a thorough research-based assessment of Australia’s settlement pattern, examining the sustainability and security threats that face our cities and towns and the best ways in which these might be swiftly countered. The climate change emergency must take high priority. The strategy should then chart medium and longterm courses towards a stable and secure settlement system. It should consider and mobilise the non-planning measures, such as taxation adjustments and finance shifts, which will be needed to redirect growth to appropriate areas, and away from those reaching capacity. The Commonwealth must establish a discrete urban portfolio and establish a fund, managed through the COAG process, to support and undertake the measures outlined in the national settlement strategy. 2. Reinvest in public housing and major expansion of social housing sector The current housing crisis presents an opportunity to rethink how we house ourselves as a nation. Our guiding premise should be achieving housing security for all. Real choice in housing tenure needs to be re-established. The Commonwealth must work in partnership with the States and local government to plan and implement a major revival of the public housing sector. The attitude towards public housing as accommodation of last resort must be reversed, and working people must be offered once again the possibility of public accommodation in an expanded and improved housing stock. Both socially supported and working people should be offered further opportunities for housing in an expanded social housing sector based around independent, publicly-subsidised associations, some with specialist missions; for example, supporting communities for the frail elderly and re-entry communities for homeless people. This will provide humane and inclusive alternatives to the warehousing of aged Australians in corporate aged care facilities or gated retirement communities. Young people’s access to safe, affordable and pleasant housing should be guaranteed through new tenurial and finance options that prioritise security over ownership. Public and social housing should be dispersed throughout our cities and towns and where possible should remain or be developed in wealthy and/or high amenity areas. The scandal of homelessness must be ended and homeless people given priority access to services and accommodation that will restore them to well-being and independence. As part of this reinvestment in public and social housing, there is a responsibility to develop demonstration projects that advance sustainability in areas such as water conservation, energy conservation and waste minimisation. This housing can be a model for other developments and, due to economies of scale, reduce the unit price of more sustainable forms of technology to facilitate their adoption.

Urban settlements

3. A Very Public Solution: a new urban transport policy to improve accessibility Australia must discard transport policies that massively favour private motorised travel over public transport and non-motorised forms of ‘active transport’ such as walking and cycling. As part of this, the massive recent expansion of air travel needs urgent and critical rethinking. The emphasis on individual motorised mobility must be replaced with the goal of maximising urban accessibility for all citizens. This will require a great rebalancing of resources and strategic commitment away from private motor travel. Public transport must first be improved in the suburban and regional parts of the settlement system, recognising the relatively privileged situation of the inner cities. We adopt our colleague Paul Mees’ insightful phrase, ‘A Very Public Solution’, to describe system enhancement based on the principles of public ownership, modal integration and equitable investment (Mees 2000). This translates into a major expansion of the public bus network to outer suburbs, with connections to rail lines, and a system that runs during and outside peak periods to reduce car use and make isolated suburbs accessible. As part of its restored urban policy commitment, the Commonwealth will provide major funding to improve public transport and non-motorised travel. The States will end their preference for tollways, tunnels and major road infrastructure generally in favour of public transport. Our current massive urban road system will be well maintained and more efficiently used to cater for the continuing need to use cars and trucks. Local government will ensure that local planning reinforces the principle of accessibility and maximises the viability of active transport options. 4. Recast infrastructure to enhance sustainability and security The reliance on big network infrastructure to provide hydraulic urban services needs to be changed in favour of a more decentralised system where householders and firms assume more responsibility for on-site water collection and treatment, for power generation and for food production. This must involve public investments and subsidies to assist households and firms to achieve water, energy and waste independence and for communities and neighbourhoods to establish collective gardens. The Commonwealth could lead this task through its new Infrastructure Australia program. We cannot continue the traditional approach of extending infrastructure networks to meet growing need. Instead, we should focus on localised water management options like rainwater tanks, and retrofit existing suburbs with dual water pipes to ensure that water used is fit for purpose, thus saving potable water for drinking and personal hygiene only. First, need and use must be restrained, not merely accommodated, in the cause of sustainability. Second, system extension must be abandoned, where possible, to avoid further ecosystem disruption and resource depletion. None of this is to advocate privatisation whose logic works against sustainability. Urban infrastructure could return to localised – municipal or communal – management, supported by centralised policy direction and funding. 5. Promote healthy food production and consumption It is necessary to encourage organic community gardens and allotments as part of a bigger goal to protect and enhance urban agriculture. This will prevent longer transport journeys for food and higher water use for irrigation in drier regions. Promoting urban agriculture is an important way of promoting healthy eating, social interaction and enabling people to have a connection to the soil. Promoting organic gardens reduces run-off of pesticides and fertilisers to nearby waterways. The produce from these gardens can supplement tight household budgets, and improve the diets of people who may be overweight

39

40

Ten Commitments

due to a surplus of cheaper, low quality calories. As Australian cities are increasing in density, and as hard surfaces cover more of the (smaller) lot, the promotion of community gardens becomes more urgent and challenging. These gardens can also become a focal point for neighbourhood meetings and to provide retirees, people who are unemployed, and so on, a chance to pass on skills and knowledge, whilst becoming a source of community pride. 6. Restore the urban public realm and urban civil society The long neglect of Australia’s urban public realm, including public services and facilities, must end and urban civil society should be restored as part of a general renewal of social solidarity and purpose. This must be achieved by the States as they have principal responsibility for the public realm. The lure of social engineering will be rejected in favour of a project that seeks to re-establish social solidarity through spontaneous encounter in vibrant and secure public realms. The tendency of governments to favour private provision of urban services and management of urban spaces will be discarded by a new approach founded in confidence about public endeavour. Gated suburban communities will be banned and excessive securitisation of infill developments resisted. There must be less reliance on developer contributions to provide basic urban services and public amenities. Equity demands priority attention to the degraded public realms of our less affluent and poorer communities. Exciting, safe and well-supported public spaces will be established in these suburban areas of our cities, managed by community or local authorities. Brisbane’s Southbank parklands are one model of facilities that should be provided immediately to the areas of our cities furthest from high amenity natural features, such as beaches and waterways. 7. ‘Green’ our hardened cities Governments at all levels, working cooperatively, should ‘green’ our hardened cities. It is important that we plant more trees in Australian cities to provide shade, reduce stormwater flows, reduce the urban heat island, provide habitats, and offer many other ecosystem services for very little cost. The ageing of existing trees is a concern, because they may become dangerous and will eventually die. Trees take time to grow to maturity, so it is important to plant more trees now so that they will be there in the future. Improved urban design means we can accommodate larger trees in cities, and using ground, wall and rooftop space effectively can create a system of vegetation to help cool the city. State and local governments must work to protect biodiversity on private lands. Ecological Restoration Projects in heavily degraded areas can reintroduce desirable forms of nature into our cities after episodes of neglect or vandalism. 8. Reduce consumption of energy and the generation of emissions and waste There needs to be a much more rigorous and consistent attempt by the States to use urban policies to improve environmental performance, especially energy use and emissions generation. In NSW, the introduction of mandatory targets through schemes such as BASIX, and the requirements of major energy users to provide Energy Savings Action Plans, are examples of programs that should be emulated nationally. The implementation of solar and wind power is important for energy security and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. It is also necessary to widen an initiative from the ACT, where it is a requirement to provide energy ratings for all dwellings that are sold. The extension of energy ratings from the level of appliances to structures (which could also include commercial and industrial buildings) is an important step in encouraging better design and use of materials to provide warmth and cooling functions. This initiative needs to be extended further to include fixtures and fittings in the energy assess-

Urban settlements

ment. The use of heaters and air conditioners is, in most cases, an outcome of poor design. The energy rating approach must be partnered by environmental education, so that when energy savings translate into financial gain this new value is reinvested in sustainability initiatives. At present a major problem of energy savings is that they are used for purposes that increase energy demand, therefore contributing to an increase in total energy use. 9. Generate sustainable design for all urban areas The quality of urban design in Australian cities varies significantly between and within cities. The States and Territories should work to secure improved design for sustainability, consistently across all urban areas. This will mean directing universal improvement in municipal planning and by setting new, mandatory standards for the development industry. Sustainable design will contribute to the improved ecological performance called for in point 8, but must embrace a range of other human and natural considerations. Better design is not simply about lowering resource use: it should ensure that our cities provide maximum opportunities for flourishing by humans and other species. It must also find ways to achieve sustainability at a variety of density scales to match the diversity of human needs. The suburbs need a sympathetic ‘retrofit’ to improve their sustainability and resource security (Troy 2003). Low-density areas can be very well suited to onsite power generation, water collection and waste disposal. Improvements in urban design can be achieved by stronger and more intelligent regulation, government demonstration projects especially in areas less favoured by the market, and well resourced capacity building in local government. 10. Promote child-friendly cities and urban policies Australia has obsessed itself with the prospect of ageing, progressively overlooking and sidelining the interests of children (Gleeson and Sipe 2006). In many parts of our cities and towns there will be more not less children in the future. Planning and urban development have been particularly neglectful of children. The policy of market driven compaction has produced many urban landscapes that ignore the needs of children and their carers. Children and young people must be reinstated to urban policy and practice, including within a new Federal urban agenda. A new Commonwealth Children’s Commission should be established, with a strong urban focus. State governments must revise planning frameworks and urban service provision with children’s needs in mind. Local governments will assess all development proposals for their child-impacts in addition to standard considerations such as traffic and noise impacts. Universities must stop ignoring children in their programs that train urban professionals, including planners, architects and urban designers.

Conclusion By international standards, Australia is a wealthy country and is richly endowed with natural attributes. We have the resources and to deal with the environmental and social threats facing our cities and nation. And there are plenty of ideas, apart from our own, about how to shift our cities and towns to a more sustainable and secure footing (McGuirk 2007; Stretton 2005). We are moving towards consensus, for example, on the proposition that cities should use our renewable natural attributes, especially solar and wind power, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. What we have lacked is leadership to steer us from the course of waste towards a society that values stewardship, renewal and fairness. There is evidence now, however, that Australian civil society is demanding that its leaders reset the compass of politics away from the shortterm thinking that has left us vulnerable to social and ecological breakdown. The new setting,

41

42

Ten Commitments

towards sustainability and security, will require a changed urban course that will take our cities through the storm ahead to a more resilient location. The 10 steps above are one attempt to chart this direction of urban change.

References Anon. (2008) ‘Cities on the edge’. Griffith Review 20. Gleeson B (2006) Australian Heartlands: Making Space for Hope in the Suburbs. Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Gleeson B and Sipe N (2006) Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City. Routledge, London. McGuirk P (2007) ‘Building the capacity to govern the Australian metropolis: challenges and opportunities’. 3rd State of Australian Cities Conference, Adelaide, www.unisa.edu.au/ soac2007 McManus P (2005) Vortex Cities to Sustainable Cities: Australia’s Urban Challenge. UNSW Press, Sydney. Mees P (2000) A Very Public Solution: Transport in the Dispersed City. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Stretton H (2005) Australia Fair. UNSW Press, Sydney. Troy P (2003) ‘Saving our cities with suburbs’, Griffith Review, ‘Dreams of Land’, 2 (Summer), pp. 115–127.

FORESTS, FORESTRY AND FOREST MANAGEMENT David Lindenmayer

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

Stop native forest and woodland clearing to establish plantations. Cease logging old growth forest immediately. Make a proper long-term commitment to, and investment in, forest monitoring. Improve the reserve system for forests. Improve forest management and develop more ecologically sustainable logging systems. Develop new ways to improve integration of farm forestry with on-farm management and on-farm biodiversity conservation. Reassess sustained yield calculations for production forests to avoid resource overcommitment. Complete a climate change vulnerability assessment for forests, including assessment of cumulative climate change impacts with other threatening processes like landscape modification. Develop much improved fire management practices for forests. Make proper investments in forest research.

Introduction Australia supports a forest estate that is relatively limited in size compared to that of many other continents (e.g. Burton et al. 2003; FAO 2007). Despite its size, the nation’s forest estate is nevertheless extremely diverse and supports vast numbers of endemic species. It is perhaps not surprising then that the exploitation and management of Australia’s forest estate has proved to be extremely contentious, particularly over the past four decades. Debates over forest resources have been often been socially divisive (especially in States such as Tasmania) and discussion on the issues frequently polarised. The extremes of this debate are between those who wish to see an end to all native forest harvesting in this country (not unlike what has happened in New Zealand), and those who wish to see continued access to Australia’s forest resources for the production of timber, pulpwood and woodchips. Politicians have used land allocation in an attempt to resolve this debate. That is, they have created reserves and production areas in a kind of ‘land apartheid’ system. This has, to some extent, resolved (or partially resolved) some issues, but significant others remain. Thus, the 10 key issues discussed in this chapter encompass issues that extend well beyond politically-derived land tenure boundaries, thus spanning 43

44

Ten Commitments

the divide been reserve and off-reserve forests. They also span the public-private tenure debate as well as the research and management domains.

Key issues 1. Stop clearing native forests and woodlands to establish plantations Clearing native forest and woodland to establish plantations is poor forest policy and poor land management practice. It should cease. The practice has negative consequences for biodiversity and in some cases, such as in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria, there is potential for threatened grassy woodland and native grassland communities (and their associated biota) to be affected detrimentally. Moreover, the forest conversion cannot be justified on the basis of carbon emissions and loss of carbon storage capability. A major expansion of Australia’s plantation estate is Federal Government policy. This is, in part, a result of reductions in the amount of logging of native forests. Indeed, nearly 20 million hectares of land in southern Australia has been deemed suitable for plantation establishment (Burns et al. 1999). However, this expansion should not be at the cost of an already depleted native forest and woodland estate. Forest and woodland clearing to establish plantations has been most extensive in Tasmania and was instigated as one of the perverse outcomes of the Regional Forest Agreement process in that State. In late 2007, a commitment was made to phase out public forest conversion in Tasmania, but the practice may well continue for a number of years in other areas. Substantial government-sponsored native forest clearing for plantation development has taken place in the Northern Territory. Private native forest and woodland is also at risk of conversion in several Australian States. For example, conversion to plantations has been a significant contributor to the annual amount of cleared private land in New South Wales in the past five years. 2. Stop logging old growth forest immediately Old growth forest has special significance from a human cultural perspective. Such areas are also critical for the conservation of biodiversity and the production of large amounts of high quality water. More recent work indicates that old growth eucalypt forests in Australia store enormous quantities of carbon (sometimes exceeding 2100 tonnes per hectare (Keith et al. unpublished data)) – far greater amounts than regrowth forest, including forests regenerating after logging. There appears to be no rational basis for the continued logging of old growth forest in Australia, particularly given the importance of carbon storage as part of attempts to offset the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change (especially in a future carbon trading economy). Rapid cessation of old growth forest logging (e.g. in Tasmania and east Gippsland in Victoria) will have impacts on some rural communities, but such greatly needed changes in logging policies must be achieved in a socially inclusive manner to ensure appropriate social safety nets are created for timber workers and their families. 3. Make a proper long-term commitment (and investment) to forest monitoring With less than a handful of exceptions, there are virtually no credible (rigorously designed and appropriately implemented) forest biodiversity and environmental monitoring programs in Australia. This is a critical issue because it is not presently possible to assess whether forest management practices are ecologically sustainable or management actions are effective (Wintle and Lindenmayer 2008). If it is not possible to objectively judge ecological sustainability, processes

Forests, forestry and forest management

underpinning the certification of forest management are inherently flawed, as are Australia’s claims of adherence to sustainability indicators, such as those under the Montreal process and the State of the Environment Report. Looming problems such as those likely to be associated with rapid climate change further underscore the critical need for monitoring programs and make their establishment more urgent and more important than they have ever been. There is clearly a major and increasingly urgent need to instigate and then maintain rigorously designed and properly implemented forest monitoring programs. These monitoring programs must encompass different land tenure and management regimes, reserves and production areas, and consideration of issues relates to the management of public and private land. For too long, the survey and monitoring of public reserved land has largely been ignored. The call for proper monitoring programs is far from new – similar ones were made by the Australian Academy of Science over three decades ago. The ecological community needs to play a leadership role in this regard and move beyond endless squabbles about what to monitor and how to monitor that have plagued past (and relatively recent) attempts to develop environmental monitoring programs in Australia. Various levels of government need to play their part by recognising that five-year programs are useful but they do not constitute long-term monitoring – much longer timeframes are needed and hence much longer funding cycles must be developed. 4. Improve the forest reserve system Reserves are a core part of any credible strategy to maintain a wide range of forest values including the conservation of biodiversity (Lindenmayer et al. 2006). Significant improvements in the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of Australia’s forest reserve system were an outcome of the Regional Forest Agreement process. Despite this, in almost all jurisdictions, some forest communities remain poorly reserved – even in Tasmania where ~40% of the island is in protected areas (e.g. Mendel and Kirkpatrick 2002). The problem is particularly pronounced for private land which is typically on the most productive, but also most extensively modified, parts of landscapes and regions – places which are also the most poorly represented in reserve systems (Braithwaite 2004). A key task then must be to assess the private native forest estate, examine options for adding areas to the current forest reserve system and/or explore the potential for the development of improved codes of management practice sympathetic to the maintenance of key forest values. 5. Improve and better develop ecologically sustainable logging systems Although forest reserves are important for the maintenance of forest values, off-reserve areas also play a critical complementary role for biodiversity conservation, water production and many other values that Australians demand from forests. Appropriate management of the offreserve forest estate is therefore extremely important (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). New approaches to forest logging and regeneration are needed that maintain key environmental values of forests better. This is an important issue because the way forests are logged and regenerated can have enormous implications for biodiversity conservation and water production as well as having other environmental impacts such as altering future fire behaviour. Much has been written about the environmental impacts of intensive logging systems such as clearfelling. But other methods of harvesting, such as repeated selective logging, can ultimately degrade forest stand structure and composition in similar ways to clearfelling, with subsequent long-term negative impacts on forest values such as biodiversity conservation. Major improvements in forest harvesting practices have been made in a number of Australian States over the past few decades, although there is some way to go, particularly in Tasmania and Victoria. Improvements in logging practices will need to be underpinned by: (1) recognising

45

46

Ten Commitments

that current ones may be inappropriate and may not adequately maintain all forest values; (2) by acknowledging that quite different harvesting prescriptions will be required on different logging coupes, even within the same forest type – adding to the complexity of logging operations; and (3) by conceding that active adaptive management logging experiments are needed, particularly given the poor status of forest ecological knowledge in many of Australia’s forest types (Wintle and Lindenmayer 2008). Improving logging systems may take some time, but this can be accelerated by borrowing and adapting innovations in environmental forestry from overseas such as those in parts of western North America (Beese and Bryant 1999; Beese et al. 2005), Scandinavia (e.g. Fries et al. 1997) and South America (Felton et al. 2008). 6. Develop new ways to better integrate farm forestry with on-farm management and on-farm biodiversity conservation A shift away from native forest harvesting toward plantation forestry has led to a push for the increased establishment of forests on semi-cleared agricultural land in many parts of Australia, particularly in the south-east and south-west of the continent. There also has been a push for forest revegetation in semi-cleared areas as part of schemes for carbon sequestration and emissions offsetting. There has, however, been a negative response to expanding the area of tree cover from human communities in some regions (Stanley 2006). This has been because large-scale plantation establishment has the capacity to lead to the disruption of the social fabric of human communities. One way to counter this problem is develop new ways to better integrate farm forestry with on-farm management: that is, not to replace farming with largescale plantation forestry, but rather to find ways that make farm forestry part of a diversified agri-business in which a number of viable land uses take place on a farm. Of course, there are major opportunities to further integrate farm forestry with revegetation efforts that are a fundamentally important part of tackling issues of salinity, soil erosion and biodiversity conservation in agricultural areas (Salt et al. 2004). Models for these kinds of integrated land uses on farms are available from many other parts of the globe (e.g. parts of southern Sweden) and could be useful models for adaptation to Australian farms and agricultural landscapes. 7. Reassess sustained yield calculations for production forests to avoid resource over-commitment Commitments to produce specified quantities of timber, pulpwood and woodchips are the key drivers of the type and intensity of forest management practices. However, there has been a tradition of over-committing forest resources for the supply of timber and other forest products in all Australian States. A consequence of this is management intensification, which runs diametrically counter to the notion of ecologically sustainable forest management. Over-commitment and intensification reduces the size of the ‘environmental margin’ needed in resource management to ensure the maintenance of other key forest values. Preventing resource overcommitment requires a proper assessment and rationalisation of forest resources – a crucial activity which lies at the heart of being able to establish management regimes that are truly ecologically sustainable. The case of the highly controversial Tamar Valley Pulp Mill in Tasmania illustrates the problems that can arise. The wood needed to run the mill is in addition to that required for the export woodchip industry, the sawmilling industry and for proposed biofuel plants. However, the large quantities of additional wood needed to run the pulp mill will affect other forest industries such as the sawmilling sector. This is in addition to potential impacts on biodiversity conservation and the production of water from some catchments. In essence, a proper

Forests, forestry and forest management

analysis of the environmental impacts of the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill should have included a comprehensive examination of the forest resource commitment for the Mill. This should have encompassed an examination of impacts on other sectors of the forest industry as well as on environmental values such the conservation of biodiversity. The scale of the pulp mill may then need to be adjusted appropriately to avoid the deep-seated problems that are invariably associated with resource over-commitment. 8. Complete a climate change vulnerability assessment for forests including assessment of cumulative climate change impacts with other threatening processes like landscape modification Few credible scientists now doubt that the world’s climate is undergoing rapid and substantial change. The nation’s forest estate will not be immune from these major predicted changes (Pittock 2005). A climate change vulnerability assessment is urgently needed for Australia’s forests. What might the impacts of climate change be on the forest industry – for example, through tree regeneration and growth, and fire intensity and frequency? What might be the impacts of climate change on forest biodiversity? What is the potential for cumulative impacts on the forest estate of forestry and wildfire? Such a vulnerability assessment is far from trivial but it will be a critical step that precedes climate adaptation strategies. 9. Develop much improved fire management practices for forests Fire is a key ecological process in Australian forests. It is a major factor shaping the distribution of forest types as well as the distribution and abundance of many elements of forest biota. The frequency, intensity and seasonality of fire in some parts of Australia may change substantially as a result of rapid climate change (Cary 2002). The consequences of this are profound. For example, two fires within a 20–30 year period would eliminate extensive areas of wet ash forest in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. These are some of the most valuable timber-producing forests in Australia, support a range of threatened or endangered biota, and provide water for millions of people (e.g. the water catchments for Melbourne). Some deep and innovative thinking needs to be done on forest management and how it relates to fire management and the potential for increased numbers and intensities of fires. For example, work in the wet forests of western North America suggests that the way forests have been logged and regenerated in the past, as well as where salvage logging has occurred, has made them more prone to repeated high-intensity fires (Thompson et al. 2007). It also may have promoted the spread of fires over much larger areas than previously. The implications of that work for Australian forest management is that careful planning may well be needed for what is logged, how logging is conducted, and the spatial location of logged areas. This may be particularly important if an aim is to try to limit the spread of so-called catastrophic megafires. The location and design of plantations as well as farm forests also needs to be assessed in relation to fire susceptibility and the spread of fire in human-modified landscapes. If fires are indeed going to become more frequent and more intense, then an additional consideration must be how to manage areas after they have been burned. Recent research is suggesting that post-fire ‘salvage’ logging can have a range of negative ecological consequences for naturally disturbed forest ecosystems (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). The potential impacts on biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion and other ecosystem attributes has been well documented, both in Australia and overseas. Forest management policies need to be revised to limit the extent and/or intensity of salvage logging to reduce negative ecological impacts. Sustained yields also need to be recalculated to accommodate anticipated losses in timber volume that will be a consequence of recurrent wildfires.

47

48

Ten Commitments

10. Make proper investments in forest research Informed management of any natural resource requires knowledge of that resource and the ecosystems which provide it. Such knowledge needs to be gained from targeted research. However, Australia’s forest research effort has declined significantly in the past decade – both at a national level through the demise of a dedicated division of CSIRO, and cutbacks in government agencies in many Australian States. Research, and the knowledge it generates, is an essential ingredient of the various attempts to develop forest management practices that are ecologically sustainable. It is also a critical plank in credible forest certification schemes as well as other frameworks used to make claims of best practice environmental management. Therefore, appropriate investments in forest research clearly need to be made to support ecologically sustainable forest management. Indeed, research lies at the core of a number of other key issues raised in this chapter; developing more environmentally-sensitive logging systems, improving forest fire management, as well as other key topics such as identifying ways to accelerate habitat development for the needs of cavity-dependent fauna and completing proper carbon accounting for forestry operations (including the carbon storage capacity of mature and old growth forests).

Conclusions Debates about the management of Australia’s forest resources will always be with us. Until now, much of this debate has been highly polarised and has pivoted on the addition of new forest reserves or the confirmation of production in forest areas that are not reserved. Although the need for some additional reserves in poorly represented forest types is undeniable, forestry debates need to mature beyond ‘land apartheid’ issues to ensure that much needed investments are made to establish proper forest monitoring systems, reassess sustained yields to avoid overcutting, and instigate appropriate levels of forest research including work on: (1) vulnerability to climate change; (2) ways to manage forests under altered fire regimes; and (3) the development of improved silvicultural systems. Without these kinds of investments in Australia’s forests, claims of ecological sustainability will be just that – claims – without any substantiation. The integrity of the forest estate itself also may ultimately be at risk, particularly through the impacts of rapid climate change. The nation has the potential to support some of the best managed forest estates in the world, but the 10 issues raised in this chapter must be properly addressed (as well as several others) if that potential is to be realised.

References Beese WJ and Bryant AA (1999) Effect of alternative silvicultural systems on vegetation and bird communities in coastal montane forests of British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 115, 231–242. Beese WJ, Dunsworth BG and Smith NJ (2005) Coastal forest strategy. Implementation summary 1999–2004. Weyerhaeuser. BC Coastal Timberlands. March 2005. Braithwaite LW (2004) Do current forestry practices threaten forest fauna? A perspective. In Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna. 2nd edn. (Ed. D Lunney) pp. 513–536. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Burns K, Walker D and Hansard A (1999) ‘Forest plantations on cleared agricultural land in Australia: a regional and economic analysis’. Research Report No. 99/11. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Forests, forestry and forest management

Burton PJ, Messier C, Smith DW and Adamowicz WL (Eds) (2003). Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa. Cary G (2002) Importance of a changing climate for fire regimes in Australia. In Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent. (Eds R Bradstock, J Williams and AM Gill) pp. 26–48. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Felton A, Wood G, Felton A and Lindenmayer DB (2008) Bird community responses to reduced-impact logging in a subtropical lowland Bolivian forest. Biological Conservation (in press). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007) State of the World’s Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Fries C, Johansson O, Petterson B and Simonsson P (1997) Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 94, 89–103. Lindenmayer DB and Franklin JF (2002) Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press, Washington DC. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF and Fischer J (2006) Conserving forest biodiversity: a checklist for forest and wildlife managers. Biological Conservation 129, 511–518. Lindenmayer DB, Burton P and Franklin JF (2008) Salvage Harvesting, Impacts and Policies. Island Press, Washington DC. Mendel LC and Kirkpatrick JB (2002) Historical progress of biodiversity conservation in the protected-area system of Tasmania, Australia. Conservation Biology 16, 1520–1529. Pittock AB (2005) Climate Change: Turning up the Heat. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Salt D, Lindenmayer DB and Hobbs RJ (2004) Trees and Biodiversity. A Guide for Farm Forestry. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Stanley J (2006) Managing policy-driven landuse change to enhance the sustainability of rural communities. PhD thesis, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Thompson JR, Spies TA and Ganio LM (2007) Re-burn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in the Biscuit Fire. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 10 743– 10 748. Wintle BA and Lindenmayer DB (2008) Six reasons why forest certification schemes are failing biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management (in press).

49

TROPICAL MARINE ECOSYSTEMS Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

1. Reduce grazing, double fertiliser use efficiency, repair riparian zones and maintain 40% ground cover in river catchment areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). 2. Increase statutory protection for coastal mangrove and wetlands in the GBR catchment and elsewhere in Australia’s tropical north. 3. Eliminate destructive trawl fisheries and ban monofilament set (gill) nets within the GBR Marine Park and adjacent river and coastal areas. 4. Place at least 20% (preferably over 33%) of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems into marine protected areas (no-take zones). 5. Maintain trophic (food web) structure through reducing pressure on apex predators such as sharks in Australia’s tropical marine waters. 6. Develop an integrated plan in response to the pressures arising from projected sea level rise and increased frequency of extreme events on Australia’s coastal ecosystems. 7. Undertake a national assessment of the risks posed by exotic marine invasive species in Australia’s northern waters. 8. Move to adaptive, whole-of-ecosystem management of tropical marine fisheries including effective stock assessment and associated species risk assessments. 9. Assess the vulnerability of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems to ocean acidification. 10. Develop greater knowledge and understanding of the linkages between changes in the global ocean and the impacts on our tropical coastal ecosystems.

Introduction Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems are defined by three distinct regions or Large Marine Ecosystems (LME; Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO): the NorthWestern Shelf, the Northern Shelf and the North-Eastern Shelf/GBR. These LMEs contain some of the most productive of Australia’s natural ecosystems, involving vast stretches of salt marsh, mangroves, sea grass beds, rocky shores, sandy beaches, mud flats and coral reef ecosystems. These ecosystems form the basis of fisheries and tourism industries that bring in billions of dollars per annum and employ over 80 000 people (Hoegh-Guldberg and 51

52

Ten Commitments

Hoegh-Guldberg 2003). They play additional roles as nurseries for important fisheries species (especially sea grass and mangroves) and in the protection and stabilisation of coastlines (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves). In addition to these extrinsic economic values, these ecosystems have enormous value in terms of their intrinsic beauty, and cultural and iconic values. Unfortunately, many of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems are changing rapidly under the pressure of global and local stresses. These stresses have bought about fundamental changes to these ecosystems. No more graphic an example exists than that of the changes that have occurred in the inshore coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (Wachenfeld 1997). Here, the loss of inshore coral reef ecosystems has come about as a consequence of human activities within the river catchment and coastal areas adjacent to the coastal areas in question. Deforestation and over-stocking of catchments has lead to larger floods that are laden with greater amounts of sediments and nutrients (Productivity Commission 2003). More recently, there has been an escalation of stress associated with climate change (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007), leading to rapid and elevated warming and possibly acidification of inshore waters. The loss of the inshore coral reefs of the GBR is symbolic of the complexity and subtlety of the underlying forces driving environmental degradation in Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems. Expanding human activities lie at the heart of both the cause and the solutions for improving Australia’s environment in this case. As with other ecosystems, solutions often involve curtailing some human activities over others, which leads in turn to economic and political dimensions that are often hard to resolve. The 10 activities that should be undertaken to improve Australia’s tropical marine environment are listed here in lieu of these potentially important dimensions and are by no means new items for Australia’s sustainability agenda. After all, we are describing challenges that exist with or without politics, and which must be solved if we are to slow and reverse the steady rate of decline of these vital ecosystems.

Key issues 1. Reduce grazing, double fertiliser use efficiency, repair riparian zones and maintain 40% ground cover in river catchment areas adjacent to the GBR The arrival of European farming techniques, involving hard-hoofed stock such as cattle, extensive agriculture and deforestation, in the mid-19th century has resulted in major changes to water quality associated with our northern river systems into coastal areas (McCulloch et al. 2003; Productivity Commission 2003). In addition to the large scale destruction of key ecosystems like mangroves and wetlands, changes to water quality have had (and continue to have) large-scale impacts on coastal marine ecosystems. Major concerns over this issue drove State and Federal governments to form a partnership from which the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan originated in October 2003 (DEWHA 2003). This plan aims to halt and reverse the decline in the quality water entering the Reef within 10 years through a series of voluntary actions taken by the local government, industry groups, communities, landholders and other interested parties. Five years on, however, there has been little progress and it is clear that resources and incentives fall far short of the enthusiasm and commitment of the original parties to solve the problem. So what needs to be done to remedy this? There are four changes that would have a direct impact on stemming the flow of sediments and nutrients to the coastal areas of the GBR. These are: (1) reduce grazing pressure through a reduction in cattle numbers within GBR catchment areas; (2) maintain a minimum of 40% ground cover in GBR catchment areas; (3) develop riparian (vegetation) zones along the banks of creek and rivers; and (4) improve the efficiency of

Tropical marine ecosystems

fertiliser use in coastal crops such as sugarcane (currently only 30% of the fertiliser applied stays with the crop – the rest is washed out into coastal areas) within GBR catchment areas. It would appear that these initiatives can no longer depend on voluntary participation given the previous lack of progress and the urgency of the issue. Incentives and support will be required for these changes to occur within the catchments of the GBR. Without the support, farmers will be unable to make the extensive changes required for this major issue on the GBR to be solved. 2. Increase statutory protection for coastal mangrove and wetlands in the GBR Catchment and elsewhere in Australia’s tropical north One of the most important ecosystems in terms of the health of coastal ecosystems are the extensive mangrove and wetland areas that line the coastlines of northern Australia. In addition to being important areas in their own right, these ecosystems also play critical roles as nursery grounds for key fishery species, habitat for nesting birds, stabilisation of coastal areas, and in the maintenance of water quality in coastal areas by trapping sediments and recycling nutrients as they flow through these areas (Lovelock and Ellison 2007). Essentially, their role as extensive filtration systems is critical to the way our coastal marine zones work. Until recently, the roles of mangroves and salt marsh areas in tropical marine ecosystems were poorly appreciated, and they were primarily seen as sites for in-filling for coastal development. While the extent of these activities has been reduced, there is a real need to protect these ecosystems from further degradation. Given their critical roles to coastal marine environments in tropical Australia, and to economically important regions such as the GBR, wetlands should attract far greater statutory protection than they currently enjoy (some experts feel that these ecosystems should be completely protected by statutory arrangements in our northern waters). 3. Eliminate destructive trawl fisheries and ban monofilament set (gill) nets within the GBRMP and adjacent river and coastal areas There are a number of destructive fishing practices that still operate within the confines of the GBRMP (CRC Reef 2005a). Several of these have been reduced in the past decade, but others continue to operate despite huge impacts through by-catch, especially in the form of large and valuable marine fauna such as dolphins, rare shark, turtle and dugong species. Many of these species are under threat of extinction (Heinsohn et al. 2004). Reducing or eliminating these practices would have a direct and immediate effect on these key elements within Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems. Commercial operations that target prawns, scallops and slipper lobsters form one of the largest commercial fishing operations in Australia’s tropical marine waters. The principal fishing technique involves using the otter trawl technique, which involves dragging in net across the seabed, which creates a cloud of muddy water and hides the oncoming net. In addition to target species, these operations also retain about 60 species of finfish, molluscs and crustaceans. Otter trawling is highly destructive to benthic ecosystems through the physical impact of trawl nets. Trawling also has a number of impacts through its relatively indiscriminate fishing methods, with a large number of species being caught as by-catch. Internationally, trawling is seen as highly destructive and has been banned in the number of countries over the past decade. For example, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) banned bottom trawling off the US Pacific coast in early 2006, and has applied severe restrictions to trawl fishery of its other coasts. Similar bans and restrictions have been put in place by the Council of the European Union. Australia has already made several difficult decisions as regards trawling. The East Coast Trawl Fishery, which involved over 1400 licenses in the early 1980s, is now down to 450 in total,

53

54

Ten Commitments

largely as a result of licenses being purchased back by the Federal Government. Current legislation allows trawling to occur in the General Use (light blue) zones of the Marine Park, and Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) are compulsory in all other trawl nets of vessels. BRDs are also required on beam trawl nets of vessels operating within the East Coast Trawl Fishery. Despite this progress, impacts from trawling are still affecting tropical marine ecosystems. The remaining progress needs to be made by restricting trawlers to clearly defined soft bottom areas that are characterised by low by-catch and which are already highly modified. This would come about by assessing current trawling areas and further restricting the zones within which trawling can occur. One of the other destructive forms of fishing that threaten tropical marine ecosystems is the use of monofilament gill or set nets, which are left by fishermen to ensnare fish and other wildlife, and which are highly effective given their invisible nature. These nets also ensnare a wide range of highly endangered species such as turtles, dugong, sharks and cetaceans. In many cases, these nets represent the greatest source of mortality within tropical coastal areas and should be completely banned in Australian waters. 4. Place at least 20% (preferably over 30%) of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems into no-take zones One of the defining moments of Australian marine conservation was the extension of the no-take or ‘green’ zones in the GBRMP in July 2004 (GBRMPA 2008). This change in structure of the world’s largest marine park was undertaken using a series of operational principles, one of which was to protect a minimum of 20% of each habitat type within no-take areas. Marine protected areas function by protecting both communities and species from overexploitation, allowing reproductive populations within these areas to provide recruits to surrounding areas. The target of 20% was seen as the absolute minimum needed to allow a particular habitat type enough resilience in terms of size to bounce back from ecological perturbations which are likely to increase on the climate change. By the end of the process a total of 33.5% of the GBR was protected within no-take zones. While Australia has made international headlines through this initiative, it is a long way from providing similar protection to the large majority of other ecosystems and habitats that reside within its tropical marine waters. Therefore, providing protection to at least 20% (and preferably more) of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems would go a long way towards helping to improve Australia’s tropical marine environment. 5. Maintain trophic structure through reducing pressure on apex predators such as sharks in Australia’s tropical marine waters Apex predators such as sharks play vitally important roles as keystone predators and are critically important for healthy marine ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2001). They are also increasingly seen as important an attractive elements for tourism, with tourist paying far more to see sharks alive as opposed to buy their dead flesh. Shark populations are, however, rapidly declining worldwide under the pressure of increasing fishing effort (as well as the impact of gill nets, see above) on an organism which has a long gestation period and relatively few offspring. Fishing for shark in Australian waters has risen steadily over the past two decades, and is now over 500% higher than it was in 1990 (CRC Reef 2005b). These levels are currently unsustainable and will lead to the collapse of shark populations within Australian waters in the very near future. Over 80% of the sharks caught in Queensland come from within the GBRMP. A recent survey of shark populations within the GBRMP has revealed steep declines of 7–17% per annum in two common species of sharks, and observed that no-take within the GBRMP had almost no influence on the presence or absence of sharks (Robbins et al. 2006). The latter was

Tropical marine ecosystems

attributed to the fact that sharks often move in and out of protected areas, and to illegal fishing of protected areas. By contrast, these authors found that no-entry zones (less than 1% of the total Park area) had shark populations that were three to five-fold higher than those in the other areas including protected areas. This observation highlights the potential failure of no-take zones within the GBRMP, a consequence of its size and the limited resources available for enforcement. In order to preserve Australian shark populations, urgent action is needed. Current information is in adequate and the monitoring of shark populations, which is poorly done at present, which must be remedied as this information is vital for assessing stock and the impact of management effectiveness. Given the importance of sharks as apex predator is within marine ecosystems and the catastrophic decline in shark numbers, a massive reduction in shark fishing is urgently needed. 6. Develop an integrated plan in response to the pressures arising from projected sea level rise and extreme events on Australia’s coastal ecosystems The warming of the world’s oceans and the melting of its ice sheets are contributing to an increasing rate of sea level rise. The global average for sea level rise in the 20th century is 1–2 mm per year, and estimates based on climate models suggest an increase of 18–59 cm by 2100 (IPCC 2007). The latter estimates do not take into account the influence of a complete breakdown of the Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets, which would contribute too much higher rates of sea level change (Rahmstorf 2007). Current losses of sea ice from the polar regions is proceeding at a pace that exceeds the worst case predictions of the IPCC, suggesting that these scenarios are far from outlandish. In addition, more intense storms and cyclones have been predicted, which are driven by the increasing energy content and temperature of the world’s tropical oceans. Low-lying coastal areas in Australia support vast areas of mangroves, salt marsh and sea grass beds. As sea level rises and potential storm surge increases, these areas will be inundated with changing water levels as well as the inundation of saltwater into salt marsh habitats. These areas as argued above are important nursery areas for fishery species as well as being important wildlife habitat for birds and other important organisms. The potential loss of these habitats is largely uncharted or understood, and should be part of a national assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s coastlines to progressive changes in sea level and other aspects of climate such as storm intensity. Without this information, management and policy responses will be limited. Understanding how conservation and management policy should change for example as mangroves and salt marsh shift inland will be crucial for future planning. This should be done in addition to understanding the threats of these changes to the human infrastructure that will be highly exposed as sea levels rise and storms intensify. 7. Undertake a national assessment of the risks posed by exotic marine invasive species Invasive alien species are introduced plants and animals that proliferate and threatened human and natural systems at the site of introduction. There are now numerous examples of marine invasive species that have cost Australian industry millions of dollars in damage to natural ecosystems (e.g. Japanese starfish). Many marine species shows strong temperature optima, and a tendency to move as conditions change (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). Current rates of change in sea temperature due to global warming are changing conditions such that conditions typical of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia will be present halfway down the Australian coastline by 2100 (Done et al. 2003). While we have some information on existing marine invasive species, we have little information or strategy in place as regards the potential movement of invasive alien species into Australian waters or their impact on our natural ecosystems, fisheries and

55

56

Ten Commitments

aquaculture. This situation must be addressed, together with the development of a risk assessment of the potential for new invasive species to enter Australia’s water under the pressure of climate change. 8. Move to adaptive whole-of-ecosystem management of tropical marine fisheries including effective stock assessment and associated species risk assessments Most industrial fishing activities have resulted in the collapse of the fish stocks that they exploit whether or not these are managed or unmanaged (Meyer and Worm 2003). With the unprecedented rates of environmental change arising from both local and global stresses, assumptions about the stability of fish stocks must be continually reassessed in a flexible and responsive manner. In this regard, there must be a move to adaptive management of fisheries as opposed to setting single species quotas and caps. Given the potential ecological interactions and feedbacks, management of fisheries must move to whole-of-ecosystem management models. In this regard, fish quotas and management decisions must be considered in the light of the potential impacts on natural ecosystems in addition to their variation due to global and local factors. For example, management models should consider such things as the removal of key functional groups such as large predators and grazers in terms of the ecological feedback that may lead to large-scale change in benthic habitats, especially under an increasing frequency of disturbances such as mass coral bleaching and storm impacts. 9. Assess the vulnerability of Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems to ocean acidification Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily acidifying the ocean, due to the production of carbonic acid as water reacts with carbon dioxide. This phenomenon, known as ocean acidification, is considered to be a major threat to marine calcifying organisms such as reef-building corals and hugely important coccolithophore and pteropod plankton of the Southern Ocean. As waters acidify, the concentration of critical chemical species such as carbonate ions decline, thereby limiting the organisms that produce calcium carbonate skeletons (Raven et al. 2005). Current estimates of this threat indicate that coral reefs like those of the GBR will be no longer be able to maintain themselves (and will start to erode away) if atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds 450 ppm (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007), which is low relative to be projections of future levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007). Currently, our understanding and knowledge of the impacts of ocean acidification in a rudimentary stage in Australia yet it may be one of the most important changes to the way our oceans work, especially in tropical regions that are dominated by carbonate structured such as coral reefs. Already, however, there is at least one study showing an alarming decrease in coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef (Cooper et al. 2008). We need to make immediate headway into understanding the many facets of this threat to Australia’s marine environments and hence must pursue a vulnerability assessment of ocean acidification in a shorter time as is feasible. Without this assessment of how ocean acidification will impact our oceans, our ability to plan and respond to these large scale and interactive changes will be severely constrained. 10. Develop greater knowledge and understanding of the links between changes in the global ocean and the impacts on our tropical coastal ecosystems The changing ocean conditions that accompany rapid climate change represent a serious vulnerability to the sustainability of Australia’s marine ecosystems. Changing temperatures,

Tropical marine ecosystems

ocean productivity and acidity is likely to drive serious change in our natural ecosystems and will have far-reaching impacts on associated industries and people. Our current understanding of how changes in the global ocean translate as changes in the oceanography of our coastal waters is poor and prevents us from producing the types of detailed projections of how tropical marine ecosystems will change over the coming decade and century. We must rapidly improve our knowledge of how global change within the world’s oceans is being translated into changes in our local waters and into impacts on the scale of our coastal ecosystems. As with our understanding of the potential impacts of ocean acidification on Australian marine ecosystems, we are in a poor position to respond with proactive management and effective policy development.

Conclusion It has been difficult to define these 10 issues for two reasons. The first is that our knowledge of these ecosystems is relatively poor when compared to other Australian ecosystems such as those based on land. Without better knowledge and understanding of these natural ecosystems and the changes that are occurring within them, we are in a poor position to evolve effective management and policy responses. Hence, half of the 10 issues listed here are really pleas for further information. The second is that the topic of tropical marine ecosystems involves a vast array of different species, communities and ecosystems. To refine down the many things that need to be done to ensure the sustainability of these ecosystems to a mere 10 is consequently extremely difficult and probably depends on the perspective and background of the author. It is clear, however, that despite these difficulties, action on the 10 issues described here would have immediate impact on improving the environments surrounding Australia’s tropical marine ecosystems.

Acknowledgements This paper benefited from discussions with the Coral Reef Ecosystems Laboratory at the University of Queensland (www.marine.uq.edu.au), Sheriden Morris, Director of the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and Professor Russell Reichelt, Chairman and CEO of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This work was funded as part of the activities of the Coral Reef Targeted Research Program (www.gefcoral.org) and the ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies (www.coralcoe.org.au).

References Cooper TF, De’ath G, Fabricius K and Lough JM (2008) Declining coral calcification in massive Porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef. Global Change Biology 14, 529–538. CRC Reef (2005a) Fisheries of Queensland’s East Coast, Cooperative Research Centre Reef Research, http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/statusfisheries/index.htm CRC Reef (2005b) Coastal Habitat Resources Information System (CHRIS). Data extracted with permission Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. DEWHA (2003) Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/pollution/reef/ Done TJ, Whetton P, Jones R, Berkelmans R, Lough J, Skirving W and Wooldridge S (2003) ‘Global climate change and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef’. Final report to the

57

58

Ten Commitments

State of Queensland Greenhouse Taskforce, Department of Natural Resources and Mining, Townsville. GBRMPA (2008) Representative Areas Program, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/rep_areas (accessed 28/1/08). Heinsohn R, Lacy RC, Lindenmayer DB, Marsh H, Kwan D and Lawler I (2004). Unsustainable harvest of dugongs in Torres Strait and Cape York (Australia) waters: two case studies using population viability analysis. Animal Conservation 7, 417–425. Hoegh-Guldberg H and Hoegh-Guldberg O (2003) The Implications of Climate Change for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. WWF Australia and Queensland Tourism Industry Council. http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/ClimateChangeGBR/ Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell DR, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldeira K, Knowlton N, Eakin CM, Iglesias-Prieto R, Muthiga N, Bradbury RH, Dubi A and Hatziolos ME (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742. IPCC (2007) ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report’. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndahl KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell SM, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ and Warner RR (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–638. Lovelock CE and Ellison JC (2007) Vulnerability of mangroves and tidal wetlands of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change. In Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. pp. 237–269. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australian Greenhouse Office, Australia. McCulloch MT, Fallon S, Wyndham T, Hendy E, Lough J and Barnes D (2003) Coral record of increased sediment flux to the inner Great Barrier Reef since European settlement. Nature 421, 727–730. Meyer and Worm (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish populations. Nature 423, 280–283. Parmesan C and Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–43. Productivity Commission (2003) Industries, Land Use and Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment. Rahmstorf S (2007) A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315, 368–370. Raven J, Caldeira K, Elderfield H, Hoegh-Guldberg O; Liss P, Riebesell U, Shepherd J, Turley C and Watson A (2005) ‘Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide’. Royal Society Special Report, p. 68. Royal Society, London. Robbins WD, Hisano M, Connolly SR and Choat JH (2007) Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Current Biology 16, 2314–2319. Wachenfeld DR (1997) Long-term trends in the status of coral reef-flat benthos – the use of historical photographs. In State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop: Proceedings of a Technical Workshop held in Townsville, Queensland, Australia 27–29 November 1995. (Eds DR Wachenfeld, J Oliver and K Davis) pp. 134–148. Workshop No. 23. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

TEMPERATE MARINE SYSTEMS Alan Butler

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Mitigate human-induced climate change as far and as fast as possible. Manage for resilience in the face of change. Adopt integrated management at all scales. Implement Australia’s Oceans Policy and Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Implement a systematic approach to marine biodiversity conservation. Understand our temperate marine systems better. Identify key systems or regions, predict system behaviour, monitor, manage and distribute data well, thus improving predictions. 8. Introduce a comprehensive Integrated Marine Observing System for Australia. 9. Think about major activities such as fishing not only as ‘uses’ of ecosystems but as massive and cumulative changes in systems. Think of recreational fishing as fishing. The community must make decisions about such activities as it does about any other ‘land-use’ in a modern context. 10. Engage everyone.

Introduction Australia has one of the biggest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world, much of it still in good shape, but we do have significant, well-recognised issues in managing our temperate marine systems, especially near the coasts. Many reports, including Beeton et al. (2006) and Ward and Butler (2006), cover these issues: pollution (artificial chemicals but especially nutrients), over-exploitation, sea level rise, ocean acidification, marine debris, threatened species. Exploitation (fishing), invasive species, and diffuse pressures due to increased human numbers both onshore and directly in the marine environment, are the biggest threats, but Beeton et al. (2006) state that: ‘Australia still does not have a comprehensive, nationally consistent system for measuring the condition and trends of its coasts and ocean ecosystems and the key resources they support’, and ‘… planning for adaptation to climate variability should be a priority’. There is a great temptation to list immediate threats and suggest what to do about them, but as Pressey et al. (2007) argue, ‘proximate threats are the localised expressions of ultimate threats’ – our marine systems are threatened by human population, global markets, global pollution, and especially by climate change. Australia should step up to the mark on the world stage to deal with these. Climate change has recently 59

60

Ten Commitments

brought such possibilities into focus, but greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and its consequences is not the only global threat. Australia’s temperate Exclusive Economic Zone is highly valued by Australians and is a major world centre of unique marine biodiversity (Ward and Butler 2006; Poore and O’Hara 2007). An excellent source on how marine ecosystems work can be found in Connell and Gillanders (2007); their book demonstrates the large amount we already know about marine ecosystems, the things we still need to find out, and how to do so. The systems we now see in our marine environments are the current results of processes working over long and short timescales and over large and small areas. There is no longer any reason to believe the world is stationary in a statistical sense, but the big challenge for marine ecology lies in designing both research and management actions on this assumption. Dealing with an uncertain future means always thinking in terms of processes as well as patterns; it means a lateral-thinking approach, designing original and flexible management strategies which themselves formally contribute to knowledge. Of course, we should urgently and fully implement policies already agreed. But ‘implementing policy’ is a misleading term for the way of the future; the design of original and flexible strategies cannot be done by ‘experts’ or ‘managers’ alone. We must engage everyone.

Key issues 1. Mitigate human-induced climate change as far and as fast as possible This is largely a global matter, but Australia must play its part. Climate change affects temperate as well as tropical systems (Hobday et al. 2006, 2007; Poloczanska et al. 2007) and adjustment to the inevitable effects of global change will be difficult; we should not let it get any worse. To give just one example: 0.5 m of sea level rise over the next half-century will be a nasty business, but just imagine 7 m! 2. Manage for resilience in the face of change Resilience is described by Walker et al. (2006) as: … the capacity of a system to experience shocks while retaining essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity. ... Social-ecological systems exhibit thresholds that, when exceeded ... lead to changes in function and structure. The system is said to have undergone a regime shift ... The more resilient a system, the larger the disturbance it can absorb without shifting into an alternate regime. Our management problem is to predict the circumstances when a regime shift becomes likely. This is appallingly difficult and there is no clear method for doing it. It is difficult to predict thresholds in advance. In most accounts (e.g. Scheffer et al. 2001) we are wise only after the event. We have had, for some time, access to good advice, expressed for example by the National Land and Water Resources Audit (2002) and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2006). In fact, for most of the following proposals, not only has someone said it before, but our governments have actually agreed on policies. So what’s my point? Simply that the matter is increasingly urgent, and that actually doing something turns out to be much more difficult than agreeing on a policy.

Temperate marine systems

3. Adopt integrated management at all scales Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) express this best: The term integrated coastal and ocean management implies a conscious management process that acknowledges the interrelationships among most coastal and ocean uses and the environments they potentially affect. The focus here is among all of them – the uses, and the environments. This is akin to the idea of Ecosystem-Based Management, but it is easier to think in terms of ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘integration’ than of ‘ecosystems’ (de la Mare 2005). We need to take management actions at the scales that are required – different scales for different processes and for different human activities. Integrated or ecosystem-based management has to be adaptive. This much-cited idea (Walters 1986; Walters and Holling 1990) does not just mean ‘responsive’, which seems largely the meaning given in National Oceans Office (2004) and by many other agencies. It does not just mean ‘regular revision of management arrangements to take account of unanticipated changes in outlook or condition’ (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2006, p.50), though it may of course entail that. It means experimental and formal ‘learning’ management, and is critically needed in a time of change and uncertainty. It is the application not only of scientific results to management, but of the scientific method – the testing of ideas, rejecting the ones that don’t fit the facts. Adaptive management makes sense only if the management decisions to be taken are effectively reversible; if not, a strict application of the precautionary principle (Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment 1992) becomes more important. 4. Implement Australia’s Oceans Policy and integrated coastal zone management These are special cases of ‘managing for resilience’ because both these policies are in fact about integrated, adaptive management. The pressures on the coasts are well documented (Resource Assessment Commission 1993; Beeton et al. 2006). There are plenty of broadly convergent proposals for approaches to integrated coastal zone management with considerable detail regarding available tools (e.g. Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2006; Thia-Eng 2006). Australia does have a plan – the National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2006) – with a long heritage going back to the Resource Assessment Commission (Resource Assessment Commission 1993) and beyond – and there is regular reporting on its implementation. But the matter is extremely urgent, and we are behind with the implementation plan, which was if anything a little too relaxed. Regarding its broader Exclusive Economic Zone, again, Australia has a world-class plan. We need to implement it effectively and, since that has turned out to be very difficult, we need to do so creatively. Australia’s Oceans Policy (Commonwealth of Australia 1998): sets in place the framework for integrated and ecosystem-based planning and management for all of Australia’s marine jurisdictions … Building on existing effective sectoral and jurisdictional mechanisms, it promotes ecologically sustainable development of the resources of our oceans … There is an obvious relationship between it and the National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Despite considerable achievements, the implementation of the Oceans Policy so far (e.g. National Oceans Office 2004; Department of the Environment and Water Resources 2007) falls short of the original intent. That original intent is still very

61

62

Ten Commitments

important. The Oceans Policy was intended as a national policy, supported by all Australian governments, and directed at integrated management, something which is critically needed close to the coast as well as further offshore. The Oceans Policy is a very impressive achievement. It was a world leader when introduced and Australia is still internationally respected for it, but it now looks as though even the US will overtake us! (Leslie and McLeod 2007). 5. Implement a systematic approach to marine biodiversity conservation Australia launched enthusiastically into Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the 1990s (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Task Force on Marine Protected Areas 1999), but the risk is that it is all feeling a little passé: you declare a protected area; you develop a management plan for it; lip-service is paid to interacting with other management regimes, but little is done, those other regimes are jealous of their power, and there is little funding for monitoring. The established machinery for dealing with risk of extinction under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – admirable and a great leap forward though it was – is similarly limited. We need to integrate MPAs flexibly and cleverly with off-reserve conservation, and with fisheries and other industrial management, much of which also uses spatial measures. As Pressey et al. (2007) argue, we need approaches to conservation that jointly consider biodiversity pattern and process (including evolutionary processes), and dynamic threats. None of the above is to denigrate the work already done towards the National Representative System of MPAs or towards the conservation of threatened species, but to acknowledge that past approaches, especially where there were serious conflicting pressures, have been inadequate to conserve many habitats and species in the face of change. 6. Understand our temperate marine systems better According to a recent internal review of its biodiversity research by CSIRO, managers want fundamental ecological knowledge of the responses of ecosystem resilience to disturbance. But the managers also want scientists to: L

L L

avoid providing answers with precision much greater than the levers we can pull to effect change. solve problems rather than just describing them. link biology with the social drivers.

Regarding fundamental research, the views of both scientists and managers ought to converge on those aspects or components of marine systems about which we are particularly poorly informed, and that might be critical in system resilience. An example is the planktonic component of our systems. Existing work on plankton is outlined in Condie and Harris (2005) and shows the importance of knowing more, with climate change occurring. We know too little about the familiar microscopic plankton – including the larvae of commercial species – in Australian waters, still less about nanoplankton and picoplankton (indeed about microbial process generally in the sea); the time is right for a significant change in understanding due to new technology. Ecologists have developed a number of important ideas about how marine ecosystems function (Kritzer and Sale 2006; Connell and Gillanders 2007). It is time to focus on their importance in the context of the resilience of systems. 7. Identify key systems or regions, predict system behaviour, monitor, manage and distribute data well, thus improving predictions Moving on from key ecological components and processes that are simply not well enough understood to make helpful predictions about resilience (e.g. plankton), we should focus on

Temperate marine systems

whole systems or regions that are important to us, seem important in the functioning of other systems, or seem particularly likely to change. We need to identify key spatial features and key vulnerabilities. Lyne et al. (2007) refer to recent literature on this problem and make their own valuable advance, but, whilst they focus on ecological processes, on variability, and on the search for entities that play key roles in the functioning of the ecosystem, their approach is unavoidably Delphic (based on consulting experts, rather than field measurements and experiments). Their exhortation to build conceptual models is therefore important. These can be used in refining scenarios (as in Rhodes and Condie 2007), and to refine quantitative regional ecosystem models where it is possible to build them (Hayes et al. 2007) – all of which inter alia serves to indicate where to focus urgent research effort. Even if we were not yet able to make predictions, if a system or region is identified as important enough, we should at least monitor structure, processes, legacies, linkages and feedbacks in (and between) both social and ecological components of the system. Since this is potentially expensive, I advocate that Australians identify the key areas where this should be done. For example, following the preliminary analyses in Hobday et al. (2006), Poloczanska et al. (2007) and Hobday et al. (2007), the waters off south-eastern Australia might be one – an area where large climate change is predicted, where many people live and a range of marine activities are conducted, already having complex impacts, and where future changes in marine ecosystems are difficult to predict. The Department of Climate Change is now working towards a more refined identification of key areas; but it is not clear who would be responsible for monitoring and this is likely to be a collaborative effort. 8. Introduce a comprehensive Integrated Marine Observing System for Australia I have argued for the identification of key regions where a model-based approach to monitoring the system and testing our predictions should be undertaken. But throughout Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, to a more modest extent, we should be monitoring and understanding the patterns and dynamics of marine systems. Radical changes in marine systems could occur, and at present we would probably not detect, let alone understand them before they had irreversible consequences. The recent Integrated Marine Observing System initiative (IMOS; http://www.imos.org.au/) has begun to establish infrastructure for this. At present, IMOS is still ‘research infrastructure’; from it, expertise will develop and concepts be demonstrated. Ultimately we need to be measuring physical, chemical and biological variables routinely and storing the data in ways that make it routinely accessible to research and management users. The vision has been articulated in the lead-up to the present IMOS (Australian Integrated Ocean Observing System Working Group 2005); we need to implement it. The time is right – we have the tools and the emerging will amongst a number of institutions and agencies – to create a national monitoring and data/information system for constant evaluation, rather than five-yearly State of Environment reports (for each of which Australia seems to be no better prepared than the last). 9. Think about major activities such as fishing as not only as ‘uses’ of ecosystems but as massive and cumulative changes in systems. Think of recreational fishing as fishing The community must make decisions about major activities in the same way it makes decisions about any other ‘land-use’ in a modern context. Seascapes, like landscapes, are now massively altered by human activities – we have to decide how we want them to be and evolve from here on (within the bounds of ‘available’ futures, of course – and some that we might consider desirable will no longer be available). There are encouraging trends. For example, strong efforts

63

64

Ten Commitments

are being made, directed by the Minister in 2005 under the Fisheries Management Act 1991, to improve the sustainability of Commonwealth-managed fisheries. There is considerably less unity about State fisheries and less still about recreational fishing. It is clear, though, that recreational fishing is a massive Australian activity which we don’t measure or regulate nearly as firmly as we do commercial fisheries. We must not relax the push towards ecosystem-based fisheries management, considering not only direct effect of fishing on targets, but direct effects on other species, and indirect effects on the broader ecosystem and on the linked social-ecological system. Again, all of this must be seen against a ‘non-stationary’ background. Thus, the fishing industry and its Commonwealth management agencies are working towards a future National Climate Change Action Plan for Fisheries (see www.daff.gov.au/data/assets). 10. Engage everyone Sounds like a left-leaning nannying statement, but there is a hard edge to this. Despite the need for a national view (scaling-up; Thia-Eng 2006), management of a linked social-ecological system is typically spatially defined; a place, not a sector (though not a place with a single boundary – de la Mare 2005). So the people of a region need to be involved. They have a stake, and expertise, in the system. I would stress that responsibility to make decisions still rests with those so charged (e.g. with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority or the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) – I don’t suggest handing over decisionmaking responsibility – but let’s not make decisions in ignorance! ‘Experts’ in a complex, linked social-ecological system truly include a wide range of people; so public involvement must not just be tokenism. But how do we involve all these unequal ‘experts’? A scenario-evaluation approach is very helpful here, because we will frequently be talking about things beyond anyone’s experience. Choosing realistic targets (I advocated above understanding marine systems better, and identifying key systems or regions), we can develop scenarios that show what is achievable. These scenarios will allow people to discuss what – within the achievable space – they want to aim for and what might be the risks. Many people have stressed that there is no ‘pristine’ state and no sustainable ‘optimal’ state of an ecosystem, and we have to get used to this idea for our marine ecosystems. We should try to decide what sort of system can be achieved, and what we want to aim for – and then work towards it flexibly. As noted above, a major problem is to know when a threshold is being approached. We currently have no substitute for a participatory process in which everyone’s ideas, however apparently loopy, are considered and, if agreed that they have some merit, investigated scientifically. There will be prediction – and uncertainty – involved, but the alternative is to wait until a threshold is crossed and then regret it.

Conclusion We need integrated management of linked social-ecological systems. I call for the comprehensive implementation of already-stated policies. Taken seriously, they are radical – and that’s what we need! We need more research, but I have avoided giving my favoured list of priority topics. We need not just ‘more science’ (implying a stationary view of ecosystems) but science centred on key systems or regions and informed by a concern for resilience, the development of predictions and scenarios, and the involvement of all parties in identifying and evaluating management strategies in the face of uncertainty.

References Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Task Force on Marine Protected Areas (1999) Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of

Temperate marine systems

Marine Protected Areas: A Guide for Action by Australian Governments. Environment Australia, Canberra. Australian Integrated Ocean Observing System Working Group (2005) ‘Working Group Final Report, 6 May 2005’. Prepared by Ocean Policy Science Advisory Group (OPSAG) AusIOOS Working Group. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/publications/docsandreports/ AusIOOS_WG_FinRep.pdf Beeton RJS, Buckely KI, Jones GJ, Morgan D, Reichelt RE and Trewin D (2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee) (2006) ‘Australia State of the Environment 2006’. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Cicin-Sain B and Knecht RB (1998) Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington DC. Commonwealth of Australia (1998) Australia’s Oceans Policy. Volumes 1 & 2. ISBN 0 642 54592 8. Condie SA and Harris PT (2005). Interactions between physical, chemical, biological and sedimentological processes in Australia’s shelf seas. In The Sea. Volume 14. (Eds AR Robinson and KH Brink) pp. 1413–1449. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Connell SD and Gillanders BM (2007) Marine Ecology. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. de la Mare WK (2005) Marine ecosystem-based management as a hierarchical control system. Marine Policy 29, 57–68. Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007) The South-west Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile. Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Tasmania. Hayes D, Fulton B and Condie S (2007) Support Tools for Regional Marine Planning in the South-west Marine Region. Defining a Quantitative Ecosystem Model. CSIRO and Department of Environment and Water Resources, Hobart. Hobday AJ, Okey TA, Poloczanska ES, Kunz TJ and Richardson AJ (Eds) (2006) ‘Impacts of climate change on Australian marine life’. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. Hobday AJ, Poloczanska ES and Matear R (2007) ‘Review of climate impacts on Australian fisheries and aquaculture: implications for the effects of climate change’. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. December 2007. Kritzer JP and Sale PF (2006) Marine metapopulations. Academic Press, Amsterdam. Leslie HM and McLeod KL (2007) Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(10), 540–548. Lyne V, Hayes D and Condie S (2007) Support Tools for Regional Marine Planning in the South-west Marine Region. A Framework for Identifying Key Ecological Features in the Marine Environment. CSIRO and Department of Environment and Water Resources, Hobart. National Land and Water Resources Audit (2002) Australian Catchment, River and Estuary Assessment 2002, Volume 1. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Turner, ACT. National Oceans Office (2004) South-east Regional Marine Plan, Implementing Australia’s Oceans Policy in the South-east Marine Region. National Oceans Office, Hobart. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2006) National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Framework and Implementation Plan. Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Poloczanska ES, Babcock RC, Butler AJ et al. (2007) Climate change and Australian marine life. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45, 407–478.

65

66

Ten Commitments

Poore GCB and O’Hara TD (2007) Marine biogeography and biodiversity of Australia. In: Marine Ecology. (Eds SD Connell and BM Gillanders) pp. 177–198. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM and Wilson KA (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22, 583–592. Resource Assessment Commission (1993) ‘Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Zone Inquiry – Final Report November 1993’. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Rhodes JR and Condie SA (2007) ‘Support tools for regional marine planning in the Southwest marine region. Future scenarios report’. CSIRO and Department of Environment and Water Resources, Hobart. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley J, Folke C and Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413, 591–596. Thia-Eng C (2006) The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management. Practical Applications in the Sustainable Coastal Development in East Asia. GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines. Walker BH, Gunderson LH, Kinzig AP, Folke C, Carpenter SR and Schultz L (2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in socialecological systems. In Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. (Eds BH Walker, JM Anderies, AP Kinzig and P Ryan) pp. 5–22. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Walters C (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York. Walters CJ and Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–2068. Ward TJ and Butler AJ (2006) Coasts and Oceans. Theme commentary prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/commentaries/coasts/index.html

TROPICAL RAINFORESTS Stephen E. Williams and Joanne L. Isaac

1. Limit human population size and density. 2. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Complete an integrated assessment of relative vulnerability to climate change and the prioritisation of research and management. 4. Address synergies between drivers of environmental impacts. 5. Maintain ecosystem resilience with more of the same environmental management but with an even greater importance. 6. Limit policies that result in ‘death by 1000 cuts’. 7. Move beyond political correctness. 8. Accept new ecosystems through a shift in environmental philosophy and ethics. 9. Move from reactive conservation planning to proactive conservation planning. 10. Tackle ignorance and apathy.

Introduction Tropical montane cloud forests are a rare environment, defined and limited by the persistent presence of clouds and mists. They account for only 0.26% of the Earths land surface (Bubb et al. 2004). Despite this small area, tropical montane systems contain approximately 25% of all terrestrial biodiversity and therefore represent incredibly important centres of biodiversity, evolution and cultural significance. Australia’s only tropical montane forest occurs in the Wet Tropics Bioregion, in North Queensland. This region is 0.1% of Australia’s land-mass, but contains approximately 30% of Australia’s vertebrate biodiversity and has 83 endemic species which occur nowhere else on earth (Williams 2006). Tropical montane regions in general will be particularly affected by climate change. This is because many species endemic to these regions have narrow environmental niches, are adapted to a cool moist climate, and have little capacity for long distance dispersal (e.g. Foster 2001; Bush and Hooghiemstra 2005). The greatest current threat is climate change (Williams et al. 2003), as well as synergistic effects of a changing climate with other forms of environmental degradation such as weeds, disease, habitat loss and fragmentation. The big challenge to secure the terrestrial ecosystems of the Wet Tropics Bioregion, and indeed all montane tropical rainforest regions worldwide, is therefore to halt climate change and minimise its negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem function. 67

68

Ten Commitments

1. Limit human population size and density Ultimately, human population is the cause of all environmental problems, particularly climate change and habitat destruction. How to deal with this is the single largest social/environmental issue of our century. The negative impacts of human populations are generally expected to occur where the population density is greatest. However, research investigating drivers of habitat loss in tropical Asia suggests that, as industrialisation and globalisation increase, the relationship between local population density and forest cover will decrease. This is because even sparsely populated regions will be exploited in a globalised world (Laurance 2007). We have to change our economic philosophy and move away from a political paradigm where unbounded economic and human population growth is considered possible. Although the tropics of Australia are fortunate, because human population densities are currently sustainable, it is now that we need to plan ahead to make sure we learn from the mistakes elsewhere in the world and ensure that our tropical biodiversity and ecosystems remain in a healthy state. Ultimately this requires limiting habitat loss and population growth at a regional level based on sustainable population levels in keeping with the environmental capacity of the region to supply basic resources. This is even more pertinent in a region where the regional economy is highly dependent on rainforest and reef ecotourism. 2. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions Dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is critical for protecting biodiversity (IPCC 2007). Climate change predictions indicate that temperatures could increase by up to 5–7°C by 2100 (IPCC 2007). If we reach these upper limits the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning will be devastating and we will probably be fighting for the survival of our socio-economic systems. We must lead by example and drastically reduce Australia’s GHG emissions. 3. Complete an integrated assessment of relative vulnerability to climate change and the prioritise research and management We now face the inevitability of some degree of climate change and it is vital that we prioritise ongoing research and management effort to meet this challenge. If we are to minimise biodiversity loss in the Wet Tropics and elsewhere, we need environmental management guided by sensible prioritisation of relative vulnerability combined with a clear framework to identify the most important research priorities. We need to determine which species, habitats, ecosystems and ecosystem goods and services (e.g. water resources, soil erosion) will be most vulnerable. We also need to determine what aspects of ecological and evolutionary biology determine vulnerability, and what we can do to manage this vulnerability and minimise the realised impacts. It is vital that we start to make predictive impact assessments with associated estimates of reliability and risk to guide management decisions and policy. Environmental management and policy in the tropical rainforests must take the relative vulnerability of species, ecosystems and processes into account in all management plans and actions. 4. Addressing synergies between impacts Synergies between the drivers of environmental degradation are the rule rather than exception. Climate change will interact with other threatening processes such as salinisation, habitat loss, fragmentation, erosion, introduced pests (weeds, ferals, diseases) and urban/ agricultural expansion. For the biodiversity of the Wet Tropics, the most important synergies to consider are those between climate change and habitat fragmentation, and climate change and introduced

Tropical rainforests

pathogens/pests. Prior to being given World Heritage status, extensive land clearance in the Wet Tropics resulted in severely fragmented landscapes, particularly on the Atherton Tableland and in the coastal lowlands. Not only does fragmentation have direct ecological impacts it also decreases the resilience of ecosystems to climate change. Fragmentation is likely to be a significant barrier to the movement of species seeking new areas of suitable habitat and/or climatic conditions as the climate changes (McInerny et al. 2007). Many of the frogs endemic to the Wet Tropics are also under threat from the amphibian fungus Butrachochytrium dendrobatidis and research from South America suggests that shifts in temperature conditions as a result of climate change can favour the growth of the fungus and result in the rapid decline of vulnerable frogs (Pounds et al. 2006). Similar links between climate and chytrid fungus have recently been suggested for the Wet Tropics of Australia (Laurance 2008). Pest management must consider the spatial implications of a changing climate and the potential for ‘sleeper’ species to become more problematic as the climate becomes more suitable for them and native species and habitats change. This will potentially open up rainforests to even greater levels of weed and pest invasion. Invasion biology under climate change is a crucially important topic for conservation management in Australia’s tropical ecosystems. Although fire has not traditionally been considered to be a threat to rainforests in the region, increasing temperature, evaporation and dry season length and severity could drastically alter fire regimes in tropical wet forests. Synergies between fire and climate change urgently needs research. Current fire management protocols and knowledge needs to be reevaluated within a context of a changing climate. 5. Maintain ecosystem resilience The degree of climatic change will depend on the will of the world to reduce emissions. Thus, there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding any predictions of future climate and impacts. However, natural resource managers have crucial local and regional roles to play as the magnitude of negative impacts also will be influenced by the relative health and resilience of ecosystems. It is therefore critical that we continue (and improve) current management, albeit with even greater urgency and importance. For example, in the Wet Tropics bioregion, maintaining landscape connectivity, managing for suitable fire regimes and controlling invasive plants and feral animals remain crucial management actions although with some re-evaluation of priorities within a climate change perspective. The Wet Tropics Management Authority should be appropriately funded to ensure that natural resource management, research and conservation policy is coordinated at the regional level in order to maximise the resilience of the tropical rainforests in the face of climate change. 6. Avoiding ‘death by a 1000 cuts’ Conservation and local/regional government planning all too often treat each environmental threat in isolation rather than as a combined set of cumulative impacts. Environmental impact statements assess a particular development but fail to examine them in a ‘whole of bioregion’ context or with respect to other threatening processes. Impact assessments need to better account for the range of negative impacts within a landscape or bioregion, with the view toward capping overall levels of environmental modification. For example, urban/agricultural expansion in the Mission Beach area is continually reducing the area of lowland rainforest and eroding habitat connectivity. This poses a significant threat to the cassowary (Moore 2003). Habitat management must consider regional perspectives rather than evaluate the impacts on each individual piece of land. Again, the importance of the Wet Tropics

69

70

Ten Commitments

Management Authority is paramount here to ensure a comprehensive regional viewpoint on natural resource management. 7. Move beyond political correctness It is important to recognise that the survival of the ecosystems that keep our world functioning and liveable must take precedence over political and social niceties. Political correctness is a luxury of a wealthy and unsustainable lifestyle and inequitable distribution of wealth. We have to stop being afraid to discuss the reality that there will be socio-economic costs of dealing with a history of largesse and excess. 8. Accept new ecosystems: a shift in environmental philosophy and ethics As the global climate and environment changes, there will be accelerating changes in biotic assemblages (Hughes 2000). There will be some winners – generalist species which are able to expand into new areas, and many losers – specialist species which are unable to adapt and that will suffer local or global extinction (McKinney and Lockwood 1999). New interactions will form, dependent on the relative degree of plasticity and adaptive potential of each species and habitat. It will be impossible to maintain an environmental policy and ethic that has the sole aim of preserving, in situ, the exact species/habitat in the same geographic location. We will need to move towards a philosophy that recognises new distributions, new assemblages and novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2006). Our aim must become to maximise the retention of biodiversity and the protection of ecosystem health and function, irrespective of the combinations of species and the spatial location involved. 9. Move from reactive conservation planning to proactive conservation planning Given the current rate of climatic change, it will be impossible to maintain traditional approaches to conservation planning. Conservation efforts will need to become more proactive, more predictive and more imaginative. We need to utilise systematic, objective techniques for conservation planning informed by robust predictive models that give the best estimates of the future with explicit recognition of uncertainty and risk analysis. New predictions of climate change impacts on species and ecosystems should not only be based on climatic niche but also physiology, bioenergetics, demographic processes, intrinsic vulnerability, adaptive potential and existing plasticity. Optimising the allocation of management effort is a balance of the perceived threat/vulnerability, the consequences of inaction, social/political/scientific will, together with the available resources or management tools (Marsh et al. 2007). Systematic conservation planning has been an inherently spatial problem; however, climatic conditions are shifting both spatially and temporally while our traditional reserve systems are static in both space and time (Pressey et al. 2007). 10. Tackle ignorance and apathy It could be argued that the most significant barriers to most environmental problems, and especially global climate change, are those of ignorance and apathy. A very real barrier to dealing with global climate change has been a history of deliberate confusion by vested interest and unbalanced portrayal by the media: both have increased confusion thereby contributing to ongoing apathy about dealing with the issue. Ignorance can be overcome by education and the promotion of awareness. Apathy may be similarly reduced through considered awareness and knowledge of the future problems and informed appreciation of the consequences of inaction.

Tropical rainforests

Conclusions Much of the tropical rainforest in the Wet Tropics bioregion is now ‘protected’ as a World Heritage Area. However, the biodiversity in this globally significant region is still under threat from a variety of factors. Significant resources are required to establish baseline long-term environmental monitoring across the region. Baseline data on biodiversity will achieve several key outcomes simultaneously: 1) it will allow more accurate and robust predictions about future impacts; 2) it will enable early detection of negative impacts while there may still be time to minimise the damage; and 3) it will provide greater efficiency and value in resource expenditure on management. Global reduction of GHG emissions and strategies to mitigate climate change impacts as part of all aspects of natural resource management will be critical in maintaining the biodiversity and ecological integrity of this important bioregion. The natural resources and beauty of the region support the region’s more lucrative industry – eco-tourism. It is vital to protect and manage these resources in an ecologically sustainable manner. Finally, resources need to be allocated towards public education and awareness of the significant threats posed by climate change to the environment and socio-economic health of the region.

References Bubb P, May I, Miles L and Sayer J (2004) Cloud Forest Agenda. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Bush MB and Hooghiemstra H (2005) Tropical biotic responses to climate change. In Climate Change and Biodiversity. (Eds TE Lovejoy and L Hannah) pp. 125–137. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Foster P (2001) The potential negative impacts of global climate change on tropical montane cloud forests. Earth-Science Reviews 55, 73–106. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer V, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladres F, Vila M, Zamora R and Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 15, 1–7. Hughes L (2000) Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 15, 56–61. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) ‘Fourth Assessment Report’. IPCC, Geneva, www.ipcc.org.ch Laurance WF (2007) Forest destruction in tropical Asia. Current Science 93, 1544–1550. Laurance WF (2008) Global warming and amphibian extinctions in eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 33, 1–9. Marsh H, Dennis A, Hines H, Kutt A, McDonald K, Weber E, Williams SE and Winter J (2007) Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conservation Biology 21, 387–399. McInerny G, Travis JMJ and Dytham C (2007) Range shifting on a fragmented landscape. Ecological Informatics 2, 1–8. McKinney ML and Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 450–453. Moore LA (2003) Ecology and population viability analysis of the southern cassowary Casuarius casuarius johnsonii Mission Beach, North Queensland. MSc Thesis, James Cook University, North Queensland.

71

72

Ten Commitments

Pounds JA, Bustamante MR, Coloma LA, Consuegra JA, Fogden MPL, Foster PN, LaMarca E, Masters KL, Merino-Viteri A, Puschendorf R, Ron SR, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Still CJ and Young BE (2006) Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161–167. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM and Wilson KA (2007) Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, 583–592. Williams SE (2006) Vertebrates of the Wet Tropics Rainforests of Australia: Species Distributions and Biodiversity. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management. Rainforest CRC, Cairns. Williams SE, Bolitho EE and Fox S (2003) Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 270, 1887–1892.

ALPINE ECOSYSTEMS Ken Green

1. Thirty per cent of the annual snowcover in the Snowy Mountains has been lost since 1954; stresses this has imposed need to be identified and remedied. 2. Many feral animals have been excluded from alpine areas because of winter snow; active management must replace snow as a control mechanism. 3. Two plant communities depend upon long-lasting snowpatches; snowpatches themselves and both communities are declining and will need intervention to save species and/or communities. 4. Despite the removal of domestic stock, erosion in the alpine zone will still occur, particularly under a scenario of predicted heavier summer rains; post-grazing rehabilitation must be initiated and maintained. 5. Climatic variability at the end of the winter snow season is stressing animal communities; additional stressors need to be identified and remedied. 6. Introduced pathogens are already causing extinction of alpine frogs, and plant pathogens are expected to increase with climate warming; better hygiene protocols for management activities and research towards a solution are urgently required. 7. Climate change impacts are not acting in synchrony for all species and a mismatch in timing of events is affecting bird migration, plant flowering, insect pollination and endangered species reliant on the post-winter arrival of bogong moths; these mismatches must be identified and managed. 8. The frequency of alpine fire ignition will increase; because these sites are high in the catchment, fire must be aggressively excluded. 9. Weeds and subalpine native plants are becoming more common in alpine areas; dispersal through vehicles and walkers needs to be reduced by better hygiene at trackheads and by active control. 10. Exogenous pollutants are a threat to alpine areas overseas and have been recorded in Australian mountains; sources and impacts need to be identified.

Introduction The alpine ecosystem occurs above the climatic treeline, a high mountain environment that is temperature-dependent. An overarching problem facing alpine ecosystems is, therefore, the regional impact of global warming. In the Snowy Mountains, the historical treeline occurs at 73

74

Ten Commitments

Figure 2: Snow data at Spencers Creek (1830 m a.s.l.) 1954–2007. To reflect both depth and duration of snow cover, data were transformed into metre-days of snow by multiplying the depth of snow by the numbers of days at that depth and summing the weekly result to give a single figure for each year. The declining trend in snow is significant (r = -0.273, p<0.05).

its highest at around 1850–1900 m with less than 350 m altitude between it and the highest point in Australia. This alpine region has warmed over the past 35 years at a rate of about 0.2°C per decade (Hennessy et al. 2003). With a temperature lapse rate of 0.77°C per 100 m (Galloway 1988), this warming has caused the vegetation in the lowest 100 m of the alpine zone to lose its competitive advantage as regards temperature against the incursion of woodland trees. With projections for a further rise of 1.0°C, another 100 m will lose that advantage by 2020, as will the remainder with a rise of up to 2.9°C by 2050. At its worst, this will mean that there will be no alpine zone in mainland Australia. Although trees have recently been recorded invading frost hollows (Wearne and Morgan 2001), the advance of the alpine treeline has not yet been observed, and there may well be some lag in treeline movement with increasing temperature. There is no such lag in the impacts on snow cover. As a direct response to warming (Nicholls 2005), the snow cover in the Snowy Mountains has declined by about a third since 1954. This trend is no longer speculative, and despite the high variation from year to year, the downward trend is statistically significant (see Figure 2). Within Australia, the ecosystems most threatened by climate change are the Great Barrier Reef, the Queensland wet tropics, Kakadu wetlands, south-west Australia and the alpine zone (Hennessy et al. 2007). It is within this last ecosystem that the strongest and most consistent trends are now being documented. In Tasmania, snow is lacking as a regular seasonal determinant of biotic activity across much of the alpine environment, and the challenges there differ from those on the mainland. This chapter will, therefore, concentrate on the Snowy Mountains and the Victorian Alps.

Alpine ecosystems

Key issues 1. Climate change Climate change itself will kill very little in the alps – it will stress individuals, populations and communities but, for example, the last mountain pygmy possum will be killed by a fox, or the last anemone buttercup by a hare. The challenge is to identify these proximate threats and deal with them to preserve the alpine ecosystem through the next decade and the one after that. The first task is to examine the complete flora and fauna above treeline, to assess the resilience of plant and animal species and communities, and formulate methods to preserve these in a warming climate so that in 20–30 decades of constant work, we emerge from this climate change crisis with a complete alpine environment. 2. Pest species With climate change there are expected to be increases in numbers of pest species that are currently marginalised by the alpine climate. Among these are both invertebrate and vertebrate pests. Altitudinal movement has already been recorded in vertebrate pests (Green and Pickering 2002). Other species already present may increase. Hares, for example, can thrive in snow conditions and already occur in the alpine zone. However, monitoring data suggest that numbers are increasing. As a response, hare exclosures have been established to examine the effects of hares on plants, their diet is being studied, and monitoring of numbers is continuing. If the results of these studies suggest that this species is damaging the alpine environment, control measures will be instigated. Each of the new pest species will need to be examined in a similar way. A big challenge is how to deal with native species that becomes pests. Red-necked (Bennets) wallabies are a major cause of suppression of alpine herbfields in Tasmania (Bridle and Kirkpatrick 1998). How will this species respond to climate change on the mainland and what will be its impacts on the alpine herbfields? 3. Snowpatch communities Because of climate change, both increased regional warming and reduced snowfall, Australian snowpatch vegetation is one of the most threatened alpine plant communities in the world. Vegetation loss from these communities has already occurred. To save these communities, direct intervention may have to be considered. Possible management options include the use of snow fences to restore the amount of snow, insulating the snowpatches from summer sun or complete shading of the plants to retain some of their competitive advantage in the snowpatch communities. 4. Erosion Increased erosion in alpine ecosystems will result from the increased summer rains predicted with climate change, degeneration of post-grazing rehabilitation works, exposure of bare ground beneath disappearing snowpatches, loss of alpine plants through fire, impacts of grazing by hard-hoofed feral animals, pig rooting and increased pressure from tourism. Australia’s highest lake, Lake Cootapatamba, has increasing siltation and will need to be surveyed to determine rate of silt accession and the required remedial action. The challenge is to devote time to monitoring erosion, assessing the best response and a commitment to continued maintenance of any rehabilitation works. 5. Increased variability Population numbers of the endangered broad-toothed rat crashed in the winter of 1999, the earliest thaw on record to that date. There was no similar crash in 2006 when the thaw was

75

76

Ten Commitments

even earlier. The years differed, with the spring of 2006 remaining warm after the thaw whereas 1999 was changeable with late snowfalls occurring after the general thaw. Late season instability in the weather also made the area uninhabitable for migratory birds (Green 2006). To allow better management of threatened species, the challenge is to understand the variability in alpine systems and how different species react to changeable climate. 6. Introduced pathogens The chytrid fungus is the greatest current threat to alpine frog species, with southern corroboree frogs close to extinction in the wild and alpine tree frogs no longer present in alpine areas. Responses to this threat include stringent hygiene protocols when working in frog habitat and the establishment of captive populations for breeding purposes. Some other means of storing genetic material may need to be instigated if attempted captive breeding fails. Introductions of plant pathogens have not yet made a large impact in alpine areas but vigilance is required, particularly with increased summer tourism, the use of material from outside for construction and rehabilitation, and the unrestricted movement of non-sterile fire appliances. 7. Mismatch in timing Bogong moths are a major source of food for many mammals, birds and invertebrates in the alpine zone. Their arrival has in the past occurred at about the time of the thaw, around the time that mountain pygmy possums are emerging from hibernation, ski resorts are closing and foxes are looking for alternative food. However, over the past 30 years, bogong moth arrival has not been correlated with time of thaw. The year 2006 had the earliest thaw but the latest arrival date. So, in an early thaw, skiers depart, there are fewer food scraps for foxes, and mountain pygmy possums are looking for insect food but the bogong moths have not arrived. One likely result is increased fox predation on mountain pygmy possums. This mismatch in timing, increasing with climate change, will also occur in migratory birds, insects and plant flowering with implications for nesting success in birds and pollination of flowers. 8. Fire The large fires of January–February 2003 showed that alpine areas, while still largely resistant to fire, are becoming increasingly vulnerable. These areas do not revegetate easily and are the head of the catchment for clean water for hydro-electricity, domestic use and irrigation. This is an environment in which initial attack in fire-fighting is easier than among trees. Fuels are less flammable and most sites above the treeline are easily accessible to ground attack without the need for fire trails, clearance of helipads, rappelling or winching into the fire. Whilst the primary response to fire by government agencies is to protect life and property, the cost of rehabilitation, the downstream costs of fire in terms of erosion, and loss of water potential make the alpine zone an increasingly valuable property from which fire must be excluded. 9. Weeds Areas of concern in alpine areas are the escape of garden plants from ski resorts and the spread of seeds with walkers from subalpine to alpine zones and between alpine areas (including internationally). This problem is increasing with modern clothing and Velcro is now banned from clothing of visitors to Australia’s subantarctic islands. Modern responses to large fires include transport of vehicles from long distances. These vehicles arrive in a perfect seed bed – bare ground and ash, with fires commonly followed by rains. The potential for vehicles to carry both seeds and pathogens between areas is high. This problem can be addressed by the construction of wash-down points at strategic locations where fire appliances must be cleaned before proceeding.

Alpine ecosystems

10. Exogenous pollutants Alpine areas overseas are badly affected by pollution, particularly acid rain, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The potential for air-borne pollutants is lessened in Australia because of the concentration of industry on the eastern seaboard, whereas precipitation and winds are mainly from the west to north-west. However, pollution tracks originating in the industries from Port Augusta to Adelaide and visible on satellite images may be impacting on the mountains (Rosenfeld 2000). Additionally, a major source of nitrogen is forest fires and this could be exacerbated by increased hazard reduction burning in winter. The importation of exogenous arsenic with migrating bogong moths has been reported (Green 2008), and although the amount is small, the effect is concentrated because the arsenic passes directly into the food chain through insectivorous species consuming the moths. Current monitoring efforts are aimed at assessing levels of pollutants in alpine animals and water bodies and tracing the source.

Conclusion Virtually all perceived threats to the mainland alpine ecosystem either result from climate change or will be exacerbated by it. Not only does climate change exacerbate existing issues, but in many ways it emphasises the importance of doing things that we already know we should do. Global warning will not be halted in the short term. In trying to determine ways in which we can preserve the alpine ecosystem the largest gap is knowledge. The challenges are to gain a better understanding of alpine ecosystems and the interactions within them that will be broken or forged by climate change and then to formulate responses to these climate-initiated or exacerbated changes. The first step in formulating a response to climate change in alpine areas is to get the science right. This can only be achieved by long-term research and monitoring programs run by an alpine research section. This would best be done under the auspices of the Australian Alps National Parks/CSIRO with a research station and staff covering plant and animal ecology, ecosystem processes, climate, water, soil and fire. Only when we have people on the ground to identify and understand the connections between processes can we formulate recommendations for future management responses.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Mary Green, Jamie Kirkpatrick, John Morgan and Phil Zylstra for discussions on material in this chapter. Snowy Hydro provided data from the Spencers Creek snow course.

References Bridle KL and Kirkpatrick JB (1998) Why do tall herbs rarely dominate Tasmanian alpine vegetation? Evidence from islands in the Ouse River system. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 132, 9–14. Galloway RW (1988) The potential impact of climate changes on the Australian ski fields. In Greenhouse, Planning for Climate Change. (Ed. GI Pearman) pp. 428–437. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Green K (2006) The effect of variation in snowpack on timing of bird migration in the Snowy Mountains. Emu 106, 187–192. Green K (2008) Migratory bogong moths (Agrotis infusa) transport arsenic and concentrate it to lethal effect by gregariously aestivating in alpine regions of the Snowy Mountains of Australia. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 40, 74–80.

77

78

Ten Commitments

Green K and Pickering CM (2002) A scenario for mammal and bird diversity in the Australian Snowy Mountains in relation to climate change. In Mountain Biodiversity: A Global Assessment. (Eds C Körner and EM Spehn) pp. 241–249. Parthenon Publishing, London. Hennessy K, Fitzharris B, Bates BC et al. (2007) Australia and New Zealand. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds ML Parry, OF Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden and CE Hanson). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hennessy K, Whetton P, Smith I, Bathols J, Hutchinson M and Sharples J (2003) The Impact of Climate Change on Snow Conditions in Mainland Australia. CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria. Nicholls N (2005) Climate variability, climate change and the Australian snow season. Australian Meteorological Magazine 54, 177–185. Rosenfeld D (2000) Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air pollution. Science 287, 1793–1796. Wearne LJ and Morgan JW (2001) Recent forest encroachment into subalpine grasslands near Mount Hotham, Victoria, Australia. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 33, 369–377.

RIVERS, WETLANDS AND ESTUARIES Richard Kingsford

1. 2. 3. 4.

Establish an Australian Heritage River System. Restore river flows to iconic wetlands in compromised rivers. Recognise floodplains in policy, management and regulation. Restructure institutions with appropriate legislation that adequately reflects environmental priorities. 5. Undertake environmental and economic assessments of water resource developments that identify long-term costs and benefits and which draw on examples from Australia and the world. 6. Avoid development of northern tropical rivers that detrimentally affects their dependent aquatic ecosystems or human communities. 7. Implement real adaptive environmental management for environmental flows in rivers.

8. Ensure that ecological values of Ramsar wetlands and aquatic conservation reserves are maintained or restored. 9. Identify and protect Australia’s high conservation value freshwater ecosystems. 10. Reduce the global effects of human populations on the resources of aquatic ecosystems.

Introduction Australia’s natural boom and bust cycles (Kingsford et al. 1999), and everything that occurs in between, govern the survival, growth and successful reproduction of many of Australia’s freshwater-dependent organisms. Dramatic storms produce floods, punctuated by dry periods. Much of the driving force comes from the cycles of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon; El Niño periods are dry while contrasting La Niña times are wet and significant rainfall produces the floods in our rivers (Puckridge et al. 2000). One of the world’s most unpredictable rivers, Cooper Creek (Puckridge et al. 1998), flows through a catchment larger than Victoria, from northern Queensland to Lake Eyre. The Cooper relies on cyclonic storms for the major flows that reach Lake Eyre about every 13 years, with frequency increasing with distance up the river (Kingsford et al. 1999). Australia still has many rivers like the Cooper that are essentially free-flowing and still support extensive biodiversity as well as rural communities, particularly floodplain graziers on the millions of hectares of floodplain. This 79

80

Ten Commitments

a

b

c

M

Figure 3: Australia’s (a) major rivers, (b) 245 large river basins and (c) 12 major drainage divisions (M – Murray-Darling Basin).

contrasts with the ecological disaster unfolding over decades, primarily from over-development of water resources, on most of the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australia diverts about 18 000 GL of water from our rivers each year (about 36 Sydney Harbour’s worth of water) (Table 1) and most of this water is used for irrigation (NLWRA 2001). About 70% of Australia’s water use is from the Murray-Darling Basin, one of the continent’s 12 river basins (Figure 3, Table 1), with only about 8% of Australia’s water use taken from the South-East Coast Drainage Division with the large cities of Melbourne and Sydney (Figure 3, Table 1). On the economic side, the Murray-Darling Basin accounts for about 33% of Australia’s agricultural output. Water management has rapidly become one of Australia’s most significant environmental challenges, largely because of ecological degradation of rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. The critical challenge is how to manage highly compromised river systems but not replicate mistakes elsewhere. There is a considerable political push for intensive agriculture in northern Australia where supplies of water are abundant. To address this challenge and avoid future mismanagement of Australia’s aquatic ecosystems, there are 10 tasks.

Key issues 1. Establish an Australian Heritage River System Prevention is better than cure for ecosystems – perhaps 10–100 times cheaper to maintain ecosystems than repair them (PMSEIC 2002). The most effective models for conservation of ecosystems, primarily protected areas, have failed to protect aquatic ecosystems, primarily because their spatial framework is terrestrial, rather than the catchment or water that sustains the aquatic ecosystem. Protection of flow in whole river systems is a particularly effective surrogate for protecting ecological patterns and processes. Few national legislative or policy mechanisms exist in Australia, although some States have taken tentative steps. An Australian Heritage River System could involve the people living on rivers and potentially remove some of the politics of river management. The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement protects its rivers while a similar agreement protects flows in the last free-flowing river in the Murray-Darling Basin, the Paroo River. These rivers needed to be under the umbrella of a broad Australian Heritage River system that provides opportunities for other rivers to be included and could be expanded to include not only conservation values but also cultural values (Kingsford et al. 2005). Establishment would require a relatively small annual budget of about $200 000 to run a national intergovernmental coordination group and provide funds for communities to propose their rivers for heritage listing. Such a framework would need to be legislated (Kingsford 2007).

68 200

518 570

547 050

638 460

Indian Ocean

Timor Sea

Gulf of Carpentaria

2 455 000

Western Plateau

Total

100 570

Bulloo-Bancannia

1 170 000

314 090

South-west coast

Lake Eyre

82 300

1 062 530

South Australian Gulf

Murray-Darling

Tasmania

450 700

273 600

North-east coast

Land area (km2 )

South-east coast

River basin

387 184

1486

546

8638

95 615

83 320

4609

6785

952

23 850

45 582

42 390

73 411

Mean annual runoff (GL)

15 331

73.3

2.23

47.1

83

106

94.2

1210

1160

1800

415

8180

2160

Total storage capacity (GL)

n/a

–

n/a

96 066

81 461

3481

5925

787

5750

45 336

40 366

69 580

Mean annual outflow (GL)

18 147

1

<1

7

52

48

12

373

144

12 051

451

1825

3182

Volume diverted (GL)

Table 1 Major river basins in Australia, their land area, mean annual runoff, mean annual outflow, capacity of government built storages and volume diverted. Mean annual runoff, annual outflow and volume diverted from NLWRA (2001). Storage capacity data from ANCOLD (1990).

Rivers, wetlands and estuaries 81

82

Ten Commitments

2. Restore flows to iconic wetlands The wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basin are in decline, caused by dams and diversion from the floodplains (Kingsford 2000). Many are listed as wetlands of international significance under the Ramsar Convention (Barmah-Millewa Forest, Coorong, Chowilla floodplain, Gwydir wetlands, Macquarie Marshes, Narran Lake) while others are equally significant but have little status (e.g. Lowbidgee, Great Cumbung Swamp, Yantabulla Swamp). Governments have now recognised that they cannot restore whole regulated river systems given the demands of the irrigation industry and the focus has shifted to these iconic wetlands. The Living Murray restoration programme has five principal icon sites for restoration that are the focus for environmental flow management. The NSW Government is buying water from the irrigation industry, under the Riverbank program, to deliver to key wetlands (e.g. Macquarie Marshes). These are excellent initiatives but they could be more effective. Investment frameworks for catchment management authorities and government management plans need to have such wetlands at their centre (water, land, tax) and provide opportunities for partnerships with private landholders and offer possible tax incentives. Water will need to be bought to augment environmental flows, and water saved from inefficient irrigation should be given back to rivers in proportion to taxpayer investment. 3. Recognise floodplains Australia’s rivers have extremely large complex floodplains. Most of the area (>80%) covered by a river is floodplain (Kingsford et al. 2004) and yet this has had little attention from policy makers and legislators. For example, the major policy instrument, the cap on diversions from the Murray-Darling Basin rivers at 1993/94 levels of development, pronounced by governments in 1995, did not adequately include floodplains, allowing for further diversions as water was harvested from the floodplains. This is achieved with levees, channels and off-river storages built across the floodplain and intercepting river flows that escape the main channel of the river, including environmental flows (Steinfeld and Kingsford 2008). In NSW, floodplains are still managed under the 1912 Water Act despite the existence of the main Water Management Act 2000. Queensland does not define floodplains as wetlands in their recent mapping of the State’s freshwater resources, although they are mapped. Anachronistic policies, legislation and often poorly resourced institutions do not adequately protect floodplains and their floods where most biodiversity lives and reproduces. Considerable policy, management and regulatory effort need to be developed and implemented for sustainable management of floodplains. Governments can audit all floodplains and instigate removal of earthworks that impede or capture environmental flows. 4. Restructure institutions Rivers are run by water agencies – the same institutions that were established with the primary responsibility to build dams and save the water from wastage in the environment. In NSW, the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission primarily conserved water in dams for irrigation, often a different purpose to that needed for rivers today. Some in water agencies still manage rivers for development, with many of the critical decisions resulting in degradation of floodplains made at the local water agency level (e.g. Lowbidgee floodplain) (Kingsford 2003). A culture of support for river diversion and development can be backed by the agency and often the Minister of the day. Counter to such developments, environment Ministers and their agencies have often not adequately intervened or engaged in the issue, regarding water as outside their portfolio, even though many iconic wetlands under their responsibility are declining with poor water management decisions. Restructuring water agencies to ensure management is primarily about sustainable management would help to make decisions more

Rivers, wetlands and estuaries

favourable to the environment. Some governments (e.g. Victoria) have amalgamated functions which may also deliver better decision-making. There is a strong need for conservation agency personnel to develop expertise in water management and engage with water agencies to ensure constructive tensions within government. 5. Undertake environmental and economic assessment The main rationale for the development of river systems in Australia is the need for irrigated agriculture and the economic benefits that result. For some coastal rivers, dams are also built for drinking supply. Environmental assessment, until relatively recently, has been superficial and local, ignoring the longitudinal dimension of the river and large-scale impacts on downstream dependent ecosystems (Kingsford 1999). Typically, discussion is about the impacts of inundation on terrestrial ecosystems when a dam is built, ignoring the significant downstream costs to floodplains, estuarine or marine ecosystems (Kingsford 2000; Gillanders and Kingsford 2002). Economic assessment can be rudimentary, seldom including public capital costs of infrastructure or the running of dams to supply water. Governments are increasingly attempting to recover costs for water but such initiatives usually only apply to some costs of annual supply, not the capital costs of building dams and channels or their maintenance. Any new developments (e.g. dams) have to include these costs and the long-term ecological costs. No-one could have predicted that taxpayers would pay more than $10 billion to restore the health of the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. All future assessments need to use such real cost estimates in environmental assessment and not treat each new development without such information, ensuring that assessment is over the long term (>50 years). 6. Avoid detrimental future development of Australia’s tropical rivers Recently, attention of governments has switched to the potential development of Australia’s tropical rivers, as this is where most of the freshwater on the continent exists (Table 1). This was a key outcome of the Prime Minister’s 2020 Summit, held in April 2008. Much of Australia’s freshwater biodiversity depends on these tropical rivers and their flow regimes. The notion that water is flowing to waste out to sea has been part of the rhetoric for development. There is now considerable evidence that coastal rivers are critical for estuarine and marine ecosystems, providing the nutrient requirements for many marine and estuarine organisms to survive and breed (Gillanders and Kingsford 2002). Some of the world’s most pressing environmental problems have been caused by large dams on coastal rivers. The Aswan Dam on the River Nile caused considerable ecological damage to the delta into the Mediterranean Sea. There is already some evidence that the world’s largest dam, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, is collapsing the food web that supports a large fishery at the mouth of the river. There are many clear examples from coastal water resource development around the world and from the Murray-Darling Basin of the inevitable consequences of water resource developments for coastal rivers that need to be heeded in discussions on tropical river development. No water developments should occur that would detrimentally affect ecosystems and dependent human communities. 7. Adaptive environmental management Increasingly, there is recognition that reserves and ecosystems need to be managed. This is particularly true of wetland ecosystems, downstream of dammed rivers. Often the water in the dam identified as environmental flow needs to be released at certain times of the year for specific environmental objectives. Adaptive environmental management can be established with development of a hierarchy of objectives that define particularly thresholds that trigger

83

84

Ten Commitments

management when exceeded (Biggs and Rogers 2003). Inevitably these thresholds force a series of monitoring programmes tied to the management of the ecosystem. There are clear opportunities to ‘learn by doing’ but it requires commitment by management agencies and a process of setting a desired state with requisite resources to meet the demands of adaptive management. Transparency and accountability are the key outcomes and mean that little alternative exists to such a strategy for effective management of ecosystems. Management plans need to be developed for conservation and water agencies charged with environmental flow that explicitly detail objectives and how these are to be met and if they are not met should result in changed management. 8. Ramsar wetlands Australia has more than 60 wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention as wetlands of international importance. Many of those dependent on river flows, particularly in the MurrayDarling Basin, are degrading quickly. Less frequent and less extensive flooding has affected flood dependent organisms, with declining abundance, diversity and health (e.g. river red gums, native fish, water-birds), affecting the values for which they were listed as international wetlands. The Federal Government liaises with international governments and the Ramsar Bureau but leaves most of the responsibility for management of sites to State and Territory Governments. Ramsar sites are often cited in water management plans but only in superficial listing of their ecological values and their importance in a particular river valley. Until relatively recently, such sites were not adequately included in the river management plans. This was largely because water sharing plans usually only included the main stem of the river and not the floodplain. So the Murrumbidgee River water sharing plan does not include its main wetland – the Lowbidgee floodplain. Water Resource Plans for rivers in Queensland that flow to NSW usually stop at the border, predominantly ignoring the flow requirements of major wetlands downstream (e.g. Yantabulla Swamp). Contrastingly, water and its management may be left out of wetland reserve management where the focus is primarily terrestrial (fire, exotic species). Dependent Ramsar sites and other high conservation wetlands need to be at the centre of river management planning with environmental flows targeted to be augmented and adaptive management that respects key conservation objectives. 9. Identify and protect Australia’s high conservation-value freshwater ecosystems Increasingly, a triage approach to the conservation of ecosystems is recommended, given limited resources. This requires some assessment of the relative importance of different ecosystems for the range of organisms. Australia has Ramsar sites and many other wetlands identified in the Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia but there is little relative assessment of their importance. Such information is critical if a particularly freshwater ecosystem of high conservation value is at risk. Governments and the community need to be able to argue for the conservation importance of such ecosystem within the context of a national framework. The National Water Initiative, signed by all governments, had agreement that identification of high conservation value freshwater ecosystems was a priority but little progress has been made. There are technical difficulties, primarily lack of data, but a major problem appears to be lack of agreement about a national framework even though some of this work has been done (Kingsford et al. 2005). Governments continue to mark time on the issue of national assessment of conservation value. One potential challenge is that many high conservation value ecosystems are on private land which raises issues for government agencies in their management and jurisdiction. Once identified, their water supply must be protected.

Rivers, wetlands and estuaries

10. Reduced impacts of human populations In the time that it takes you to read this essay, if you get this far, another 230 people will be added to this planet. They will need to be fed, watered and clothed as well as provided with an increasing array of material goods that we are told define a high quality of life. Much of these needs require water. This comes either from rivers or groundwater. Most people in the developing world aspire to the same quality of life as enjoyed in the developed world. With increased diversions of water from rivers, the ecological consequences for freshwater ecosystems will grow. It will not be sufficient for Australia to manage our rivers in a healthy ecological state in isolation. We still demand cheap cotton shirts and food and, in a global market, another continent’s rivers will need to deliver. Some rivers in western China are now dry for more than 200 km because of dams and diversions for irrigation. The consequences for aquatic ecosystems are inevitable. As with most of the world’s environmental problems, they are primarily down to one species. Human populations and increasing consumption of goods will need to decline. But there are opportunities for restoring some freshwater aquatic ecosystems without impacting on production and this primarily means improving efficiencies of water use. Open water channels and storages lose large amounts of water to evaporation. Reducing such losses will decrease some of the impacts of water resource developments on rivers.

Conclusions At no time in Australia’s history have the challenges for water management been as great. The rapid degradation of the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin has forced governments to address the issues with considerable resources. These resources need to be well spent and targeted. As well, fundamental changes for water resource management are needed, including the institutions that manage them and our thinking about water. It is happening. Underpinning such changes is the understanding that all water serves fundamental ecological needs either for floodplains, groundwater ecosystems, estuaries or marine ecosystems. Development of water resources for hydroelectricity generation, irrigation and urban water supply will have ecological impacts. We need to quantify these impacts so that decisions for new developments of the long-term ecological and economic consequences are reasonably estimated. Australia is one of the few countries of the world that could also protect free- flowing rivers but currently no national framework exists. An Australian Heritage River system would provide this, implemented throughout the country. It would have the support of many river communities. The challenges for management of the world’s freshwater resources, not just those of Australia, are considerable, but we can make a start.

References Australian National Committee on Large Dams (1990) Register of Large Dams in Australia, 1990. (International Commission on Large Dams, National Committee on Large Dams.) Hydroelectric Commission, Hobart. Biggs HC and Rogers KH (2003) An adaptive system to link science, monitoring, and management in practice. Chapter 4. In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity. (Eds J du Toit, KH Rogers and HC Biggs) pp. 59–82. Island Press, Washington DC. Gillanders BM and Kingsford MJ (2002) Impact of changes in flow of freshwater on estuarine and open coastal habitats and associated organisms. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 40, 233–309.

85

86

Ten Commitments

Kingsford RT (1999) Managing the water of the Border Rivers in Australia: irrigation, Government and the wetland environment. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7, 25–35. Kingsford RT (2000) Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25, 109–127. Kingsford RT (2003) Social, institutional and economic drivers for water resource development – case study of the Murrumbidgee River, Australia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 6, 69–79. Kingsford RT (2007) ‘Heritage rivers: new directions for the protection of Australia’s high conservation rivers, wetlands and estuaries’. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney. http://www.bees.unsw. edu.au/school/staff/kingsford/kingsfordpublications.html Kingsford RT, Curtin AL and Porter JL (1999) Water flows on Cooper Creek determine ‘boom’ and ‘bust’ periods for waterbirds. Biological Conservation 88, 231–248. Kingsford RT, Brandis K, Thomas RF, Crighton P, Knowles E and Gale E (2004) Classifying landform at broad spatial scales: the distribution and conservation of wetlands in New South Wales, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 55, 17–31. Kingsford RT, Dunn H, Love D, Nevill J, Stein J and Tait J (2005) ‘Protecting Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries of high conservation value’. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra http://www.environment.gov.au/water/ publications/environmental/protecting-rivers.html NLWRA (National Land and Water Resources Audit) (2001) Australian water resources assessment 2000 edn. National Land and Water Audit, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. PMSEIC (Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council) (2002). ‘Sustaining our natural systems and biodiversity’. Report from the Eighth Meeting, 31 May 2002, Canberra. Puckridge JT, Sheldon F, Walker KF and Boulton AJ (1998) Flow variability and the ecology of large rivers. Marine Freshwater Research 49, 55–72. Puckridge JT, Walker KF and Costelloe JF (2000) Hydrological persistence and the ecology of dryland rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16, 385–402. Steinfeld C and Kingsford RT (2008) ‘Floodplain development and vegetation health on the Macquarie River floodplain of the Murray-Darling Basin’. University of New South Wales, Sydney.

COASTS Neil Lazarow, Timothy F. Smith and Beverley Clarke

1. Develop a collective sustainable long-term vision for our coast. 2. Understand emerging impacts on the coast. 3. Adopt a systems approach to management in order to better identify leverage opportunities. 4. Recognise the importance of cultural values and connections to the coast. 5. Develop indicators to measure the economic value of coastal ecosystems. 6. Encourage the adoption of proactive local and regional planning. 7. Ensure continuity of program funding and policy interventions. 8. Incorporate Australia’s international obligations into the planning processes at all levels of government. 9. Commit to capacity building, social learning and adaptive management. 10. Develop and encourage shared power and partnerships.

Introduction Australia’s coastal zone is both unique and fragile. Coastal environments are dynamic, complex and interdependent. Over 90% of our national population are located in the coastal zone and all but one of Australia’s capital cities are located on the coast (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004). Rapid and enduring population growth around the Australian coastline is predicted to continue (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001). Intertwined social, economic, and cultural interests make the challenges of coastal management, challenges of society. By its very nature, coastal management is the management of people’s activities within coastal regions. The 2006 National State of the Environment Report (SoE) for coasts highlights the inadequacies of previous management efforts: There are no surprises or new issues since 2001. There is still a pressing need to respond to previously identified pressures in order to prevent the continuing slow and cumulative decline in environmental quality [of the coast] (Beeton et al. 2006). Despite extensive reviews and numerous significant policy initiatives over the past 30 years: … no government, Federal or State, has ever managed to sustain a powerful and consistent coastal protection manifesto as a central plank to its environmental policies and management regimes (Thom 2004). 87

88

Ten Commitments

Notwithstanding some raised awareness of the challenges facing coastal managers and broad acceptance of integrated coastal zone management principles, there has been sustained inertia regarding effective and lasting improvements to coastal management practice coupled with an overall significant net decline in available funding in real terms. New policies evolve with little consideration of past efforts, leading to policy ad hocery and amnesia (Dovers 2006). Continuous reviews of governance processes are aptly described as ‘paralysis by analysis’ (Haward and Van der Zwaag 1995). The order of the following tasks presents a flow from understanding impacts through to responses. These actions will help move Australia towards achieving the sustainable coast that is vital for our nation’s future. While the development of all of these tasks is important, the adoption of and support for proactive planning at the local and regional level – where the rubber hits the road – is likely to see the greatest positive change in the near-term.

Key issues 1. Develop a collective sustainable long-term vision for our coast Coastal management is fraught by many ‘wicked’ problems (Pitts 1993) – intractable and complex issues that must be tackled. Successive Federal and State governments have articulated goals for Australia’s coast. Often these goals are focused on environmental or economic factors. To begin to deal with the complexity of planning and management decisions, a long-range vision developed collectively by the coastal community (politicians, planners, scientists, managers, residents and resource users) is needed. The experience of previous national inquiries into coastal management (Commonwealth of Australia 1980, 1991, 2006; Gurran et al. 2005; Kay and Lester 1997; Resource Assessment Commission 1993) provides a strong baseline from which this vision could emerge. It should provide a platform for the development of policy and management frameworks, be national in scope but applicable at smaller scales and could be substantially achieved through a range of incentive and regulatory initiatives. Visioning offers the widest possible participation for developing a long-range plan … It helps formulate policy direction on public investments and government programs ... It helps avoid piecemeal and reactionary approaches to addressing problems (United States Department of Transportation 1996). The mechanism for undertaking a collective visioning exercise for coastal Australia and to transform ideas to practice could be achieved through a three-tiered partnership led by the Federal Government or Council of Australian Governments (COAG). An alternative/concurrent process, originally suggested by the RAC (Resource Assessment Commission 1993) entails the establishment of a National Coastal Authority or Council, whose role could be to work with partners across the government and non-government sectors to develop the vision for coastal Australia (see Wescott 2006). However, the principles upon which the vision should be established need to be consistent with the other nine key tasks listed in this chapter. We propose as a key performance indicator that by 2010 there is a commitment from the Federal Government to begin a collective coastal visioning exercise. 2. Understand emerging impacts on the coast One of the great challenges for coastal management in this century will be the ability of local councils and State agencies to develop coastal management plans that respond to climate change. Such plans need to allow for alterations to the physical features of the coast but first

Coasts

they also need to understand and then address associated impacts upon ecological systems, and hence changes to the places that we live and how we currently use the coast. This requires that we also understand the (often financial) incentives that encourage development in areas of high risk or value and develop strategies to mitigate this. Local councils (supported by the Federal and State Governments) need to determine climate change implications (environmental, economic and social) and respond to those implications through appropriate planning guidelines. The adoption of the revised planning guidelines must be supported by all tiers of government and upheld by the courts. By 2011, we would like to see that coastal local councils and relevant State agencies have incorporated climate change predictions and adaptive responses into their planning regulations. 3. Adopt a systems approach to management in order to better identify leverage opportunities Coastal management must be approached in a way that recognises the direct and indirect consequences of a management action (Smith et al. 2007). Similarly, the direct and indirect causes of a management problem need to also be recognised. Coastal managers can then identify critical negative feedback loops and where to make key interventions in the coastal system – where to get the biggest bang for their buck. A commitment to managing coastal environments through a systems approach is critical to the long-term sustainability of the coast. State and Federal support for local councils should promote the development of systems conceptualisations of their coastal zone, which would then be used to test the implications of decisions and prioritise coastal management investment. These approaches should then be used to inform all coastal management activities. 4. Recognise the importance of cultural values and connections to the coast The Australian coast is a highly valued and contested space. Understanding the importance of cultural heritage, identity, and (often intangible) concepts such as play, ceremony and beauty in a rapidly changing society are key challenges for coastal management in Australia. Strong cultural attachment to particular coastal areas is significant for many Indigenous Australian communities and is recognised (although not necessarily protected) in a number of policy frameworks. For many, our cultural identity can be defined by our attachment to the coast (where we live), the diverse range of people we interact with, and how we relate to particular places (see Booth 2001). Australians’ special relationship to the coast is widely recognised (but poorly understood) and commonly identified in coastal planning documents (e.g. most State coastal policies), yet it is generally given a low priority in programs that are driven by environmental protection agencies. Understanding how we relate to and value particular places and spaces can significantly improve our understanding of human behaviour and lead to better management of human impacts on the coast (see Miller et al. 2004 for a useful example from fisheries management). Federal Government must facilitate the collection of information about how people use and value the coast so that by 2010, this information is available for inclusion in policies at all tiers of government. 5. Develop indicators to measure the economic value of coastal ecosystems The coastal economy, defined as the portion of economic activity that takes place on or near the coast (Colgan 2003) contains ocean and non-ocean-related economic activities. Traditionally, the coastal economy has been viewed in terms of market values. However, non-market values (i.e. goods and services traditionally not traded through the market such as the value of

89

90

Ten Commitments

habitats) also play a significant role in determining the health of the coast and they affect the people who use the coast for work and play (Pendleton et al. 2007). Costanza et al. (1997) use the concept of Total Economic Value (TEV) to provide a framework for understanding the value of both market and non-market assets on our coast (see Lazarow et al. 2007 for a useful model). For example, non-market values can include: ecosystem services such as carbon cycling in estuaries; recreational activities such as enjoying a walk on the beach, swimming in clean water, being able to catch a fish or watch a beautiful sunset over the ocean; as well as the value of conservation initiatives to current and future generations. Understanding and clearly articulating the total economic value of the coast can help drive the vision for coastal planning and management, and provide a rational basis for government decision-making. The Federal Government needs to facilitate the understanding of the total economic value of coastal systems, including non-market values. We would hope that by 2011, total economic value concepts are understood and have been incorporated into coastal planning and decisionmaking at all tiers of government. 6. Encourage the adoption of proactive planning at the local and regional scale One of the most pressing problems faced by coastal managers around Australia is development pressure, driven by developers – ‘influence peddling is rife’ (Thom 2006). Thoughtful and strategic planning at the local and regional scale (consistent with the collective national vision) is required to overcome the piecemeal and ad hoc planning decisions that characterise most Australian coastal settlements. Strategic planning can provide the policy framework and roadmap to guide longer-term soft and hard infrastructure investment and maintenance. The tyranny of small decisions and the pattern of assessing countless one-off applications, which is often the case when planning is driven by population pressure rather than a strong vision (Harvey 2006), may be overcome by adopting the principles that underpin Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA provides a strong planning tool for local authorities, who are often well positioned (but under-resourced) to scale up to operate at the regional level and can provide a blueprint for longer-term infrastructure planning (Harvey 2006; Low Choy 2006). Each natural resource management region with coastal interests needs to facilitate a coherent and sustainable planning approach to coastal development across constituent local councils. By 2011, Australian local coastal councils should have adopted strategic ‘masterplanning’ planning frameworks (e.g. The Narooma plan, Eurobodalla Shire Council). 7. Ensure continuity of coastal program funding and policy interventions Policy interventions that require changes in human behaviour and environmental responses often take some time to take effect. For this reason, they must run their full course before alternative policy interventions are introduced (Bridgman and Davis 2000; Dovers 2005; Olsen et al. 1999). Furthermore, they should be treated as experiments so that policy improvement is more easily and transparently enabled (Lee 1993). The ‘supra-electoral’ capacity of policy actors and agencies, as described by Dovers (2006), would provide them with the purposeful independence, reflexivity and longevity to deal with long-term planning and management problems. For example, strategies such as information flows, reference to and appeal on the basis of sustainability principles, long-term targets, statutory guarantees of rights and responsibility, and independence from government can provide organisations with the capacity to address long-term challenges and avoid the pitfalls of uncoordinated and uninformed responses to day-to-day policy issues (Dovers 2006). While some policy interventions have not been able to run their full course, the funding of programs (and staff positions) has also tended to be sporadic, and the potential for productive relationships

Coasts

between communities and policy agencies has been diminished as a result. The sporadic nature of funding programs has also resulted in staff recruitment and retention difficulties within coastal management organisations (particularly at the regional level) and the subsequent loss of corporate knowledge. Federal Government in partnership with the States needs to commit to a rolling 10-year program of funding for coastal management programs, and ensure these programs are implemented, in particular at the local government level. 8. Incorporate Australia’s international obligations into the planning processes at all levels of government Australia’s coastal boundaries cover vast areas around both the continent and our external territories. Australia is signatory to a range of international agreements for the protection and management of the coastal environment, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Australia ratified in 1994 (Fearon et al. 2006). The majority of our obligations focus on the protection of coastal habitats and ecosystems from direct threats (e.g. development) and from land-based pollution. The commitment to these international obligations may well be compromised by the cumulative impacts of isolated decisions at all tiers of government. The Federal Government should prepare and disseminate advice on these obligations to various agencies and levels of government to incorporate into planning regulations. By 2010, it should have supported the inclusion of international obligations in local planning schemes. 9. Commit to capacity building, social learning and adaptive management Australia’s environment is undergoing constant change, yet our coastal planning and management decisions often treat our coasts as static. Fundamental to being able to respond to a changing environment is building the capacity to manage change. While capacity building has been highlighted as a key consideration for many Australian coastal communities (e.g. in terms of participating in and implementing effective coastal decisions), less emphasis has been given to ensure our ability to enact adaptive management. In order to devise strategies to improve our decisions in the future, we must first recognise that adaptive management is a learning process, and thus take a rigorous approach to monitoring and evaluating the success or failures of coastal decisions. Secondly, we must recognise that adaptive management is fuelled by social learning, and that such learning is not restricted to communities, but rather that in order for learning to be an effective driver of adaptive management, a commitment to learning must occur on the parts of communities, researchers, and decision makers (Smith and Lazarow 2006; Smith and Smith 2006). Described here, capacity building (and social learning) is significantly different to the scope of activities identified in the National Framework, which focused primarily on knowledge exchange (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). All coastal management and planning activities, at all tiers of government, need to monitor and evaluate capacity building, social learning and adaptive management. Management decisions need to be monitored and evaluated against key performance indicators at least annually. These results should be shared with all stakeholders (decision-makers, researchers, interest groups, and communities). 10. Develop and encourage shared power and partnerships The benefits of community stewardship are widely accepted. For this reason, effective public participation in decision-making has been a central recommendation from most national and

91

92

Ten Commitments

international coastal management reports over the past 30 years (see Clarke 2006; Lazarow 2006). While the concept of participation is widely accepted, the implementation of ‘effective’ participation is lacking and accepted standards for evaluating participation are seldom incorporated into planning and management processes (Bellamy et al. 2005). Effective partnership arrangements between all sectors (including within and between levels of government) require a commitment to shared power and responsibility. We would like to see accepted public participation standards incorporated into planning and management frameworks at all tiers of government such that, by 2010, communities are fully engaged in coastal planning and management processes.

Conclusions Managing Australia’s coasts has never been more important. A growing population, development pressure, continued resource utilisation and emerging climate change issues pose ongoing coastal management challenges. Inaction will adversely affect our coastal environments, economies and communities. Each of the coastal management tasks and actions in this chapter are informed by the complex context of contemporary coastal management in Australia. The inherent interdependence within coastal systems means that the actions to improve and manage this vital asset must be viewed from a transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral perspective. Furthermore, in order to truly commit to improving and managing the coast in a sustainable way, all actions must be framed within a broader vision of the coast with long-term goals that also reflect societal goals. We must recognise the importance of cultural heritage, identity and traditional uses, often intangible, the right of public access to the coast and the responsibility of protecting much of our unspoiled coastline for future generations. To improve environmental outcomes for the future of the Australian coastline there must be bold and long-overdue improvements to planning and decision-making, including mechanisms to improve the manner in which government funding is administered, and in which power and responsibility for coastal management is redistributed. The 10 tasks identified in this chapter call for both action and courage to try new approaches for improved management practice, and ultimately for enhanced environmental, economic and societal outcomes.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) ‘Population Projections by SLA (ASGC 2001), 2002– 2022’. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) How many people live in Australia’s coastal areas? In Year Book Australia 2004. (Cat. No. 1301.0.). Canberra. Beeton R, Blakely E, Jones G, Morgan D, Reichelt R and Trewin D (2006) ‘Australia State of the Environment 2006’. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Bellamy J, Smith TF and Walker M (2005) Regional natural resource management planning arrangements: evaluating through the regional lens. In Regional Natural Resource Management Planning: The Challenges of Evaluation as Seen Through Different Lenses. (Ed. J Bellamy). CIRM Occasional Paper: The State of Queensland. Booth D (2001) Australian Beach Cultures: The History of Sun, Sand and Surf. Frank Cass, London. Bridgman P and Davis G (2000) The Australian Policy Handbook. 2nd edn. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Coasts

Clarke B (2006) Australia’s Coastcare Program (1995–2002): its purpose, components and outcomes. Geographical Research 44(3), 310–322. Colgan CS (2003) ‘The changing ocean and coastal economy of the United States: a briefing paper for conference participants’. www.nga.org/cda/files/102203WavesColgan.pdf (accessed 12-12-07) Commonwealth of Australia (1980) ‘Australian coastal zone management: report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation Canberra’. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (1991) ‘The injured coastline: protection of the coastal environment’. Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (HORSCERA) Canberra. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (2006) ‘National cooperative approach to integrated coastal zone management. Framework and implementation plan’. Natural Resource Ministerial Council. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Dovers S (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation, Implementation, Evaluation. The Federation Press, Sydney. Dovers S (2006) Institutions for ICZM: insights from elsewhere. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 1–10. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Fearon R, Wulf P and Baird R (2006) International institutional arrangements influencing Australian integrated coastal management. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 19–28. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Gurran N, Squires C and Blakely E (2005) ‘Meeting the sea change challenge. Sea change communities in coastal Australia’. Report to the National Sea Change Taskforce. The University of Sydney, Faculty of Architecture, Planning Research Centre, Sydney. Harvey N (2006) Strategic assessment and integrated coastal management: implications for coastal capacity building in Australia. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 89–100. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Haward M and Van der Zwaag D (1995) Implementation of UNCED Agenda 21 Chapter 17 in Australia and Canada: a comparative analysis. Ocean and Coastal Management 29(1–3), 279–295. Kay R and Lester R (1997) 25th anniversary invited paper: benchmarking the future direction of coastal management in Australia. Coastal Management 25, 265–292. Lazarow N (2006) Community participation in ICZM – lessons and areas for improvement in governance. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 79–88. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane.

93

94

Ten Commitments

Lazarow N, Miller ML and Blackwell B (2007) Dropping in: a case study approach to understanding the socio-economic impacts of recreational surfing and its value to the coastal economy. Shore and Beach 75(4), 21–31. Lee K (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington. Low Choy D (2006) Coastal NRM challenges: meeting regional challenges through local government planning processes. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 47–58. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Miller ML, Kaneko J, Bartram P and Brewer DD (2004) Cultural consensus analysis and environmental anthropology: yellowfin tuna fishery management in Hawaii. CrossCultural Research 38(3), 289–314. Olsen S, Lowry K and Tobey J (1999) A Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, USA. Pendleton L, Atiyah P and Moorthy A (2007) Is the non-market literature adequate to support coastal and marine management. Ocean and Coastal Management 50(5–6), 363–378. Pitts D (1993) Analysis of Strategic Processes and Initiatives for Coastal Zone Management. Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra. Resource Assessment Commission (1993) ‘Coastal zone inquiry: final report’. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Smith TF and Lazarow N (2006) Social learning and the adaptive management framework. Journal of Coastal Research SI 39, 952–954. Smith TF and Smith DC (2006) Institutionalising adaptive learning for coastal management. In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 101–106. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Smith TF, Brooke C, Gorddard R, Abbs D, McInnes K and Withycombe G (2007) Managing for climate change in the Sydney region. Journal of Coastal Research SI 50, 109–113. Thom B (2004) ‘Keynote Address. The second decade – coastal planning and management in Australia towards 2014’. Coast to Coast 2004, Australia’s 6th National Coastal Management Conference, Hobart. Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, Hobart. Thom B (2006) The coast as seen from the east. http://www.wentworthgroup.org/members/ prof-bruce-thom-fiag-ftse. (accessed 20-02-08) United States Department of Transportation, FHA (1996) Public involvement techniques for transportation decision-making. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/vision.htm. (accessed 6-02-08) Wescott G (2006) Is there a role for the Federal Government in implementing integrated coastal management in Australia? In Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. (Eds N Lazarow, R Souter, R Fearon and S Dovers) pp. 29–34. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane.

SECTORS

FISHERIES Securing Australia’s fish supply and improving the environmental sustainability of fisheries Robert Kearney

1. Obtain accurate assessment of the relationship between fisheries, the environment and the supply of fish for future generations of Australians. 2. Identify the interests of stakeholders in fisheries and environmental management, highlight inherent conflicts of interest, and manage them. 3. Minimise ambiguity and uncertainty in policy and management objectives. 4. Provide consistency in the principles used for managing aquatic and terrestrial species and ecosystems. 5. Ensure independent peer review of policy proposals and the science on which they are based. 6. Build on increased peer review to improve government policy and management processes. 7. Acknowledge fisheries management successes and failures and learn from them. 8. Improve the quality of fisheries and environmental assessments. 9. Provide leadership in dealing with technological and other global changes. 10. Determine where Australia’s future supply of fish is to come from and accommodate an environmental footprint for the aquaculture that will be necessary to help meet demand.

Introduction The original theme of this book has been altered in this chapter for three reasons: first, it is difficult for many people to accept that we can improve on nature, and, strictly speaking, restoration of degraded environments is not an improvement on natural processes; second, most Australian fisheries offer a much lesser threat to the environment than environmental degradation from other sources is to both fish and fisheries; and third, Australians put considerable priority on continuing to eat Australian fish. We currently import three-quarters of the fish consumed here. The wild resources of fish species that we eat are assessed to be close to fully exploited. Aquaculture production has 97

98

Ten Commitments

stagnated, and continues to consume many times more fish in the form of fish-food, than it produces. This is happening simultaneously with population growth, an increase in per capita demand for seafood, and a reduction in our capacity to compete internationally for quality seafood (Kearney et al. 2003). Most worryingly, we still do not have a national strategy to address where our future fish is to come from.

Key issues 1. Obtain accurate assessment of the relationship between fisheries, the environment and the supply of fish for future generations of Australians Contrary to claims by many environmental activists, most commercial fisheries result in relatively little direct environmental impact; in fact extremely little when compared to the clearfelling, ploughing and deliberate introduction and cultivation of non-indigenous species that form the basis of much of Australia’s other method of local food supply, agriculture. The deleterious impacts of fish-trawling on hard bottoms with associated plant and/or invertebrate communities, are the major exceptions. Fish-trawling has also been responsible for the majority of cases of serious over-fishing in Commonwealth-managed fisheries in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (McLoughlin 2006) even though it accounts for little more than 4% of the value of Australia’s fisheries production (from data in ABARE 2007). Incidental by-catch in a number of fisheries can have significant negative ecological consequences – sea-birds in longline fishing, turtles and other species in prawn-trawl fishing, for example. But by and large, Australia has made great progress in addressing these problems and mitigating impacts. More work is unquestionably needed in a number of fisheries, but proper management of fish-trawl fisheries would overcome the majority of the major negative environmental impacts of Australia’s commercial harvest fisheries. Impacts of recreational harvesting remain less obvious, except perhaps on inter-tidal rocky habitats, but the sheer weight of numbers of recreational harvesters, which include anglers, confirms the need for scrutiny. Mitigation of the negative effects of environmental degradation from non-fishing sources on fish and fisheries is infinitely more elusive. Most of the fisheries seriously impacted are inshore and freshwater, which are predominantly State-managed. Anthropogenic environmental impacts on these fisheries are, almost exclusively, terrestrially-based and their management is seldom the responsibility of fisheries agencies. Major examples for marine and estuarine environments include: pollution from agricultural, industrial and urban run-off; coastal habitat destruction in the name of development or the provision of services such as airport runways and shipping terminals, and introduced aquatic organisms, particularly weeds from household aquaria and invertebrate animals from ballast water. In most freshwater systems, commercial fisheries have been completely destroyed by habitat destruction in the form of dams and weirs, agricultural run-off, or water extraction for irrigation. Access to the few remaining significant freshwater fish populations has been allocated exclusively to recreational users. The development of aquaculture in the most productive locations, estuaries and protected bays and inlets, has been greatly curtailed in response to lobbying by coastal residents or environmental preservationists who consider any physical signs of development undesirable, no matter how productive of fish or benign in holistic environmental impact (see point 10). A national strategy for Australia’s seafood security is urgently needed. Such a strategy should incorporate assessments of future requirements for seafood for health and lifestyle reasons and include policies and plans for domestic capture fisheries, aquaculture and for imports.

Fisheries

2. Identify the interests of stakeholders in fisheries and environmental management, highlight inherent conflicts of interest, and manage them A prevailing assumption in Australia’s fisheries and environmental management is that the short-term wants of those currently in an industry are consistent with the industry’s long-term interests. This error does not relate solely to commercial or recreational fishing interests. It is also applicable to non-government organisations (NGOs) and even conservation agencies which, as entities or the individuals within, may have much to gain from more restrictive management actions. The full interests, and therefore real or potential conflicts, of players in the policy development process are seldom adequately assessed or managed. Much greater truly independent evaluation of real and potential interests and then involvement of independent assessors in the management of actual conflicts are essential. 3. Minimise ambiguity and uncertainty in policy and management objectives Policy statements with inherent ambiguity permit ‘wriggle-room’ for politicians and other managers, but they do not work well to resolve tensions between environmental protection and continuous development of resource use. Australia’s guiding principle for the management of the confluence of both, Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), is embarrassingly ambiguous. The very term used to bridge the two commonly opposed objectives of ecosystem preservation and economic development may be grammatically or politically clever but, where development is dependent on the use of components of ecosystems, tension inherently exists. The use of the phrase ‘ecologically sustainable development’ promotes, even dignifies, exploitation of the uncertainty that is invariably present in the scientific assessments that are used to support ecosystem preservation or exploitation. Total removal of ambiguity in policies and objectives is unrealistic, but we should acknowledge and manage its role in prioritising short-term returns for individuals over longterm imperatives for the nation. 4. Provide consistency in the principles used for managing aquatic and terrestrial species and ecosystems Australia’s approach to the management of marine mammals is totally at odds with our attitude to terrestrial animals. More than a million kangaroos are culled each year because they compete for feed with farm animals, yet the incidental kill of very small numbers of fur seals, populations of which are increasing at almost incredible rates, threatens the very existence of the fisheries that are responsible. Fur seals eat the fish that are targeted in many commercial and recreational fisheries, not just the feed such fish are consuming. How would Australia’s kangaroos fare if they ate sheep? In contrast, Australia uses the same criteria for considering the conservation status of marine fish as it does for terrestrial animals. Thus heavily fished species, such as orange roughy, may then qualify in Australia as endangered, even though they have a global distribution and there is little chance that the species is under any real threat of extinction. The Australian media does not actively promote equality when commenting on terrestrial and marine mammals. For example, it is frequently reported that Australians ‘harvest’ kangaroos, while the Japanese ‘slaughter’ whales. 5. Ensure independent peer review of policy proposals and the science upon which they are based The process of peer review is the cornerstone of benchmarking science and research more generally. It is an essential component of the assessment that precedes acknowledgement and

99

100

Ten Commitments

promotion in the better academic and government research streams. Unfortunately, it is not an accepted prerequisite for most policy and management practices or for the advancement of many practitioners. A great deal of current policy is being driven by opinion polls, with the subsequent gathering of biased ‘science’ used to support perceptions. Many government agencies in Australia, both Federal and State, claim that they require major natural resource management policy decisions to be underpinned by sound science. But in practice, such commitments are frequently ignored or even deliberately abused. Pertinent examples under a Commonwealth Liberal Government and a State Labor Government are, respectively, the recent prawn Import Risk Assessment (IRA) as managed by Biosecurity Australia (BA) and AQIS, and the Batemans Marine Park as implemented by NSW Marine Parks Authority. BA is required to base its IRAs on sound science, and it assured stakeholders that peer review was a critical part of the process of managing the importation of prawns. The role of an independent Eminent Scientists Group as depicted by BA (BA 2006, p. 183) appeared to confirm that peer review would occur before management action. Remarkably, AQIS responded to BA’s advice by cancelling prawn import permits on 30 September 2007 at which time the Eminent Scientists Group had had no involvement whatsoever, and in spite of extremely critical reviews of the science having been provided by internationally recognised authorities in the appropriate disciplines. The NSW Government assured the public that all marine parks in that state would be underpinned by world’s best practice science (Ministers’ Foreword in Marine Parks Authority 2004). The Marine Parks Authority then produced a ‘Science Paper’ (Marine Parks Authority Research Committee, undated) as the justification for the declaration of, and zoning arrangements in, the Batemans Marine Park. This paper is characterised by selective misquoting and distortion of the scientific literature to the extent that it constitutes an abuse of accepted scientific practice (Kearney; in press). The ‘Science Paper’ has now been withdrawn from the Marine Park Authority’s website, but the misinformed management action which it spawned has not been corrected. Improving peer review of policy development represents the single most obvious and affordable thing that would improve the quality of environmental and fisheries management in Australia. Such independent review should include, but not be restricted to, any science that impacts the policy. Independent review of the science to international standards is straightforward and no reputable scientist would argue with this process. However, policy and management practitioners are not accustomed to scrutiny of the same type. Strong resistance is to be expected until systems are adopted that appropriately reward those who perform to the new standards. 6. Build on increased peer review to improve government policy and management processes Many improvements in government processes could be expected to flow from increased rigor in, and peer review of, policy development and implementation. These might include: (a) more emphasis given to the country’s long-term needs at the expense of short-term wants; (b) more correct alignment of the need for the public service to implement government polices quickly and accurately (government service) with its responsibilities to future generations for the frank and fearless provision of well researched and unbiased policy advice (public service); (c) a decrease in ministerial micromanagement, particularly of information gathering and research issues, such as grant allocation, and (d) reversal of the rate at which government scientists are being required to justify government policy after the event. The prospect that improved peer

Fisheries

review would eliminate other undesirable outcomes, such as poor management actions immediately prior to elections (pork-barreling), may remain wishful. A more specific objective for improved governance of the fisheries/environment interface would be to decrease the degree to which restrictions on commercial fishing are used as a soft option for managers who wish to appear to be ‘doing something’ but who do not have the competence or conviction to address the real issue. Recent examples include: the closure of the commercial fishery for Murray cod as the primary conservation measure for this iconic endangered species when the commercial fishery accounted for less than 2% of the targeted kill and virtually none of the habitat destruction; and the banning of only fishing in estuarine sanctuary zones in marine parks in NSW when the identified threats in these zones were numerous, but did not include fishing. 7. Acknowledge fisheries management successes and failures and learn from them While globally there have been many cases of fisheries over-exploiting the underlying resource and doing associated environmental damage, there are also many cases of well-managed fisheries which produce quality food sustainably. Most of the world’s cases of continuing overfishing are where the responsible government is non-functional, or control of exploitation is shared in a dysfunctional international arrangement (Hilborn 2007). It is interesting that there are few, if any, documented cases of species having been fished to extinction: this is in stark contrast to the plight of terrestrial animals and plants. Therefore, overfishing should not automatically be equated with an environmental disaster or threat of extinction, but rather with economic mismanagement. Australia’s continuing failures in fisheries management have been associated predominantly with fish-trawl fisheries, the intensive harvesting of extremely sedentary and high priced species such as abalone, scallops and sea cucumbers, and those fisheries where management is a shared responsibility, particularly with other nations (from McLoughlin 2006, p. 8). Current knowledge of the requirements for successful fisheries management is such that there is no excuse for a functional government allowing continued significant over-exploitation in any fishery under single jurisdiction. Indeed, when Australia does eventually fix its fish-trawl fisheries, and it is difficult to find reason why it does not do this immediately, its record as a manager of fisheries will set a benchmark for other natural resource management areas. However, its failure to protect its coastal and inland aquatic ecosystems and the fisheries based on them from non-fisheries impacts will, unfortunately, most likely continue for the foreseeable future. 8. Improve the quality of fisheries and environmental assessments Largely because of the inherent variability in aquatic ecosystems and the technological difficulty in studying them, fisheries science has been accepted as being necessarily imprecise. This imprecision is often confounded with suggestions of bias in the most readily available data on fish and fishing activities, catch and effort records. Exploitation of the resulting uncertainty to the detriment of commercial fisheries has become particularly evident in estuarine and inshore fisheries where groups with interests opposed to commercial fishing include: recreational fishers; waterside residents; aquatic businesses such as marinas; developers; and the more radical conservationists, including some NGOs. Not surprisingly, the imprecision in the available assessments allows each of the many groups to add to the uncertainty by providing their own interpretations, which are seldom based on peer reviewed research. There is also a growing number of science graduates employed by the many interested parties, or in management positions in the increasing

101

102

Ten Commitments

number of government agencies with some responsibility for, or say in, the management of aquatic systems. Thus there are more and more agencies and individuals offering ‘expert’ opinion. Disparity in the quality of the growing number of degrees, claimed by their parent universities to qualify graduates for aquatic or environmental science or management, further reduces the confidence that can be placed in the opinions of those asserting knowledge or authority. Again the need for independent peer review is apparent. 9. Provide leadership in dealing with technological and other global changes The computer and communications revolution is rapidly changing the processes for accumulating, storing and analysing environmental and fisheries data. It makes global and other data accessible and enables sophisticated modelling and analysis. All of these developments can represent immense improvements for the knowledgeable operator or analyst. However, the ‘black-box’ syndrome of using more sophisticated models than the relevant data and realistic assumptions can support is increasingly widening the gap between what analysts can produce and what managers can adequately understand and convert into correct policy advice. It also increases the incidence of managers being given information which appears to be more thoroughly researched, and more closely related to reality than it really is. Development of internationally competitive modelling skills remains imperative, but if Australia’s fisheries and environmental management are to benefit, review of outputs and likely outcomes by true peers in the technological, analytical and relevant science disciplines, is becoming even more imperative. Basic data, such as growth rates and indices of relative abundance of individual fish populations, are often more informative for good management and more easily understood by stakeholders than ‘digested’ information from sophisticated models. Global climate change, including increasing variability, is a factor which is likely to dominate discussion of much of Australia’s natural resource management in the immediate future. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is likely to be more a factor for the distribution of fisheries and their short-term productivity than it is for the total long-term abundance of fish. Freshwater species are possibly the exception. Increasing drought may well lead even to the extinction of populations. Many of Australia’s aquatic ecosystems, such as coral reefs, are likely to be seriously impacted by climate change and the geographic location and species composition in many fisheries will change. However, the total productivity of fisheries associated with oceanic and even inshore ecosystems is likely to be less effected than harvest industries based on discontinuous ecosystems, which are more characteristic of terrestrial or freshwater environments. 10. Define and manage an appropriate environmental footprint for Australia’s aquaculture industry that accommodates expansion to meet future needs If Australia is to have security of availability of fish for human consumption based on local industries then aquaculture production will need to be expanded many times over (Kearney et al. 2003). The type of aquaculture dominant in Australia will also need to change greatly. Current feeding practices, for example in the tuna, salmon and kingfish aquaculture industries, will need to be replaced, or at least dominated, by technologies which deliver improved feed conversion efficiencies and reduced reliance on fish as food. Aquaculture of the scale that is necessary to provide the fish Australia needs will have an environmental footprint, but good strategic planning and judicious use of modern science and technology can ensure that the true footprint represents minimal challenge to coastal and freshwater ecosystems. If native species are used, as they should be, then the impacts and risks could be much less than the environmental consequences of similar levels of production from the agriculture of introduced terrestrial animals and plants.

Fisheries

Conclusions Controls on fishing that are draconian by standards for terrestrial activities continue to be represented wrongly as the solution to inadequate coastal conservation in Australia. Shortterm political objectives and lobbying from those with undeclared, or inadequately managed, conflicts of interest override actions necessary for securing Australia’s future supply of seafood. The solution lies in developing a national strategy for meeting demand for seafood, and reversing our progressive avoidance of quality and truly independent assessment of government policy and management processes. Timely international-standard peer review of all science that underpins policy development and management action is the obvious starting point.

References ABARE (2007) Australian Fisheries Statistics 2006. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, June 2007. BA (2006) ‘Revised draft generic import risk analysis report for prawns and prawn products. Part B: Risk assessment report’. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra, November 2006. Hilborn R (2007) Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries. Ambio 36, 296–303. Kearney B (in press) The pros and cons of Marine Protected Areas in New South Wales: who’s been hoodwinked? Australian Society for Fish Biology. Spatial Management in Fisheries Workshop, Canberra September, 2007. Kearney B, Foran B, Poldy F and Lowe D (2003) Modelling Australia’s Fisheries to 2050: Policy and Management Implications. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Marine Parks Authority (2004) Ministers’ Foreword. In Strategic Framework for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Marine Parks in NSW. Marine Parks Authority New South Wales, www. mpa.nsw.gov.au Marine Parks Authority Research Committee (undated) A review of benefits of Marine Protected Areas and related zoning considerations. Marine Parks Authority New South Wales, www.mpa.nsw.gov.au McLoughlin K (Ed.) (2006) ‘Fishery Status Reports 2005: Status of Fish Stocks Managed by the Australian Government’. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

103

AGRICULTURE John Williams and Fiona McKenzie

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Become landscape literate. Cure the drought delusion. Pay for ecosystem services. Remove hidden subsidies. Re-plan the paddock. Build new industries, not just new crops. Use native flora and fauna. Create new partnerships and knowledge. Unlock tools for change. Put the whole package to the test.

Introduction Australian agriculture needs to redesign itself in a way that ensures resilience of both the industry and ecosystems on which it depends. The Australian agriculture industry has undergone decades of belt-tightening and pressure to perform. Survival has required increasing precision and productivity. Under the weight of such demands, it has been easy to overlook a threat to agriculture that is more silent and insidious – the eroding natural resource base of the farm and the accumulating impacts at the catchment scale. Fortunately, what looms as a threat can also be turned into an opportunity. Agriculture is inherently an ecological enterprise, dependent entirely on ecosystem processes and functions for its success. It is possible to build agro-ecosystems that generate wealth from food and fibre and have the flows of water, nutrient and carbon matched to the hydrogeochemical cycles of this ancient continent. To do this, however, requires a fundamental redesign of agriculture in the landscape. This is Australian agriculture’s great challenge.

Key issues 1. Become landscape literate The first step in building healthy agro-ecosystems is to become landscape literate. This will require a paradigm shift by research institutions, rural communities, funding agencies and 105

106

Ten Commitments

governments. It means rethinking the many scientific and technical services provided to the agricultural sector, recognising that the ecosystem processes on each and every farm will be different. In this endeavour there are no experts – only students. For too long we have looked overseas for lessons on how to manage the land, ignoring what is under our noses. Becoming landscape literate requires more than understanding the yields of crops and livestock. It means being cognisant of landscape process and function: how Australia’s landscape behaves, how it is changing and the affect of current land uses. At the end of the day, becoming landscape literate requires a decision and commitment. Many farmers are stuck on a treadmill of high input – high intensity farming, with bank overdrafts and degraded paddocks eating into their capital. Rather than funding fellowships that allow for travel overseas to study new agricultural techniques, we need fellowships that give landholders the time and breathing space to conduct a study tour of their own back paddocks. Scientific and technological innovation in laboratory and field experiments will continue to play an important role in the development of sustainable farming. Innovation, however, achieves little without application and experimentation at the farm level and an understanding of how actions at that level integrate into the ecological and hydrological function of the landscape. 2. Cure the drought delusion Australians are normally a sceptical bunch, yet when it comes to waiting for the next rain cloud, logic is replaced by longing. A 20-year dry period, with one or two wet years in between, does not meet the definition of drought. Believing it to be so lures us into growing things in areas where the nature of Australia makes it inadvisable to do so, risking salinity, soil and water degradation, loss of habitat and species. It is time we accepted that there are droughts, and then there are dry climates. Sustainable agriculture must be able to cope with decade-long dry sequences like those experienced over the period 1895–1915 and 1935–1949, and which appear to be repeated again in the first decade of the 21st century. This is part of living on the Australian continent. There is every indication that climate change will make these dry sequences more frequent and more severe in south-eastern Australia. Whilst irrigation has an important place in a sustainable future, it cannot in any way drought-proof the country. As long as long dry sequences continue to occur, regional communities will be placed at risk whenever water allocations fail. For agriculture to be resilient, it needs to evolve to accommodate these sequences. Farmers in dry climates need to accept that a ‘good’ season is not the norm and plan accordingly. There will always be the extreme events that can’t be planned for. For the rest, efforts should be directed at redesigning the farm to suit a drier climate, not creating a system that has to be shut down and is dependent on government assistance whenever the rain gauge is empty. The smartest business move a farmer can make is to attain a more realistic and pragmatic appreciation of the character of our continent instead of one superimposed by our alien cultural origins. We need to rethink our fundamental values of water and landscape and our relationship to them. 3. Pay for ecosystem services A key function of agriculture in the future will be to manage the landscape, its rivers, wetlands and estuaries, in ways that produce ecosystem services for our whole society. The agricultural community can no longer be expected to produce cheap, clean food and fibre, as well as provide a free service to maintain all the essential ecological functions of the landscape. This service should be recognised as a fundamental part of our economy, and paid accordingly (e.g. CarbonSMART 2008).

Agriculture

Figure 4: The future form of sustainable agriculture. (Johanson D. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists unpublished – modified from Wayt Gibbs (2005)).

Sustainable agriculture requires a mosaic of new and old agricultural enterprises that yield food and fibre coupled with native ecosystems that provide a suite of ecosystem services which are given a present day value. Currently, future generations are footing the bill. In Blueprint for a Living Continent, the Wentworth Group (2002) argued that we must establish new economic systems to: Pay farmers for environmental services (clean water, fresh air, healthy soils). Where we expect farmers to maintain land in a certain way that is above their

107

108

Ten Commitments

duty of care, we should pay them to provide those services on behalf of the rest of Australia. For this to be realised, new markets for ecosystem services are needed. As these markets develop, we can expect that an increasing proportion of farm income will derive from the management of healthy landscapes, rivers, wetlands and estuaries, the production of clean water and the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Today, farmers are seen simply as the providers of food and fibre. Tomorrow they will be seen as the custodians and managers of the life support systems for society as a whole. 4. Remove hidden subsidies The cost of our food rarely includes the cost of maintaining and improving the natural resource base from which it is produced. This is a clear indicator of market failure. The Wentworth Group argues that we must find ways to: Incorporate into the cost of food, fibre and water the hidden subsidies currently borne by the environment, to assist farmers to farm sustainably and profitably in this country. Hidden subsidies must be addressed in order to provide a driver for sustainable agriculture. If environmental degradation is free to consumers whilst at the same time, environmental protection and repair is costly for producers, then there is no incentive for producers to invest in environmental best practice. There is a range of options to correct this. Food and fibre have an ecological footprint. Consumers need to know what that is. Currently they do not. We need a regulatory framework so that markets must price in the cost of maintaining the environment and the quality of the resource base. We cannot legally market food that is contaminated. Why can we market food that is produced in ways that continue to damage the natural resources and environment? We need a regulatory framework in Australia that ensures that all food reaching the consumer is produced in ways that minimise the damage to natural resources and the environment. Environmental management systems such as the Australian Landcare Management System (Gleeson 2006) and proper labelling of food and its footprint are first steps and are currently maturing. But these alone are not sufficient. Regulation is required that establishes that, for food and fibre to be marketed, it must have been produced by means which meet an Australian standard for sustainable food or fibre products. Such a standard must apply to both Australian-grown and imported products. It is currently difficult to market food and fibre commodities on world markets where costs to minimise impacts on the environment are part of the price. This will change and Australia can be a driver and advocate of that change. We foreshadow a major re-thinking of these issues within global markets as the footprint of food and the carbon footprint of all we do becomes factored into commodity prices into the future. The consumer is leading the demand for such a system. Emerging concerns with ‘food miles’ are just the beginning. The analysis contained within an Australian Sustainable Agriculture Standard must be comprehensive and include whole life cycle analysis of energy, water, land and biodiversity inputs into production. This has to be done if we are to provide consumers with the true footprint and thus the true cost of the food and fibre they consume. Unless markets have a strong call and drive for food and fibre products to be produced according to such a standard, the cost of continued degradation of natural resources will not be paid by the consumer but will remain a hidden subsidy that eats into our environmental assets.

Agriculture

Incentives also play an important role in removing hidden subsidies. Incentive-based approaches, such as labelling, can reward the grower and supplier for best practice. For example, certification at the farm gate could be linked to the tax system, enabling product labelling, tax rebates or other incentive mechanisms. 5. Re-plan the paddock Even our best farming practices have not been designed, at the outset, to operate in harmony with the Australian ecosystems in which they are cast. Rather than encouraging farmers to spend time and money fencing off remnant vegetation that has no hope of surviving, we need to stand back and take stock of what is really needed on a catchment scale. Adoption of a catchment or landscape approach would mean decisions are designed to ensure that underlying biophysical processes can support the environmental, economic and social values that society identifies for that landscape. In a landscape approach, vegetation is not managed for its own sake, but as a key tool for ensuring biophysical landscape processes and resources continue to function well. Strategic revegetation, conservation and rehabilitation can address multiple outcomes such as improved biodiversity, soil health and water quality (Natural Resources Commission 2007). This may mean redrawing paddock boundaries, figuring out what sort of species and structural complexity is necessary, and if and where regeneration of remnant vegetation can be beneficial (Williams and Saunders 2003). It means being honest about what is already lost and not throwing good money after bad. The whole landscape can be connected and integrated by linking property vegetation planning into spatially robust catchment vegetation plans. The balance between different types of land uses will vary for different catchments, size of catchments and position in the landscape. Devising the optimal placement of these land uses requires a deep understanding of landscape processes and functions, particularly salt storage and groundwater flow, and an understanding of the distribution and abundance of flora and fauna. Farmers will need access to the best information available and basic things like good maps of landscape properties. In replanning the layout of paddocks, they could choose to incorporate a range of options, such as: L

L

L

New commercially driven tree production systems and/or novel tree species for large areas of current crop and pasture zones. New farming systems comprising innovative mixes of all the best current annual and perennial plants, the best agronomy, companion plantings, rotations and combinations. New forms of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and forages selected or bred for characteristics that substantially reduce deep drainage and nitrogen leakage.

It is a great irony that in Australian agriculture, where the shortage of both water and nutrients greatly restricts yield, it is the loss of both precious water and nutrient beneath crops and pastures that is the fundamental cause of problems such as salinity and acidification (Williams 2005). If we can work together to develop systems that complement rather than compete with natural processes, they may be both more productive and more ecologically sustainable. We can turn what is wasted into wealth. 6. Build new industries, not just new crops We must address agricultural production as an agro-ecosystem that is part of the larger-scale ecosystem and landscape processes. This is a big task. The redesign of plant production systems for Australian landscapes is an imperative. We need new crop and forage species that are bred for their ability to flourish in our ancient landscapes. They need to be partnered with a strategy

109

110

Ten Commitments

for building new industries and fostering prospective land uses, delivering economic as well as ecological benefits. New trade arrangements may become attractive on a catchment basis. For example, where the transaction costs of carbon trading on a farm-by-farm basis may be excessive, a catchmentbased cooperative arrangement may deliver economies of scale and a competitive advantage. Developments in this area are now taking place, for example, through schemes which combine many sites into one large pool (CarbonSMART 2008). The move to producing unfamiliar commodities also needs to be accompanied by efforts in marketing. Demand will need to be created. Producers won’t grow products that no-one wants. Fortunately, innovation is already underway in Australia in the development of new industries that were previously not imagined (Robins 2007). 7. Use native flora and fauna For Australian agriculture to build productive, sustainable farming systems, we will need to develop new innovative land uses. Native flora and fauna will need to form an increasing part of rural production. This will restore crucial elements of biodiversity to the landscape and optimise the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. Bush foods, native wildflowers, essential and other oils for pharmaceutical or industrial chemicals all have untapped potential. These possibilities are no longer ‘pipe dreams’. It is encouraging to see innovative emerging industries that are producing and marketing a wide range of products based on Australian native flora and fauna (CSIRO 2008). To do this in ways that retain ecological function and improve the natural resource base, because the flora and fauna have evolved with the landscape, is challenging but it is happening. 8. Create new partnerships and knowledge A new partnership is needed if we are to find solutions to the biophysical problems posed by building a resilient agriculture. The solutions are scientifically demanding. Remember there are no experts – only students. Rural communities in Australia are facing radical environmental, social and economic changes (Rogers and Jones 2006). A new way of doing science is required that involves landholders working with biophysical scientists, conservation biologists, sociologists and economists to build new systems. Many current management issues are the result of failure to research and develop farming systems and integrate them with the ecological, hydrological and biogeochemical processes operating in the landscape. Making land use change compulsory, or designating new land classifications from the top down won’t take us closer to being landscape literate. More effective are bottom-up approaches that emphasise resilience, resource management and governance (Walker et al. 2006). A new partnership is needed – one where the line between the landholder and scientist is blurred – and the scientific and technical skills needed to innovate must become embedded in the regional culture. It is essential to build and maintain the capacity of regional communities if they are to support landholders, scientists, economists and social scientists. This will require adequate investment in education, knowledge generation and innovation. 9. Unlock the tools of change In an industry where inputs are increasingly expensive and climates continually variable, survival requires precision. To redesign their paddocks, farmers need access to new land assessment tools to measure, model and predict the flows of water, nutrient, and carbon. They will then be able to predict, model and map the best location for trees, other perennial plants, high-

Agriculture

value annuals, and native vegetation. This will greatly facilitate the identification and reassignment of land so that on some parts of the landscape, productivity is greatly enhanced and other parts are removed from production to provide a range of ecosystem services and protect the native biota. To make this possible, landscape-relevant information must be easily accessible. Data needs to be seamless and configured to capture the opportunities of new and emerging technologies. At present, there are no central points of advice that combine the wisdom of different agencies and departments. Regional bodies such as Catchment Management Authorities are fulfilling this role as best they can, but it isn’t easy. There is an urgent need for decentralised but integrated information services that are relevant at a catchment scale. The many agencies that undertake research into agriculture and land use will need to increase cooperation to allow this to happen. Thinking and working together at all scales from paddock to catchment, landscape to the plate, are needed, and without the old divisions between disciplines and departments. The capacity of regional natural resource management entities will need strengthening as a regional delivery model is fundamental to effective action. The interface between government and community presented by these bodies must be nurtured by government agencies. 10. Put the whole package to the test We can continue to play around the edges, funding feel-good projects but avoiding the hard stuff, or we can bite the bullet and tackle the problem at its core. The truth is there are serious deficiencies and problems with our scientific understanding of Australian ecosystems. We do not know how to embed agriculture within the natural limits of our landscapes. At present, our approach is ad hoc. There are 56 natural resource management regions in Australia. One landholder in each region could volunteer their farm for an intensive make-over. It would need to be a working farm and, when the make-over is complete, continue to be a viable functioning farm. A team can be assembled for each make-over, with the farmer an equal player in the team. Everything would be put to the test – paddock layout, land uses, vegetation, the lot. If it works, it provides a model of what is possible within a region, and at what cost. If it doesn’t, we can stop preaching solutions that won’t work and stop solving one problem by creating another. Where a model farm already exists in a region, support should be provided to farmers to enable them to communicate their experiences and findings.

Conclusion It is possible to redesign agriculture in Australia in such a way that ensures resilience of both the industry and ecosystems on which it depends. To do this requires more than fiddling at the edges with the current system. It requires a commitment from everyone in the sector to rethink their approach, to re-envisage the farm, and to re-engage with each other in learning from the landscape itself. This is the challenge as well as the opportunity.

References CarbonSMART (2008) How Does CarbonSMART Work? Carbon Smart Landcare Australia. CSIRO (2008) Australian Native Foods. CSIRO Australia. Gleeson T (2006) Guide to Australian Landcare Management System. NSW. Natural Resources Commission (2007) A Landscape Approach to Vegetation Management. Sydney.

111

112

Ten Commitments

Robins L (2007) ‘Outback Spirit Bush Foods: A learning model in marketing and supply chain management’. A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. January 2007 RIRDC Publication No 06/037. RIRDC Project No REC-2A. Rogers MF and Jones DR (Eds) (2006) The Changing Nature of Australia’s Country Towns. VURRN Press, Ballarat. Walker BH, Anderies JM, Kinzig AP and Ryan P (2006) Exploring Resilience in SocialEcological Systems: Comparative Studies and Theory Development. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Wayt Gibbs W (2005) How should we set priorities? Scientific American September, 86–93. Wentworth Group (2002) Blueprint for a Living Continent: A Way Forward from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Sydney. Williams J (2005) Sustainable agriculture in Australia: Some ways forward. The Farrer Oration for 2005. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Sydney. Williams J and Saunders D (2003) Land Use and Natural Ecosystems: A Revolution in Land Use is the Key to a Sustainable Landscape. CSIRO Land and Water, Australia.

MINING Gavin M. Mudd

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Be aware of the impacts of declining ore grades and quality. Backfill increasing amount of solid wastes into pits or voids. Rehabilitate abandoned and legacy mines. Minimise water consumption and impacts on water resources. Improve energy efficiency, increase uptake of renewable energies, reduce greenhouse emissions. as well as reducing greenhouse emissions from mining trucks and fleets. Increase effort to develop technologies which will achieve reductions in environmental costs, and reduce per capita consumption. Increase environmental monitoring and make it transparent and publicly available. Ensure all mine sites are rehabilitated, not funded from the public purse. Protect high conservation- and cultural-value areas. Include sustainability reporting in company financial reports.

Introduction The concept of ‘sustainable mining’ appears, at first glance, to be a simple and obvious oxymoron. After all, numerous famous mines have long since closed due to a finite quantity of ore able to be economically (or technologically) mined and processed at that given period of history. Yet in reality there are mines in operation today that dwarf the productive output of previous generations of mines – an apparent paradox. Sustainable mining is, however, now the stated objective of the modern global mining industry (e.g. IIED and WBCSD 2002) – an industry where Australia is a major global contributor through both exports and ownership. But how does one really ascribe sustainability to an industrial endeavour such as the mining of ‘finite’ resources? The debate is not new – indeed it can be traced back centuries. Commonly, there are two opposing perspectives: (i) the ‘industry’ view that mineral resources are not finite per se but rather a complex function of economics, markets, technology and exploration as well as social and environmental constraints; or (ii) the ‘civic society’ view that mineral resources are effectively finite and that the environmental costs of extraction are significant and growing. A recent study (Mudd 2007) demonstrated that although good evidence for both perspectives is available, in the longer-term, environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or water will constrain mining; this will be the driver for ‘peak minerals’. This chapter presents and briefly discusses 10 key aspects of the sustainability debate surrounding mining. 113

114

Ten Commitments

Key issues 1. Be aware of the impacts of declining ore grades and quality The gradual decline in ore grades has been recognised for many decades, both in Australia and around the world, for a wide range of commodities (mainly metals). The typical response to this problem is to increase the scale of mines, and to achieve economies of scale through more technology and less labour intensity. Exploration across Australia is generally still proving new deposits, but commonly of progressively lower grade than current ores. Lower grades is critical to sustainability since this means more ore has to be mined and processed to maintain production – and if production continues to increase exponentially this compounds the many other problems such as tailings and waste rock to manage. Additionally, as ore grades decline, it is common for the ores to become more difficult to process (i.e. poorer quality), typically leading to more chemicals, energy and water required to extract minerals. The gradual decline in ore grades (or quality) evident across almost all aspects of the Australian mining industry, will therefore be a fundamental driver of increasing environmental costs into the future. There may come a time in the future when it is necessary to consider a ‘minimum ore grade’ which can be mined and processed (in the absence of breakthrough technologies). 2. Backfill increasing amount of solid wastes into pits or voids The scale of solid wastes mined in Australia annually is forever increasing. This primarily consists of two streams – tailings and waste rock (or overburden in coal mining). Tailings are the remaining solid particles after the mineral is extracted, while waste rock is the rock mined with little or no mineral content. The major switch to open cut mining since about 1950, due to relatively cheap petroleum and ever-bigger mining fleets, has meant that for many minerals or metals there is now a major burden of solid wastes for every unit of mineral production, shown in Table 1. At many historic mine sites across Australia, these solid wastes are a major ongoing pollution legacy through acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD) impacting adjacent waterways and ecosystems. Recent research has shown that the rate of increase in solid waste is verging on exponential for many mineral commodities, such as black coal, copper and gold. The long-term environmental risks of mining and managing several billion tonnes of tailings and waste rock every year are not sufficiently appreciated by the industry nor government regulators. As with declining ore grades, there may be a point in the future when the sheer scale of solid wastes produced becomes too onerous compared to environmental costs for recycled and re-used metals. 3. Rehabilitate abandoned and legacy mines Across Australia there are literally thousands of long-abandoned mine sites, from a time well before community expectations shifted, and environmental regulation now enforces rehabilitation. Only a minority of these sites have been rehabilitated, and commonly, the lack of rehabilitation can lead to local issues. At some of the larger or more problematic sites, pollution impacts remain very significant (e.g. Mt Morgan, Mt Lyell). At the few sites which have been rehabilitated, ongoing problems due to erosion or AMD remain and appear recalcitrant to address (e.g. Rum Jungle). A similar system to the SuperFund in the United States, where a small percentage of industry revenue is used to fund remediation efforts, needs to be established to achieve complete rehabilitation of all old sites. 4. Minimise water consumption and impacts on water resources To extract and produce the plethora of minerals and metals requires substantive amounts of water. At present, the mining industry in Australia uses variable amounts of water and of

No data No data

No data ~20 Mt

No data

~20 Mt #

~1.9 g/t

~62.1% Fe

4.1% Pb 8.3% Zn 100 g/t Ag

~5.6% heavy minerals

~1.2% Ni #

67.74 Mt

879 kt

29.29 Mcarats

247 t

~275.1 Mt†

668 kt 1362 kt 1728 t

232 kt 2377 kt 491 kt

185.0 kt

8950 t U3O8

Copper

Diamonds

Gold‡

Iron ore

Lead Zinc Silver

Rutile Ilmenite Zircon

Nickel

Uranium

~11 Mt

~150 Mt

11.6 Mt

~80 Mt

–

~10.6 Mt

No data

No data

>300 Mt #

~40 Mt

>135 Mt #

~15

Mm3

~2415 t/t U3O8

>95 t/t Ni #

No data

>10 t/t

Pb+Zn #

No data

>1.8 Mt/t Au #

~1.8 Mt/carat

>245 t/t Cu #

~0.36 t/t coal §

~505 000 L/t U3O8

~107 000 L/t Ni

~23 000 L/t heavy mineral

~29 200 L/t Pb+Zn

~180 L/t iron ore

~716 000 000 L/t Au

~477 L/carat

~172 000 L/t Cu

~1334 L/t brown coal*

~298 L/t black coal

~1086 L/t bauxite not applicable $

Water costs (approximate)

27 t CO2/t U3O8

~20 t CO2/t Ni*

~0.65 t CO2/t heavy mineral

~0.3-0.7 t CO2/t Pb+Zn

~7.5 kg CO2/t iron ore

~11 500 t CO2/t Au

3.55 kg CO2/carat

~2-20 t CO2/t Cu*

~0.66 t CO2/t brown coal*

–

~25 kg CO2/t bauxite ~0.77 t CO2/t alumina

Greenhouse costs (approximate)

Sources: Mudd (2007), other papers by the author (gold, uranium, miscellaneous), and unpublished analyses of numerous annual corporate or sustainability reports. Note: M = million; kg = kilogram; k = thousand; t = tonne; L = litre; m3 = cubic metre; U3O8 = uranium oxide. § Based on a dry density for overburden of 1.6 t/m 3. $ Not applicable (e.g. due to combined operations, such as a bauxite mine and alumina refinery). # Data incomplete (i.e. some mines do not report). ‡ Gold data for 2005 only. † For iron ore, some sources for production estimates vary, with the value adopted being the ore as-mined. * Includes smelter and refinery (nickel and copper) or power station (brown coal). All data based on published research by the author and some (as yet) unpublished work; all greenhouse and water costs are approximate (~) only – individual mines show variation from year to year as well as different mines being significantly different in configuration (e.g. concentration plant only versus plant plus onsite smelters; open cut versus underground mine; scale; etc).

0.096% U3O8

2.52 carats/t

~1.0% Cu

–

No data

>7 t/t coal §

Brown coal

–

~2000 Mm3

400.76 Mt

No data

Solid waste burden

No data

Black coal

No data

~37% Al2O3 –

61.78 Mt 18.31 Mt

Waste rock

Bauxite Alumina

Tailings

Ore grade

Production

Mining statistics for Australia (2006).

Metal/ mineral

Table 2

Mining 115

116

Ten Commitments

widely varying quality from fresh to hyper-saline (up to 10 times the salinity of seawater). In addition, impacts on water resources and competition for water resources is increasing in some parts of Australia. An indicative analysis of the ‘embodied water’ for various minerals and metals is given in Table 1. The mining industry is placing significant strategic emphasis on water issues, though the current mining boom is adding to sustainability pressures on water resources. Substantive efforts are required to minimise water consumption and impacts on water resources. 5. Improve energy efficiency, increase uptake of renewable energies, reduce greenhouse emissions As with water, mining, smelting and refining requires significant amounts of energy, and given the heavy reliance on fossil fuels in Australia, this leads to major GHG emissions from the diesel used in mining fleets as well as indirect emissions through coal-based electricity. Some individual mining projects can be responsible for GHG emissions of nearly 1 million tonnes per year (1 Mt CO2 /year) or more. An indicative analysis of the greenhouse costs for various minerals and metals is given in Table 2. For the 2006 national GHG inventory, mining shows a 62.5% increase from 1990 levels (DCC 2008). Only some mining companies report individual site GHG performance data. Finally, energy and greenhouse costs are inversely related to ore grades. As ore grades decline, energy and greenhouse costs are expected to rise in a near exponential fashion, presenting a fundamental challenge for the long-term sustainability of mining. Serious effort needs to be directed towards improving energy efficiency, more rapid uptake of renewable energies (e.g. geothermal), as well as reducing GHG emissions from mining trucks and fleets. 6. Increase effort to develop technologies which will achieve reductions in environmental costs, and reduce per capita consumption The role of technology is critical in the sustainability debate for mining. Historically, some pivotal technologies have been developed in Australia that have made major contributions to the global mining industry (e.g. flotation). However, technology is a double-edged sword. It has also facilitated the ability to mine progressively lower grade ores by large open cut mines, leading to major solid wastes being produced and substantive energy, water and greenhouse costs. The future role of technology in mining is highly contentious, for example, the debate surrounding carbon capture and storage technology (e.g. geosequestration) versus renewable energy – that is, which technology can achieve better overall outcomes. There is certainly a role for new and innovative breakthrough technologies which help to reduce the environmental footprint of mining, thereby improving various sustainability metrics. New technology alone, however, is very unlikely to offest the long-term expansion of the industry nor facilitate Australia contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts. The role of technology clearly must also be tackled in conjunction with serious efforts aimed at reducing per capita consumption. 7. Increase environmental monitoring and make it transparent and publicly available All mines are required to undertake environmental monitoring for statutory purposes, but also to address community concerns and demonstrate sound environmental management. There remain numerous opportunities to improve the spatial scale and frequency of monitoring to address issues such as impacts on water resources, energy consumption, greenhouse emissions, tailings stability, waste rock drainage and the like. The ongoing evolution of the internet is making many things possible with regards to monitoring, but it is especially invaluable in making data available to the public and demonstrating transparency.

Mining

8. Ensure all current and future mine sites are rehabilitated, and not funded from the public purse The rehabilitation of closed mine sites is a legal requirement but also a legitimate community expectation. The mining industry over recent decades has certainly demonstrated clear commitment to this objective, and has invested heavily. The principal issues remaining include up-front financial bonds or surety mechanisms for rehabilitation should a company or mine go bankrupt, long-term rehabilitation monitoring, as well as the cumulative nature of altered landscapes due to mining. In other words, features such as open cuts are left as voids (often with expectations of deteriorating water quality into the future), long-term erosion of waste rock dumps and tailings dams, impacts on surface waters and groundwater from mine site drainage. The current scale of mine waste – some several billions of tonnes per year – has no sound scientific or engineering analogue in past rehabilitation, and all current mining should proceed with caution and not optimism in predicting the future success (or otherwise) of rehabilitation. The present and ever-increasing scale of mining should not lead to prohibitive rehabilitation costs in the future for governments and communities. 9. Protect areas of high conservation and cultural value This remains a contentious area for the mining industry. For example, exploration continues to be allowed in some regions listed for conservation values, while some mines operate adjacent to renowned national parks, such as the Ranger uranium mine adjacent to the World Heritagelisted Kakadu National Park. In other parts of Australia, some mines or mineral deposits are associated with land given special cultural significance by local Indigenous people. Given the long-term environmental risks from mine wastes, the community broadly considers that mining is therefore incompatible with high conservation or cultural value areas. 10. Include sustainability reporting in company financial reports The emergence of sustainability reporting is a welcome development for the mining industry. Often based on the Global Reporting Initiative, sustainability reporting includes various indicators for economic, social and environmental performance. The data-rich reports can be used to understand the hitherto unknown aspects of minerals and metals such as water, energy and greenhouse costs (as presented in Table 1). Although many mines and companies are now releasing annual sustainability reports, many companies still do not. Further to this, critical data is commonly left unreported and unexplained, such as waste rock, GHG emissions, water consumed, water quality and so on. For example, a gold mine in Western Australia reported a change in GHG emissions from an average over several years of ~150 000 t CO2 /year to a sudden increase to 1 000 000 t CO2 /year, yet no explanation was given (no change in mine configuration was undertaken). Thus there remains room for significant improvement in sustainability reporting across the mining sector in Australia. To enforce industry-wide consistency and timeliness, sustainability reporting should be made mandatory and given the same prominence as financial reporting, with data presented on a mine site or project basis (and not merely as company totals). The emergence of sustainability reporting and increasing uptake across the mining industry is facilitating a more realistic picture of the environmental costs of modern mining. To continue this improvement, and facilitate more accurate accounting of the numerous critical sustainability metrics (across the social-economic-environmental pillars), the most critical institutional reform that can be implemented is to make sustainability reporting mandatory for all mine sites and companies. Over time, this will allow more informed analysis of mining, thereby improving its sustainability. This is also a very easy and cost-neutral idea

117

118

Ten Commitments

to implement; most companies already collate and analyse their critical sustainability data, so the reward-for-effort ratio is very high!

Conclusion The future sustainability of mining in Australia is faced with declining ore grades (or quality), rapidly increasing tailings and waste rock quantities, constrained competition for water and energy resources and so on. In essence, it is critical to recognise that the environmental impacts of mining are already significant, and although technology may offset this to a small degree, the long-term impacts are effectively cumulative. In the future, the ultimate sustainability of mining will more likely be constrained by water, energy and greenhouse issues rather than whether there are remaining mineral deposits left. After all, the Stone Age didn’t end because the world ran out of stones. For Australia’s future, there is opportunity to truly lead the way in addressing these ten key aspects of sustainability in mining.

References DCC (2008) ‘Australia’s national greenhouse accounts – national inventory by economic sector 2006’. Department of Climate Change, Canberra, June. IIED and WBCSD (2002) Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), London, UK. Mudd GM (2007) ‘The sustainability of mining in Australia: key production trends and their environmental implications for the future’. Research Report No RR5, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University and Mineral Policy Institute, October 2007.

GRAZING Richard Price

1. Acknowledge that a spiritual connection to land among graziers and pastoralists exists and provides a strong basis for improved environmental outcomes. 2. Acknowledge and reward good management for public benefits and ecosystem services. 3. Facilitate the transformation of agricultural activity to ensure land use matches land capability. 4. Improve seasonal climate forecasts to help deal with the variability of Australia’s climate, and translate these into appropriate grazing management responses. 5. Facilitate the uptake of perennial plant-based systems across all areas of Australia where introduced annual systems dominate, and improve the skills of graziers to manage them. 6. Integrate biodiversity conservation into livestock grazing systems in both extensively and intensively managed landscapes. 7. Focus on extension methods that actually do facilitate change of practice. 8. Break down institutional silos that compartmentalise components of farming systems in ways contrary to the interests of sustainable grazing and to improved social and environmental outcomes. 9. Invest in labour-saving innovations that enable graziers to focus on the social and environmental elements of the triple bottom line and support regional development programs that increase labour availability in rural Australia. 10. Encourage extensive grazing systems that support healthy and sustainable food production over long-term feedlots.

Introduction The first thing you learn in a ‘fear-of-flying’ class is that the pilot wants to arrive home safely too. It is the same with the many pilots of our great land-mass: Australia’s pastoralists and graziers don’t want to crash what they care about most. In one sense, nearly half of all Australians graze the land. Of these, only a few graze livestock, while the rest graze lawn mowers on high-input, water-thirsty pasture systems commonly known as gardens. The Australian film The Castle, suggested that our connection to home, irrespective of locality, can be likened to Indigenous people’s connection to country. So it is 119

120

Ten Commitments

with grazing. Like many agricultural pursuits, it is a deeply social activity, steeped in the concepts and language of connectivity: respect and aspiration, personal and cultural identity and human-landscape spirituality. And as long as most Australians remain carnivorous, demanding Australian-grown (and owned) fresh produce and fibre, the connectivity between land, production, environment, lifestyle and well-being, will continue to extend across the social and cultural boundaries of Australian society. Despite this connectivity or sense of place, grazing has significantly modified the Australian landscape. This has more to do with landscape naivety than wanton recklessness – it takes a long time to learn to fly, and the complexity of ecosystems far exceeds the complicated mechanics of a plane. But any view that the prosperous days of the grazing industry are long gone and that something else more sensitive to the environment will come to take its place is contradicted by the investment strategies of a growing number of corporate institutions, including multi-national companies, investment banks, superannuation funds, and new and metamorphosing agri-businesses. Herein rests an interrelated set of challenges that potentially threaten the capacity of the grazing industry to spearhead environmental improvements over much of the continent. Are we about to see our pilots replaced by auto-pilots and black-box recorders, high-flying boards accountable to existing shareholders rather than to future generations? How will this affect environmental management? Will we see the alienation of grazier from land, and if so, what does this portend for managing landscapes that are naturally fragile in a climate uniquely variable, and where local knowledge is critical? Irrespective of who manages the land and their connectivity to it, do we truly have the knowledge to manage it sustainably, and if so how do we turn this knowledge into improved environmental practice? There are no clear answers and there is certainly no one silver bullet. The steps forward are many, and they need to be linked so that messages are clear, consistent, mutually fulfilling and cognisant of people, sense of place and landscape well-being.

Key issues 1. Acknowledge spiritual connection Spiritual connection to land is not likely to be a topic openly discussed in many rural pubs around Australia. It exists in an innate sense that requires little acknowledgement among graziers themselves. However, unless this connectivity is appreciated among the general populace, within bureaucracy and the environmental movement, many graziers will continue to feel isolated, defensive and, in some cases, oppressed. This can inhibit them from entering into interactions where they perceive the outcome is driven by adversarial interests and agendas, irrespective of whether they may themselves benefit from the outcome. Acknowledgement and respect need to be present in all conversations, consultations, interactions, policy development, regional planning and program implementation so that constructive and cooperative pathways for environmental management are found. Industry and government alike have responsibility to educate the public about the aspirations graziers share with the public for a better environment. Industry in particular needs to raise awareness among graziers that their connectivity can be thought about in terms of the interdependency of the environment, production and family well-being. 2. Reward good management Graziers too do not like to see poor performance rewarded. Moreover, pride and sense of place can be so strong as to prevent them accepting various ‘handouts’ such as adjustment packages

Grazing

and drought relief. Farmer support schemes need to be transformed into reward payments for specified actions and outcomes that result in positive and lasting change. Exceptional circumstance payments to graziers should be proactive rather than reactive. Perhaps these should be called ‘exceptional environmental risk management payments’ – rewarding specific grazing management practices that ease pressure on the environment prior to, leading into and then throughout difficult circumstances. Graziers should demonstrate that they have a farm business and risk management plan and can implement a production system that is aligned to land class and land capability. Already there is a growing movement towards paying graziers/private landholders for the ecosystem services they provide to society, particularly biodiversity conservation, which are above and beyond their duty of care. Further encouragement of such approaches should be stimulated through government and catchment management programs. 3. Match land use with land capability The notion of matching land use to land capability is not new, and though it has been adopted in a coarse sense among the different livestock industries, there is considerable room for improvement at finer scales, including paddock and sub-paddock scales. Knowing where livestock should be grazed is only a part of successfully matching land use and capability. Day-today management of livestock within a complex ecosystem is the challenge – from genetic selection to pasture management, stock movement, pasture and groundcover management, water distribution and nutrient application. The grazing industry should follow the grain industry’s lead in investing in precision agriculture innovations which improve resource-use efficiency and resource protection. Precision agriculture rules also suggest that we redefine drought and start to manage at all times according to what is in the bank – in grazing terms this means changing stock and pasture management regularly according to dryness (soil moisture) and what can grow at any given time. That said, there are examples where marginal land should be retired from grazing, such as has been done already in the Gasgoyne-Murchison region of Western Australia. Climate change will inevitably see an increase in the area of land that will become marginal, and arable cropping country may become more suitable for grazing purposes. Land capability analyses need to be built into climate change programs accompanied by clear recommendations about appropriate land use change. 4. Improve seasonal climate forecasts The worst land degradation events over the 20th century usually coincided with the worst droughts (McKeon et al. 2004). In each case, risk management and preparation was negligible, with the emphasis in the grazing industry implicitly placed on the welfare of livestock more than the welfare of the pastures. Graziers today are more knowledgeable about how soil-plantwater-livestock interactions form the basis of profitable and sustainable enterprises. Improving the accuracy of seasonal climate forecasts can significantly reduce the risks inherent in the climatic influences over these interactions and can provide enormous benefits to the environment where appropriate management responses are in place. It is incumbent on industry and government to make seasonal forecasts available to graziers in a form and timeliness that assists decision making. Understanding climate variability and improving the accuracy of seasonal forecasts are critical investments for industry and government alike and should not be forsaken in the flurry to focus on longer-term climate change.

121

122

Ten Commitments

5. Facilitate the uptake of perennial plant-based systems The drastic change from native perennial plant systems to annual crop and pasture systems is the basis for many, if not most, forms of land and water degradation in Australia (Stirzaker et al. 2000). While a large proportion of grazing land is in the north and undertaken on extensive native grasslands, there are extensive areas of land across the south where annual pastures dominate. Incentives to facilitate the establishment of perennial farming systems should be significantly increased and tied to appropriate management practices that provide public benefits and ecosystem services. Poorly managed perennials can result in more environmental damage than well managed annuals (Bond et al. 1997), and so practice change and system change need to go hand-inhand. Presently, investments in research and development and agricultural extension (information exchange, training, etc.) tend to compartmentalise system attributes, and seldom comprise recommendations accompanied by statements about the full range of environmental, social, economic or even production impacts, trade-offs and synergies. Industry research and development needs to maintain focus on systems, which means the interactions between the natural resources, pastures, livestock, finances, labour and family goals among other factors, rather than on individual system components. In taking this approach, industry should move towards a goal of doubling livestock production from half the land without environmental consequences. 6. Integrate biodiversity conservation Research into grazing and mixed farming systems is demonstrating that biodiversity can contribute to profitable and sustainable farms (Kirkpatrick and Bridle 2007). Indeed, biodiversity can be made an integral part of a profitable grazing system and can even help reduce input costs, such as where native vegetation is managed to provide habitat for predators of agricultural pests. Moreover, good management of livestock has been shown to contribute beneficially to the environment – the caveat here being good management, as not all graziers are yet good managers. From a grazier’s perspective, industry-led biodiversity programs are likely to have a level of credibility difficult for others to attain, particularly as non-industry parties may be seen to hold interests and agendas contrary to the grazier’s values and aspirations. There is a need, therefore, for industry to increase its investment in exploring and demonstrating how the management of native vegetation, and biodiversity more generally, can be incorporated into, and even form the basis of, profitable operations. Graziers sharing their experiences with other graziers can have an enormous impact in the demonstration process. 7. Focus on practice change It is an inditement on the agricultural extension profession that less than 20% of its participants are members of the Australasian Pacific Extension Network – the relevant professional development association. This hardly reflects a commitment to the concept of continual improvement espoused in good extension (the adult learning processes used to transfer research results and improved agricultural practices on to working farms). ‘Good extension’ encourages continuous learning, inquiry and experience sharing. Perhaps as a result, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, much of the agricultural extension still taking place across Australia is focused on participation and not practice change. Participatory research abounds, but in most cases is poorly undertaken, with participation rarely embracing the important innovation and learning phases of physical data collection, interpretation and debate. Graziers manage complex systems – those with no obviously correct means of attaining goals, not simply complicated ones – difficult but do-able, and this inevitably requires a blending of

Grazing

farmer experience, reflection and interpretation, brought together with research-based principles in order to understand what responses are required (McGuckian 2006). Such processes need to become the norm in industry-funded research and extension programs. The use of producer advocates can be enormously effective. Research and extension investments need to reflect the price of processes that actually work and result in change. 8. Break down institutional silos The legacy of the commodity-by-commodity approach to servicing agriculture that started in the mid-19th century hinders environmental management today. Scientific reward systems tend to be disciplinary rather than interdisciplinary-based, and production and natural resource management programs are all too frequently budgeted, managed and implemented in institutional silos, often in separate buildings, towns or even States, depending on the organisation. Like most people, graziers tend to align themselves with people and institutions they are comfortable with, and unless these people and institutions are fully aware of agricultural complexities, then only those messages that reinforce the comfort zone will be aired and understood. Many industry bodies reinforce a narrow view that industry investments should focus on production and profit, while government investment should focus on environment and industry welfare. This is contrary to the often unstated inclinations of industry members, whose sense of place demands a different approach. Many of Australia’s agricultural institutions need to dissolve and metamorphose into more holistic bodies. 9. Invest in labour-saving innovations and increasing workforce numbers Managing livestock is difficult, hard work and graziers often argue that they have no time for managing the environment. Grazing systems are certainly not mechanised to the same degree as cropping operations. As with most agricultural industries, grazing faces the dual pressure of an ageing population with declining labour availability. This situation impacts equally on the production and environmental stewardship components of property management. The response of many mixed-farmers in the sheep-cereal zone has been to reduce stock numbers and intensify cropping operations, often at the expense of maintaining perennial plants in the system or managing to land capability. Industries need to increase investment in on-farm innovations that make the management of livestock easier so that graziers can balance the time spent between production, family, community and environment. Governments need to invest in regional development programs that increase the workforce available to agriculture and natural resource management. Such programs should not be seen in the narrow context of economic growth, but as an investment in sustainable rural communities, industries and landscapes. 10. Consumer support for healthy and sustainable food production Graziers who work the extensive pastoral country of northern Australia can potentially lay claim to a place in the organic food industry. However, there is a growing trend of concern from a livestock (and potentially human) health perspective in the move towards feedlots and grain-fed livestock. In times of drought, feedlotting and confinement management strategies have an important environmental contribution to make, but the growing tendency is to use these strategies all the time. If Australia goes down the route that the US has taken, most Australians will face the prospect of eating meat full of hormones and antibodies from cows that have led short and unhappy lives. The argument that feedlots take pressure off large tracts of pasture and grasslands is countered by its concealed footprint across large tracts of cropping land.

123

124

Ten Commitments

With more than half Australia’s land surface under graziers’ management (Stafford Smith 2005), positive change in the landscape will only come from their presence and good management. Australians can support their commitment and reward their good management through the consumer choices they make.

Conclusion These 10 big musts for grazing are unintentionally biased towards the many thousands of graziers who have a spiritual connection to their land. While they are the stewards of so much of the Australian environment, we need to support the many good managers who do go beyond a duty of care to provide ecosystem services we can all share and environmental outcomes of which we can all be proud. By the same token, poor performance should not be rewarded even unintentionally. It is where this happens that our policies and programs fail the credibility test of all Australians, and those in the bush in particular. In reality, the issues listed here also apply to the growing corporate sector. Here, the concept of a social licence to operate should resonate loudest. Why our industry bodies do not work (even) more closely with this sector is surprising. The second thing you learn in ‘fear of flying’ classes is that turbulence is natural; its presence proves that the air is working to hold you up and propel you forward. Similarly, it is the natural instinct of graziers to work for the environment and not against it. Understanding this instinct and embracing the hidden but important social dimensions it represents is the bumpiest part of the journey.

References Bond WJ, Cresswell HP, Simpson RJ et al. (1997) ‘CSIRO Land and Water, Consultancy report No 97-31’. Canberra. Ellis-Smith G (2005) Ancient land – current connections. In Outdoor and Experiential Learning: Views from the Top. (Eds T Dickson, T Gray and B Hayllar) Otago University Press, Otago. Kirkpatrick J and Bridle K (Eds) (2007) People, Sheep and Nature Conservation: The Tasmanian Experience. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. McGuckian N (2006) ‘Decision Making on Mixed Farms – Managing Complexity’. Grain & Graze Social Research Discussion Paper 02/06. Land & Water Australia, Canberra. McKeon GM, Watson IW, Hall WB, Henry BK, Power SB and Stone GS (2004) Pasture Degradation and Recovery in Australia’s Rangelands. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Brisbane. Stafford Smith M (2005) Grazing Half of Australia: Risks and Returns to Regional Futures. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Stirzaker R, Lefroy T, Keating BA and Williams J (2000) A Revolution in Land Use. Emerging Land Use Systems to Address Dryland Salinity. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

TOURISM Ralf Buckley

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Use old-growth forests for tourism, not timber. Use tourism for conservation on private land. Shift high-impact tourism and recreation out of protected areas. Improve the scope and standard of recreation ecology research. Improve policies for tourism to support conservation. Improve management to reduce impacts of tourism in parks. Use tourism to improve conservation connectivity under climate change. Expand the role of tourism in financing ex situ conservation. Be cautious over tourism lobbies related to climate change. Consider links between tourism and residential development.

Introduction Tourism is both a threat and a tool in the conservation of Australia’s natural environment. Currently, the continuing growth of commercial tourism operations within the national reserve system, and the increasing pressure applied by tourism industry associations and government portfolios to achieve increased access to protected areas and even a role in their management, represents a significant threat to conservation and consumes an increasing proportion of parks agency resources. At least potentially, however, tourism could provide increased financial and political support for conservation both within the current protected area estate and on other public and private lands beyond its boundary. Tourism may thus play a critical role in maintaining landscape connectivity in the face of climate change. Tourism is a significant industry sector in economic, social and environmental terms. In most developed nations including Australia, tourism and travel makes up about one-tenth of the national economy. This is several times larger, for example, than sectors such as agriculture. In Australia, annual tourism turnover is around $60 billion, and about one-third of the industry relies on the outdoor natural environment to provide the primary attraction or setting for its retail products. Protected areas also provide social benefits through private recreation and its associated health and welfare benefits. As with other industry sectors, commercial tourism generates substantial environmental impacts associated with transport, with accommodation and with various recreational activities. These impacts include: energy, water and materials consumption; production of wastes and associated air and water pollution, and in 125

126

Ten Commitments

addition, a wide variety of impacts on particular ecosystems and plant and animal species both terrestrial and aquatic. These impacts are lower than those of forestry or fisheries, mining or agriculture, but by no means negligible. In addition, they are largely focused in areas of high conservation value.

Key issues 1. Use old-growth forests for tourism, not timber Tourism is a much higher-value use of public forests than logging, and with far lower environmental impacts. Timber towns which continue to log the last of their native forests are destroying their own future livelihoods as well as the nation’s natural heritage. Tourists are not interested in seeing forests being logged, euphemistically described as ‘working forests’. Nor are they interested in plantations or regrowth. They want to see large old trees in undisturbed forests, preferably with an open understorey and with birds and wildlife. Forest trails, river rafting opportunities, canopy walks and forest lodges all help to attract visitors and increase the price they will pay, but the forest itself is the primary attraction. The experience that most forest tourists are seeking is a sense of awe and majesty in the presence of large and ancient living things, and an impression of beauty, of primeval nature untouched by human hand. They may also be interested in historical cultural interpretation showing the struggles of early settlers and timber getters who viewed the forest in a very different light, but they do not want to see modern-day clear cutting and agricultural clearance. Currently, the State Government forestry agencies in Australia lag a very long way behind other countries such as the USA, and even further behind European nations, in the development of tourism on lands under their control. There are two well-known canopy walks, one in Western Australia and one in Tasmania, and there are many smaller areas open for self-drive recreational access. There is nothing in Australia, however, approaching the vast areas of designated wilderness run by the US Forestry Service for recreational use, or the enormous commercial tourism operations, principally ski resorts, which use land leased from the USFS. The single most critical policy initiative relating to tourism and environment in Australia is to convert forests of high conservation value from logging to tourism. Paradoxically, this initiative is not under the control of either tourism or environmental agencies. 2. Use tourism for conservation on private land Australia could make much better use of tourism to promote conservation on private landholdings, and could make more use of tourism on private land to reduce pressure on the conservation estate. A number of commercial tourism enterprises throughout Australia do operate on private landholdings, offering a range of nature-based, adventure or farm tourism experiences. Some, but not all of these are associated with amenity migration; some, but not all are based around the boundaries of public protected areas; some, but by no means all, contribute to conservation of the natural environment on the private landholdings concerned. Largescale privately owned conservation reserves are still relatively rare in Australia, and rely more on philanthropy than commercial tourism. The development of wildlife tourism as a conservation tool in Australia lags well behind sub-Saharan Africa and even parts of the Middle East and South-East Asia. Likewise, the number of tourism enterprises on private land in Australia is tiny compared to the number in the USA, though the two countries are similar in total geographic area. The reasons are complex and include ecological, legal, and tourism-related components. Australia has not yet adopted tax-related incentives for private conservation

Tourism

comparable to those in the USA. Federal Government natural-heritage funding has contributed little to conservation, both because of the politics of delivery and because it is not linked to State Government legal systems for conservation land tenure. Tourism has a role in generating income for conservation on private land, but as yet this remains embryonic in Australia. Some of the land owners have received Federal Government grants from the Natural Heritage Trust. Relatively few have conservation agreements, covenants or easements over their land. 3. Shift high-impact tourism and recreation out of protected areas National parks and other conservation reserves throughout Australia are generally available for low-impact recreation as well as for conservation. The types of activities permitted differ between ecosystems, jurisdictions, reserves and subsidiary zones or areas within those reserves. For a combination of historical, political and climatic reasons, Australian parks services have generally been more successful than their US counterpart in controlling the areas used and impacts created by activities involving motorised vehicles, livestock, or consumptive use. Some individual parks, however, still suffer from high intensity use by off-road vehicles (ORVs), illegal use by trail bikes and ORVs, and pressure to permit activities such as horse riding, mountain biking and adventure races on trails currently used only for hiking. Such activities do indeed need areas to operate, but because of their relatively high impacts both on the natural environment and on other visitors, this place should generally not be in conservation reserves. Both State and local governments have other types of land at their disposal where they can provide for outdoor recreation, whether individual or commercial. In addition, similar concerns apply, and with even greater force, to large-scale fixed-site tourism developments and their associated access, energy, water and waste management infrastructure. Some of Australia’s national parks already contain such developments, and there is continual political pressure from tourism industry interests to permit more. Australian society allows private tourism companies to use public natural resources at low cost, e.g. through permits to operate in public land and water. Commercial tourism operations in national parks and other protected areas effectively receive a public subsidy, since conservation management, visitor facilities, and indeed access and advertising are provided at the public expense. Tourism industry associations and government tourism portfolios lobby continually to increase access to such areas and to reduce both the restrictions and the prices paid. With rather few and highly specific exceptions, the place for such developments is outside protected areas, not within them. Similar considerations apply in marine as in terrestrial environments. Recreational fishing and other high-impact components of the marine tourism industry are in many cases of greater economic value and lower environment impacts than industrial fisheries, and can indeed displace them. In marine reserves, however, only low-impact and non-consumptive forms of tourism and recreation are appropriate. 4. Improve the scope and standard of recreation ecology research To manage tourism and recreation in conservation reserves, parks agencies need much more comprehensive and detailed data on the ecological effects of various visitor activities in relation to factors such as ecosystem type, species and parameters considered, group size and skill, equipment and season, and management interventions. This field of research, known as recreation ecology, is well established but up to now has largely been restricted to rather few countries, ecosystems and effects. Impacts which are obvious to the naked eye and easily measured with minimal equipment, such as trampling of vegetation, have been studied far more than those which are slow, subtle, indirect, diffuse, invisible to the naked eye; or need specialist ecological skills, knowledge or equipment to quantify. Examples include: introduction of

127

128

Ten Commitments

weeds and pathogens; effects of noise; interference with plant pollination, animal courtship behaviour, host-parasite or predator-prey dynamics, and other inter- and intra-species dynamics; foraging ecology and energetics, and so on. For each of these issues, ecological methods have been developed and applied in a few instances, but not yet with sufficient breadth to build up a general body of relevant knowledge. From an ecological perspective, published literature in recreation ecology remains relatively sparse, crude and clumped. Priorities for future research include: more carefully designed experimental approaches; greater attention to more subtle but ecologically significant impacts; extension of existing research to many more species, many more parameters and many more activities; comparisons between different ecosystems, and between similar ecosystems in different continents; and accurate scientific measurement of the outcomes from management interventions. 5. Improve policies for tourism to support conservation If an adequate conservation framework is already in place, tourism can generate funds to help operate it. This applies both on public and private lands. Tourism can also help to generate political support for conservation. None of these, however, are guaranteed, and there are rather few instances worldwide where tourism has demonstrated a positive net contribution to conservation. It is critical that a conservation framework, either public or private, must be in place before the development of commercial tourism, or the latter will inhibit conservation rather than promoting it. This is a complex field which has barely begun to be explored within Australia. Higher entry and camping fees in national parks, for example, do not necessarily contribute to conservation. Much depends on factors such as government budget processes, changing visitor expectations and behaviour, costs of additional infrastructure and administration and a number of legal issues. Models for private conservation reserves funded by tourism, developed successfully in other parts of the world, may or may not be applicable in Australia: it depends on market and ecological factors, such as the ability to present particular icon wildlife species, and legal factors such as trust and tax law, and ownership of native wildlife. 6. Improve management to reduce impacts of tourism in parks Protected areas face a number of existing pressures, from tourism and recreation as well as fires, invasive species, poaching and encroachment. Climate change will add significantly to those pressures. To improve ecological resilience to climate change, one potential approach is to reduce other sources of stress. Reducing the impacts of recreation and tourism in areas of high conservation value is thus more critical than ever in the face of climate change. Management of visitors in general, and commercial tour operations in particular, consumes a considerable proportion of the time and resources available to protected area management agencies in Australia, and competes with resources available for conservation management. Approaches such as ecocertification and commercial partnerships are heavily promoted but rather peripheral to the principal political issue, which is the primary public funding for parks agencies to conserve biological diversity. 7. Use tourism to improve conservation connectivity under climate change Climate change will affect tourism, the environment, and the interactions between them. Increasing costs for long-distance travel may boost visitation to local parks. Increasing storms and floods, droughts and fires may increase sensitivity of conservation areas to recreational impacts, and may reduce visitor access if areas are closed during periods of high risk or to allow recovery. Fires in the Australian Alps provide one example. Many tourist destinations rely on features of the natural environment as primary attractions, and these features may be affected by climate change. Examples include beaches, rivers, forests and icon wildlife species.

Tourism

Ecological links, corridors and buffers between and around existing conservation reserves could potentially allow some plant and animal species to adjust their geographic distributions in response to changing climatic conditions. This approach has limited potential for species with long generation times, low dispersal ability, or for which corridors do not provide appropriate habitat, but it may be valuable nonetheless for species not subject to these constraints. Since the cost of changing land tenure in conservation corridors is commonly prohibitive in a short-term political context, approaches which enhance conservation management under current tenures are the most promising at present. Such approaches generally require financial incentives, and tourism income provides an important complement to government grants and tax treatment for conservation. 8. Expand the role of tourism in financing ex situ conservation Notwithstanding resilience and connectivity, climate changes currently predicted are likely to render many endangered species extinct in the wild. Ex situ conservation through zoos and botanical gardens will be the only option to keep these species alive, but costs are high. Increased public awareness of the impacts of climate change on biological diversity, as well as increased costs of international travel, may well increase urban demand to visit to see endangered species even in captivity. Tourism may thus have a significant role in funding increased ex situ conservation. 9. Be cautious over tourism lobbies related to climate change As climate change begins to affect the tourism industry more significantly, we can expect tourism industry associations and government tourism portfolios to lobby governments for special concessions to counter claimed threats to regional economies and employment. The Northern Hemisphere ski resort sector, for example, claimed initially that climate change was a fallacy, but this seems to have been a ruse to maintain their share prices whilst they repositioned themselves as four-season mountain resort-residential developments relying more on summer visitors, property sales and retail revenues than on lift tickets. Currently, they claim that climate change is real, so they should be given access to more public land to maintain profitability. In Australia, parallel patterns have occurred but to a lesser degree, limited by land tenure arrangements. We may anticipate, however, that ski resort corporations will soon begin to lobby for greater water entitlements so as to increase snowmaking, and for access to more land, even inside national parks, to develop summer activities such as golf. Either of these approaches, however, would have significant impacts on conservation in the Australian Alps national parks. Similar lobbying may occur when parks agencies want to prohibit access to particular areas either for safety or for post-fire regeneration, and tour operators who use those public lands or waters argue for access to be maintained. 10. Consider links between tourism and residential development The larger corporations in the tourism sector are not tour operators but property developers, and for them, tourism is merely part of a portfolio of approaches used to acquire, develop and sell real estate. This is assisted by social trends of counter-urbanisation and amenity migration, made possible through technological advances in communications, and in social change in employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in the creative and knowledge industries, including conservative, traditional and high-paid sectors such as finance. A development application for a single large stand-alone or greenfields tourism resort may be subject to formal environmental impact assessment at State or Federal level, with opportunities for public comment. Applications for a series of concatenated residential developments, in contrast, may be determined at local government level with no public information or input, even if the aggregate environmental

129

130

Ten Commitments

impacts are higher and the level of environmental control and management lower. Over recent decades, for example, there has been a considerable increase in the number of strata-titled developments which combine elements of tourism and residential housing. This approach is used not only in urban high-rise apartments and coastal marinas, but even in enclave developments within or adjacent to World Heritage national parks. Tourism has been described by North American population analysts as a ‘transitional economy’ – transitional to permanent residential housing, urbanisation and land-use change with all the associated environmental impacts. Effectively, this term views tourism as the thin end of a residential development wedge.

Conclusions The three principal approaches to strengthen the conservation estate against the impacts of climate change all have connections to tourism. To improve connectivity between protected areas through conservation on other land tenures, income from tourism is a key consideration both for public lands such as State forests, and private lands used for agriculture and amenity migration. To improve the resilience of protected areas against climate change by reducing non-climate stresses, managing impacts from tourism and recreation is another key consideration, in addition to issues such as fires and invasive species. Finally, where ex situ conservation approaches are adopted for particular species, through zoological and botanical gardens, income from tourism is commonly a key consideration for financial viability. Key research themes hence include: ecological measurements of recreational impacts; the role of tourism, in conjunction with government tax and policy measures, in promoting conservation on private land; the role of tourism in so-called ‘sea change’ and ‘tree change’ amenity migration; and the role of tourism in conserving Australia’s biological diversity in the face of climate change. Key policy issues include: conversion of economic activity, in public forests of high conservation value, from logging to tourism; development of policy incentives, taking advantage of tourism, for conservation on private land; caution over tourism lobbying associated with climate change; and better recognition of the links between tourism and residential development.

References Buckley R, Sander N, Ollenburg C and Warnken J (2006) Green change: inland amenity migration in Australia. In The Amenity Migrants. (Ed. L Moss) pp. 278–294. CAB International, Oxford. Buckley RC (2003) Pay to play in parks: an Australian policy perspective on visitor fees in public protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 56–73. Buckley RC (Ed.) (2004) Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. CAB International, Oxford. Buckley RC (2004) A Natural Partnership, vol 2. Innovative Funding Mechanisms for Visitor Infrastructure in Protected Areas. TTF Australia, Sydney. Buckley RC (2004) Partnerships in ecotourism: Australian political frameworks. International Journal of Tourism Research 6, 75–83. Buckley RC (2008) World Wild Web: connectivity conservation under climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, in press. Bushell R and Eagles P (Eds) (2007) Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries. CAB International, Oxford. Newsome D, Moore S and Dowling R (2002) Natural Areas Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Channel View, Clevedon.

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

CLIMATE CHANGE Lesley Hughes

1. Mitigate, mitigate, mitigate. 2. Accept that mitigation on its own is not enough; allocate significant resources to adaptation. 3. Move from a preservationist to a conservationist agenda. 4. Increase the absolute size of the Australian protected area system. 5. Modify the traditional criteria for identifying areas to be protected. 6. Stop all further clearing of native vegetation and increase resources to force compliance with existing anti-clearing laws. 7. Increase habitat and landscape connectivity where this is likely to increase adaptive opportunities for mobile species, and improve the permeability of the matrix between habitats. 8. Increase resources allocated to conservation on private lands, as a complement to the protected area system. 9. Increase resources allocated to reducing existing environmental stresses. 10. Incorporate climate change planning into all environmental planning in all jurisdictions.

Introduction The climate is changing and the impacts on the environment will be profound. Virtually all species and all ecosystems on Earth will eventually be affected. Future impacts include changes in species abundances and distributions, the timing of species life cycles, interactions between species, extinction rates, the structure and composition of communities, and ecosystem processes. Many of these impacts will be negative, but their precise nature is difficult to predict because of the potential for positive and negative feedbacks, and for species to be affected individually and directly by the impacts of changes in their physical environment, and indirectly by changes to the other species with which they interact. Increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are expected to continue to warm the Earth at an accelerating rate, with concomitant increases in extreme events such as droughts, floods, cyclones and fires. Australia has already experienced an increase of nearly 1oC in average annual temperatures since the beginning of the 20th century, with warming occurring at twice the rate over the past 50 years as in the previous 50 years. The number of hot days has increased 133

134

Ten Commitments

and the number of cold days and frosts decreased. Since the 1950s, ongoing drying trends have been experienced in the southwest and east, with increases in rainfall in the north and northwest. Snow duration and cover has declined by about 40% since the 1960s, sea levels are rising at 1.2 mm per year, droughts have become more severe, the oceans surrounding Australia are warming and becoming more acidic, and the El Niño portion of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, which drives much of the Australian climate, is intensifying (IPCC 2007 a,b; CSIRO/BoM 2007). Global temperatures and sea levels are rising faster than projected by the IPCC in its 2001 report, and CO2 concentrations exceed those used in projections by the IPCC in 2007, having almost tripled since the 1990s from 1.1% per annum to 3.1% per annum in the 2000s (Raupach et al. 2007). Without drastic reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, future climate changes will be unlike any in the geological past, in terms of rate and magnitude. Furthermore, these changes are taking place against a backdrop of existing environmental degradation and habitat loss, adding further stress to species and ecosystems. The relatively modest rises in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns experienced over the past few decades have already had significant impact on species populations, their distributions, life cycles, genetic makeup and interactions, and on ecosystem-level processes such as productivity (Hughes 2000; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Root et al. 2003). Climate change therefore poses a challenge for conservation here and now, not just in the future.

Key issues 1. Mitigate, mitigate, mitigate Although Australia emits only about 1.4% of global emissions, we are among the worst per capita emitters in the world, at over 27 tonnes per person per year (4.5 times the global average), comparable with those from North America and New Zealand but higher than those from countries across Europe (www.carbonfund.org). The distribution of the Australian population across the continent, the availability of cheap coal and our high standard of living contribute to Australia’s high per capita emissions. The challenge the world faces is to end the link between high economic growth and GHG emissions (Garnaut 2008). Australia has an important role to play in establishing a program of global mitigation. Australia’s strong science base, flexible economy and abundant renewable resources, including solar radiation, ‘hot rocks’ and wind, provide capacity for a shift towards a lower greenhouse footprint. Efficient implementation of abatement policies at home, beginning immediately and sustained long term, will be vital for Australia to play a credible leadership role in reducing global emissions (Garnaut 2008). 2. Allocate significant resources to adaptation Mitigation on its own is not enough. Greenhouse gases already emitted will commit us to an increase in mean annual temperatures of at least one degree by 2030, even without further emissions (CSIRO/BoM 2007). Even if emission levels were reduced to those in the year 2000 (an unlikely prospect), temperatures will continue to increase for decades and the global Earth System will continue to change for thousands of years (IPCC 2007a). We must therefore start the process of adapting to the impacts of climate change, regardless of the success of future mitigation strategies. Human systems in Australia have high adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007b). We have adjusted to living in a highly variable climate and have a well-developed economy capable of structural

Climate change

change (Garnaut 2008). We have an educated population with a strong scientific and engineering tradition and well-developed disaster mitigation strategies. Australia’s natural systems, however, are at risk of catastrophic negative impacts. Biological systems on Earth are already responding to a mean warming of less than 1oC since 1900, a very modest increase relative to what we expect in the future. Most species will be unable to respond to the rapidity of change fast enough, either by undergoing evolutionary adaptation or by changing their location. Specific adaptation strategies to minimise the negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the health of ecosystems are needed. These strategies may prove to require resources of equal or greater magnitude to those aimed at mitigation. We first need to identify those species and regions most vulnerable to negative impacts, then identify and set priorities for action to minimise such impacts, and to maximise any benefits. Adaptation strategies will need to be reviewed regularly with feedback to adjust actions when necessary, and decisions that constrain future adaptation options need to be avoided where possible. The following eight strategies are high priorities. In most cases, their improved implementation will have multiple benefits, regardless of the rate and scale of climate change. 3. Move from a preservationist to a conservationist agenda A cornerstone of conservation strategy both in Australia and elsewhere is to conserve species where they are thought to have occurred historically. In Australia, the notion of a species’ historic range generally extends back to the time immediately preceding European settlement 220 years ago. Under rapidly changing environmental conditions, this ‘preservationist’ goal will become increasing difficult to achieve as moving climate zones shift the conservation goalposts. Our aim should continue to be to conserve the maximum amount of biodiversity (at the level of genes, species and ecosystems), but also to accept the notion that preserving species in their historic ranges, and preserving the present day composition of communities, will be impossible. Many species will need to disperse elsewhere, and the mix of species that temporarily comprise current communities will change. We need to shift our conservation focus from the traditional emphasis on preventing ecological change, toward the management of change to minimise loss of biodiversity. A variety of strategies are needed, from strengthening our existing protected area system (see points 4 and 5 below) to more interventionist, and controversial ‘eco-engineering’ options. Some species will be doomed to extinction without such intervention. Translocation (assisted migration) of species to new, more climatically suitable habitats, although usually considered an option of last resort, may increasingly be the only way to prevent, or at least delay, extinctions of some species. The disadvantages of translocation have been extensively discussed (e.g. McLachlan et al. 2007), including expense, low success rates and potential for negative impacts on existing species at transplant sites. Development of risk assessment frameworks to guide these activities is vital (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008). The traditional way we have approached restoration and regeneration of degraded landscapes will also need to be reassessed. The prevailing paradigm is that reintroduction of species should, where possible, be from locally sourced stock (i.e. local provenances). Indeed, many policy guidelines for bush regenerators require that propagation material be sourced within 20 km or less from the regeneration/reforestation site. Like many other conservation strategies, this principle assumes a stationary climate. In fact, it could easily become counterproductive if scarce resources are used in futile attempts to maintain species distributions as they are now, or are used to reintroduce or replant species and/or genetic provenances in locations that are historically appropriate but are becoming increasingly marginal under a changing climate.

135

136

Ten Commitments

4. Increase the absolute amount of area in the National Reserve System Australia is home to 600 000–700 000 described species. Many more are undescribed. Over 80% of our plants and mammals, and over 40% of our birds are endemic. Since European settlement, species extinctions have occurred at a rate unprecedented since the last glacial maximum (20 000 years BP). More than 50 large animal species, and a comparable number of plant species, have been lost, mostly as a direct result of habitat loss and/or the introduction of pest species (Lindenmayer 2007). Indeed, Australia’s record for mammal extinctions and declines exceeds that of any other country. Many species still extant have declined considerably in population size and distribution, and the lists of species officially classified as threatened are growing constantly. In the face of additional threats posed by climate change, reversing this species decline is imperative. Declining populations and range sizes will increase the chance of species extinctions, and some bioclimatic habitats to which some species are currently restricted will disappear altogether (e.g. Williams et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2004). Increasing the population sizes of rare and vulnerable species helps buffer them against rapid environmental change. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to protect more habitat. The protected area network forms the cornerstone of Australia’s conservation strategy for both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The network is broadly aimed at ensuring species continue to exist in their historical habitats and at maintaining well functioning ecosystems. Both the marine and terrestrial components of the protected area network aim to meet the criteria of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness (CAR) (NRMMC 2004). The reserve system provides the formal protection of viable samples of ecosystems and longterm security of tenure and management. The terrestrial component of the network, the National Reserve System (NRS) currently comprises over 8000 protected areas, including national parks, private conservation reserves, World Heritage Areas, and Indigenous Protected Areas, covering 88 million ha (11.5% of the continent) and representing the major terrestrial biodiversity conservation investment in Australia (Dunlop and Brown 2008). In 2004, the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) comprised 7% of Australia’s marine jurisdiction (excluding the Australian Antarctic Territory), covering over 64 million hectares. Together the NRS and the NRSMPA assist Australia to meet its responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity. They also support national commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992). A recent review of the NRS (Sattler and Taylor 2008), however, found that Australia does not rank highly among the 17 megadiverse countries with regard to targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, trailing behind nations including Colombia, China, USA, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Malaysia in total percent of land area protected. Gladstone (2007) estimated that a 30% target for the marine protected network would still only conserve 75% of surveyed fish species in coastal communities. Increasing the absolute size of both the marine and terrestrial protected area network in Australia is thus critical. While the species and ecosystems in a particular area will change over time as the climate changes, larger areas and more populations of species will be required to ensure the same viability for species as might be expected without climate change. An achievable goal over the next decade would be to include 20% of Australia’s land area and 20% of its marine jurisdiction in protected areas. 5. Modify the traditional criteria for identifying areas to be protected Historically, national parks systems around the world were developed on the assumption that climate and biodiversity were relatively stable. Many have been located specifically to protect

Climate change

endangered species and communities. The inadequacy of this strategy under a changing climate was recognised over 20 years ago (Peters and Darling 1985), and has been reiterated by many since that time (e.g. Hughes and Westoby 1994; Halpin 1997; Araujo et al. 2004). The bioregional framework based on the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) and the CAR selection criteria (see point 4) will continue to be important guiding tools for identifying areas of most value for the protected area network because they emphasise selection based on ecosystem and landscape diversity, rather than current species composition. However, both the NRS and the NRSMPA currently fall short of their goals; many of Australia’s terrestrial bioregions still have less than 2% of their area in conservation reserves (CAPAD 2006). In 2004, only 41 of the 60 bioregions identified in the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia (IMCRA) were included in the NRSMPA. The CAR system was developed in the 1960s, before the spectre of climate change loomed on the horizon. Instead of using the current species composition of an area to judge the desirability of including it in a protected area network, greater emphasis should be given to the degree of physical heterogeneity, including topography and soil. Those areas that encompass a wide range of latitudes (northsouth distance) and elevation, and those where climatic refuges may be located (e.g. dissected landscapes with high topographic relief, wetter or less fire-prone habitats) should be emphasised. This process will not guarantee that all species will be adequately protected, but given the likely changes and uncertainties, it is the best available option for strategic development of the protected area system (Dunlop and Brown 2008). 6. Stop all further clearing of native vegetation and increase resources to force compliance with existing anti-clearing laws The clearing of native vegetation for agricultural and urban development over the past two centuries has been recognised as the single most threatening process for terrestrial biodiversity (e.g. State of the Environment Report, Beeton et al. 2006). Clearing directly kills species (Johnson et al. 2007) and removes habitat as well as increasing erosion, dryland salinity, nutrient leakage and sedimentation of waterways. Subsequent use by stock, planting of crops, changes in water, fire and nutrient regimes, and invasion by weeds and exotic pests continue the indirect impacts. Land clearing also contributes to Australia’s total GHG emissions (estimated to be approximately 10% of total emissions in 2005, AGO 2007). In addition, modelling of the impact of 150 years of land clearing in eastern Australia has indicated that the 2002– 2003 El Niño drought was on average 2oC hotter as a direct result of vegetation loss (McAlpine et al. 2007). About 90% of some classes of native vegetation in the eastern temperate zone has been removed for agriculture, industry, transport and human habitation. More than 50% of Australia’s rainforests have been cleared and the proportion of Australia covered by forest and woodland has been reduced by more than one-third. NSW and QLD have enacted anti-clearing legislation (NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003, QLD Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004) with the admirable objective of ending broad-scale land clearing. But the effectiveness of this legislation has been questioned. The NSW Vegetation Act, for example has a number of weaknesses: it does not apply to the metropolitan area around Sydney where remaining vegetation remains under intense pressure from development; it allows for ‘routine agricultural activities’ to be maintained, including clearing under certain circumstances, and it allows for clearing of regrowth and ‘invasive native scrub’. The enforcement of compliance has proved very weak. An Auditor General’s report in 2006, for example, found that at least 74 000 hectares were cleared in NSW in 2005 – of which 30 000 ha were cleared illegally.

137

138

Ten Commitments

It is clear that to make land-clearing legislation effective, monitoring and reporting systems for clearing activity must be strengthened, and there must be stronger enforcement and prosecution measures for illegal land clearing operators. 7. Increase habitat and landscape connectivity where this is likely to increase the adaptive opportunities for mobile species and improve the permeability of the matrix between habitats Land clearing since European settlement has left remaining areas of native vegetation extremely fragmented. Over-fishing and intense coastal development, especially in eastern Australia, has also had severe negative impacts. Improving connectivity between habitat patches, between land cover types, and between ecological processes at multiple spatial scales (sensu Lindenmayer and Fischer 2007) is generally seen as a way of facilitating adaptive movement of species in response to shifting climate zones and for increasing the viability and resilience of populations. The desirability of this strategy has given rise to landscape-level cooperative programs between various State Government departments and non-government organisations (NGOs) including the Gondwana Link in Western Australia, Naturelinks in South Australia, and the Alps to Atherton project in eastern Australia. Increasing connectivity is not just about provision of linear strips of vegetation to act as wildlife corridors. Mechanisms to improve the probability that species are able to move though modified landscapes by creating stepping-stones and increasing the permeability of the landscape matrix are also important strategies. Increasing connectivity between remnant habitats also has potential disadvantages, including the spread of wildfire and invasion of pests. Indeed, reducing connectivity is sometimes a central plank of strategies to conserve particular endangered species. Appropriate strategies to promote connectivity are also somewhat species-specific – a connected habitat for one species may be a fragmented one for another. Further, some of the most at-risk species from a rapidly changing climate will be unlikely to move fast enough to keep pace, even when connectivity is enhanced. Despite these issues, it is clear that preventing more fragmentation and reversing the decline of natural connectivity will be important components of conservation strategies in the face of climate change. As species and climate zones do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, it is vital that coordination of connectivity programs across catchments, regions and State and Territory boundaries is improved. 8. Increase resources allocated to conservation on private lands, as a complement to the protected area system Even if the protected area system was increased to 20% of Australia’s continental and marine areas (as suggested in point 4 above), the majority of Australia’s species will still have the whole or part of their current distributions on private land. Coordination of conservation activities across protected areas and the intervening matrix of agricultural and urban lands and nonprotected native habitats will assist conservation efforts under climate change (Dunlop and Brown 2008). A number of schemes currently exist to encourage landholders to manage for positive biodiversity outcomes. Several NGOs (e.g. Bush Heritage Australia, Nature Conservancy Australia) are also using their financial resources to buy private land for conservation purposes. Together these schemes need to be more widely promoted and supported, and at a national scale. The recent announcement that the Federal Government will review the nation’s taxation scheme (following the 2020 Summit, April 2008) provides an opportunity to take a fresh

Climate change

look at how incentive and other schemes for better land stewardship could improve environmental outcomes. The increasingly real prospect of an emissions trading scheme (Garnaut 2008) also provides opportunities for funding via carbon offset schemes and carbon sequestration. Care, however, must be taken to prevent environmental damage through subsidies for fast-growing, monoculture-based production systems, especially for biofuels. 9. Increase resources allocated to reducing existing environmental stresses The first comprehensive assessment of landscape health and biodiversity by the National Land and Water Resources Audit and the subsequent 2006 State of Environment Report (Beeton et al. 2006) presented a disturbing picture of ongoing deterioration in Australia’s natural resources and biodiversity. It is clear that the economic value of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining and other resource-related sectors continue to take precedence over biodiversity conservation in terms of land-use planning and resource allocation. Unless Australian biodiversity and ecosystems processes become valued more highly in relation to these other sectors, climate change will worsen the already deteriorating position. Climate change represents an additional and interacting stress on species and communities. Climate change has a global impact, and reducing it will take a global response (see point 1 above). Other environmental stressors, such as reduction in environmental water flows, habitat loss, and invasion by exotic species, however, can be tackled at a local and regional level. Managing these threats more effectively in the future will increase the resilience of landscapes, defined here as those in which ecological processes and a diversity of species and communities are maintained at viable levels, even if they change in composition through time (Dunlop and Brown 2008). 10. Incorporate climate change planning into all environmental planning in all jurisdictions Until about five years ago, the phrase ‘climate change’ was barely mentioned in most policy documents on land-use planning and management, whether at local government, State or Federal level. Uncertainty about the rate and scale of future change, lack of public awareness, and a perception that climate change was a relatively distant problem compared to more immediate environmental and other concerns all contributed to this situation. The turnaround in the last few years has been remarkable. High profile publications such as the ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ (2006), popular movies such as the Day After Tomorrow, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and the decisive language used in the latest IPCC assessment (IPCC 2007 a,b) have all contributed to climate change being the topic du jour. Further, the impacts of water restrictions and higher food prices as a result of the ongoing drought, especially in eastern Australia, have brought the reality of climate change to everyday life. The challenge is now to maintain this momentum of interest in climate change as a concern, and to move beyond cosmetic changes to departmental names to effect real change, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation. Effective revision of management policies and guidelines will be required with coordinated monitoring and research to continually inform managers about the changing environment.

139

140

Ten Commitments

Conclusion Australia’s natural systems are already responding to climate change. Over the next few decades, many ecological communities may change in composition, structure and process to the extent that they become unrecognisable compared to those currently in existence and it is likely that the rate of species loss will continue to accelerate. Fixing the root cause of climate change by drastic reductions in GHG emissions (point 1) is vital and Australia needs to show global leadership. But closer to home, we also need to work towards ‘climate change-proofing’ our biodiversity. There is no quick fix. For many of our species and communities, the only thing we can do is to keep doing what conservation planners and managers have already been doing – but we must do it much much better, with far more resources, and with a great deal more urgency.

References AGO (2007) ‘National greenhouse gas inventory’. Australian Greenhouse Office, Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/2005/pubs/ inventory2005.pdf Araújo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L and Williams PH (2004) Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biology 10, 1618–1626. Beeton RJS, Buckley KI, Jones GJ, Morgan D, Reichelt RE and Trewin D (2006) ‘Australia State of the Environment 2006’. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/ soe/2006/index.html CAPAD (2006) Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database 2006. http://www. environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/science/capad/index.html CSIRO/BoM (2007) ‘Climate change in Australia: technical report’. CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/resources.php Dunlop M and Brown PR (2008) ‘Implications of climate change for Australia’s National Reserve System: a preliminary assessment’. Report to the Department of Climate Change, February 2008. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. http://www.csiro.au/ resources/DunlopBrown2008.html Garnaut R (2008) ‘Garnaut climate change review: interim report to the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia’. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/ CA25734E0016A131/pages/home Gladstone W (2007) Requirements for marine protected areas to conserve the biodiversity of rocky reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17, 71–87. Halpin PN (1997) Global climate change and natural-area protection: management responses and research directions. Ecological Applications 7, 828–843. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre SL, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP and Thomas CD (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321, 345–346. Hughes L (2000) Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15, 56–61. Hughes L and Westoby M (1994) Climate change and conservation policies in Australia: coping with change that is far away and not yet certain. Pacific Conservation Biology 1, 308–318.

Climate change

IPCC (2007a) ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, M Marquis, K Averyt, M Tignor, HL Miller Jr and Z Chen). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. IPCC (2007b) ‘Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds ML Parry, OD Canziani, JP Palutikoff, PJ van der Linden and CE Hanson). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Johnson C, Cogger H, Dickman C and Ford H (2007) ‘Impacts of land clearing: the impacts of approved clearing of native vegetation on wildlife in New South Wales’. WWF-Australia Report. WWF-Australia, Sydney. Lindenmayer DB (2007) On Borrowed Time: Australia’s Environmental Crisis and What We Must Do About It. Penguin/CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Lindenmayer DB and Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22, 127–132. McAlpine CA, Syktus J, Deo RC, Lawrence PJ, McGowan HA, Watterson IG and Phinn SR (2007) Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia’s regional climate. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L22711. McLachlan JS, Hellmann JJ and Schwartz MW (2007) A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology 21, 297–302. NRMMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council) (2004) Directions for the National Reserve System ñ A Partnership Approach. Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Parmesan C and Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42. Peters RL and Daring JDS (1985) The greenhouse effect and nature reserves. Bioscience 35, 717–717. Raupach MR, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Canadell JG, Klepper G and Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 10 289–10 293. Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C and Pounds JA (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57–60. Sattler PS and Taylor MFJ (2008) ‘Building Nature’s Safety Net 2008’. Progress on the Directions for the National Reserve System WWF-Australia Report. WWF-Australia, Sydney. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, De Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, Van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL and Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148. Williams SE, Bolitho EE and Fox S (2003) Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 270, 1887–1892.

141

THE FUTURE OF AUSTRALIA’S ENVIRONMENT IN THE ANTHROPOCENE Will Steffen

1. Develop appropriate modelling, analytic and synthesis tools for understanding the evolution of Australia’s biotic environment at the continental scale under global change. 2. Intensify research effort to improve our knowledge about the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning-ecosystem services relationship. 3. Undertake collaborative research with the climate change/variability research community to determine whether or not the El Niño phase of ENSO will become more intense or more frequent this century, and to explore the implications for Australia’s environment. 4. Explore the most important teleconnections in the Earth system from the perspective of Australia’s environment and investigate the implications of these for longterm management strategies. 5. Conduct research to identify the major ecological ‘tipping elements’ in Australia’s environment, and, the ways in which we can manage them to reduce the risk of a threshold being crossed. 6. Refocus research, management and policy towards considering interactive socialecological systems as the primary object of interest. 7. Determine when we should manage social-ecological systems to enhance resilience and when we should manage them to facilitate transformation. 8. Research, document and share knowledge of Indigenous Australians about managing Australia’s environment under past environmental variability, and apply that understanding, as appropriate, to managing Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene. 9. Research the history of the changing human-environment relationships at the times of Aboriginal and European settlement, and the implications of this knowledge about the evolution of the Anthropocene in Australia during the 21st century and beyond. 10. Engage the humanities more effectively in research on our environmental challenges, and benefit from the insights they offer for management strategies and tools.

143

144

Ten Commitments

Introduction The question of what things must be urgently addressed to improve Australia’s environment would normally assume a scale in time (years to decades) and space (continental or smaller) that considers the global biophysical environment to be invariant within the bounds of natural variability. However, recent analyses of the phenomenon of global change from the perspective of the Earth as a system (e.g. Steffen et al. 2004) demonstrate that this is no longer true. The Earth has now entered a phase of rapid change in virtually all aspects of the global environment – element cycles, land cover, biodiversity, ocean circulation and acidity, climate, cryosphere, sea level – changes that are at least as profound in magnitude and rate as the transition of the Earth between ice ages and interglacial periods. The Anthropocene is a term coined by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen (2002) to describe this new geological era that has been triggered not by the great forces of nature but by the explosion in human numbers and activity since the Industrial Revolution. The period since 1950, what we call the Great Acceleration (Hibbard et al. 2006), is a qualitatively different and particularly disturbing stage of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al. 2007), with many key global environmental indicators on exponential trajectories that suggest a possible state change in the Earth system as a whole. Managing, and indeed attempting to improve, Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene will need to be different from what has been attempted in the past. Many of the strategies and tools described elsewhere in this volume will continue to be important and necessary, but they will need to be applied within the context of a rapidly changing global environment and an even more rapidly changing global human system. Being anticipatory rather than reactive in managing Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene demands a well-grounded understanding of the nature of global change and the Earth system, and the implications for our part of the Earth. So what, underpinning fundamental questions about global change and the Earth system must be addressed to manage Australia’s environment effectively in the Anthropocene? 1. Develop appropriate modelling, analytic and synthesis tools Research on global change and the Earth system is dominated by Northern Hemisphere institutions, researchers and perspectives. A classic example is the development of dynamic global vegetation models that simulate change in temperate and boreal ecosystems well, but are less adept at simulating the dynamics of savannas and semi-arid ecosystems. For continental-scale strategies to manage Australia’s environment, tools that can project change in Australia’s biotic environment as an interactive component of the Earth system are required. What modelling, analytic and synthesis tools should be developed to understand the evolution of Australia’s biotic environment at the continental scale under global change? The current effort to adapt a Northern Hemisphere dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) to Australian conditions should be complemented by a multi-institutional effort (CSIRO and universities) to develop an Australian DGVM de novo for use in continental-scale analysis, synthesis and policy support. 2. Intensify research effort to improve knowledge about biodiversity and ecosystem functioning Australia’s biological diversity is already changing significantly, primarily due to the fragmentation and loss of habitat and to invasive species. Biodiversity is critical to the functioning of Australia’s environment and to the delivery of ecosystem services to human populations, yet we still have very little understanding about how much and what types of diversity are most important or, indeed, absolutely essential. What research is required to improve our knowledge about the diversity-functioning-ecosystem services relationship? How should this knowledge inform our management of the Australian environment in the Anthropocene? Much

The future of Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene

more interaction and integration between the conservation biology and ecosystem physiology (e.g. water, carbon and nutrient fluxes) research communities in Australia is urgently need to tackle the fundamentally important question of the importance of biological diversity for many of the ecosystem services on which human life depends. 3. Undertake collaborative research to determine the interaction between climate change, ENSO and Australia’s environment Australia’s climatic environment is strongly influenced by several modes of natural variability embedded in the ocean-atmosphere systems surrounding the continent. The most important of these are the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The mid-latitude westerlies associated with the SAM appear to have already shifted southwards as a result of climate change (IPCC 2007). What modified or new states of the IOD and the ENSO are possible with a changing global climate system? In particular, what is the likelihood that the El Niño phase of ENSO will become more intense or more frequent, and what are the implications for Australia’s environment? Given the undeniable importance of climate variability for the structure and functioning of Australian ecosystems, a joint research program should be developed and funded between the climate and ecological research communities to explore the risks to Australia’s environment of possible changes to major patterns of climate variability. 4. Explore teleconnections Teleconnections in the Earth system imply that changes in one part of the planet can have serious impacts in far distant places. Examples include the slowing or collapse of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which could affect ocean circulation and modes of climate variability elsewhere, and instabilities in the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, which would raise sea levels everywhere. The implications of activation of such ‘switch-and-choke points’ in the Earth system (Schellnhuber 2002) for Australia’s environment have yet to be considered. What are the most important teleconnections in the Earth system from the perspective of Australia’s environment, and what are the implications of these for long-term management strategies? Engagement of Australia’s research community with the international Earth system science community should be strengthened, to ensure that we both contribute to and benefit from the emerging insights gained from Earth system science. In particular, we need to be aware of changes in far distant parts of the planet that could have significant impacts on Australia’s environment. 5. Identify tipping elements The issue of thresholds and tipping points, or more appropriately ‘tipping elements’ (Lenton et al. 2008), is a growingly important aspect of international global change research. At least two major ecological tipping elements – dieback of the Amazon rainforest, and transition of the vast boreal forests to open woodland and grassland – have been identified by the international research community. Virtually no work on potential ecological tipping elements in Australia’s environment has been done. Do they exist and, if so, what are they? How do we manage them to reduce the risk of a threshold being crossed? An initial exploratory workshop on the identification of tipping elements in Australia’s biosphere should be held, following by a concerted research effort to understand the most important of these elements and their implications for policy and management. 6. Integrate humans and the environment in research, management and policy The concept of the Anthropocene has profound implications for how we perceive humans and the environment. We need to get much better at conceptually integrating humans with the

145

146

Ten Commitments

environment, and move away from studying pristine environments and compartmentalising our landscapes into single ‘use’ systems. How can we, as a society, go from ‘fortress agriculture’ and ‘fortress conservation’ to fluid landscapes and agile managers (Manning et al. 2008)? How do we move from focusing separately on human societies, particularly highly urbanised ones, and on natural ecosystems towards considering interactive social-ecological systems as the primary object of interest? Research, management and policy should all adopt the concept of social-ecological systems as the central object of study and management, and move away from the more polarised position of considering humans as separate from the rest of nature. 7. Determine when we should manage for resilience and when for transformation Much of the present management of Australia’s environment is oriented around protecting or conserving ecosystems or landscapes that are considered valuable for a range of reasons and are under threat from existing stressors. Enhancing the resilience of ecosystems against stressors is one approach to increase their probability of surviving and even thriving under change. However, as rapid global environmental change, interacting with existing stressors, pushes our ecosystems even further away from their present states, they may be driven towards transformation into new and significantly different states (e.g. tropical rainforest into savanna), implying a trade-off between resilience and transformation in terms of adaptation strategies. When should we manage to enhance resilience and when should we manage to facilitate transformation? It is critical that managers understand the resilience-transformation trade-off, and learn to facilitate transformation when appropriate rather than manage for preservation of current ecosystems. 8. Research, document and share Indigenous knowledge Indigenous Australians are one of the very few cultures on the planet that have experienced the erratic environmental conditions of the previous Ice Age and the rapid and rocky transition to the Holocene with their culture intact and continuing to evolve and adapt. Much knowledge and understanding of the behaviour of the Australian environment must have developed during that long journey. How can we share this knowledge, and what does it tell us about managing Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene? A concerted effort is required to rescue and record the knowledge of Indigenous Australians in managing the Australian environment under past environmental variability. 9. Research the history of human-environment relationships in Australia The history of human interaction with the Australian environment has not been a steady or even one. In addition to the jolts that natural climatic variability has imposed on our environment, it has also experienced the two ‘shocks’ of human arrival on the continent, of the first humans about 65 000 years BP and the arrival of Europeans around 220 years ago. What does the history of those periods of changing human-environment relationships tell us about the evolution of the Anthropocene during the 21st century and beyond? Environmental history should be recognised and supported as a key discipline in informing policy and management, so as to understand the evolution of the human-environment relationship and learn from the successes and mistakes of the past. 10. Acknowledge the role of the humanities The advent of the Anthropocene is the most profound shift in the human-environment relationship the Earth has yet experienced (McNeill 2001; Steffen et al. 2007), overshadowing the use of

The future of Australia’s environment in the Anthropocene

fire or the transition from hunting and gathering to sedentary agriculture. Its full implications for our place as a species in the Earth system, from our most fundamental value systems to the more practical, on-the-ground management of our environment, have yet to be comprehended. To achieve this comprehension requires an area of scholarship – the humanities – that has largely been absent so far from research on the environment and sustainability. How can we engage the humanities more effectively in research on our environmental challenges, and what new insights do they offer for management strategies and tools? More funding should be explicitly earmarked for interdisciplinary research that engages the humanities in exploring the underlying values and cultural perceptions that underpin our attempts to achieve ecological sustainability.

Conclusion We as a biological species and as a global society are now sailing into planetary terra incognita. In terms of key environmental parameters, the Earth system has recently moved outside the range of natural variability experienced for the last million years at least. The nature of changes now occurring simultaneously in the Earth system, their magnitudes and rates of change, are unprecedented (Steffen et al. 2004). Australia’s environment will be profoundly affected by global change in ways that are still hard to discern. We must rapidly achieve a much better understanding of Earth system dynamics in our region as a necessary underpinning for managing Australia’s environment proactively and effectively through the 21st century.

References Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind: the Anthropocene. Nature 415, 23. Hibbard KA, Crutzen PJ, Lambin EF et al. (2006) Decadal interactions of humans and the environment. In Integrated History and Future of People on Earth. (Eds R Costanza, L Graumlich and W Steffen) pp 341–375. Dahlem Workshop Report 96. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Summary for policymakers’. IPCC Secretariat, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E et al. (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB et al. (2008) Landscape fluidity: the ebb and flow of organisms through space and time. Manuscript in preparation. McNeill JR (2001) Something New Under the Sun. W.W. Norton, New York and London. Schellnhuber HJ (2002) Coping with Earth System complexity and irregularity. In Challenges of a Changing Earth: Proceedings of the Global Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10–13 July 2001. (Eds W Steffen, J Jäger, D Carson et al.) pp. 151–156. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. Steffen W, Crutzen PJ and McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio 36, 614–621. Steffen W, Sanderson A, Tyson PD et al. (2004) Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. The IGBP Global Change Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

147

WATER Peter Cullen, Mike Young and Jim McColl

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Understand the resource. Set proportional entitlements to consumers and the environment. Rebalance entitlements in over-allocated systems. Allocate water against each entitlement conservatively Create a register of entitlement to give confidence to water trade. Establish a regulated and secure market. Empower an independent environmental water manager. Create a national register in multi-state basins. Develop rigorous regional water plans. Establish performance incentives.

Introduction Sharing the water has never been so challenging, as new demands for environmental restoration and power generation join with urban and irrigation users in seeking water from what now often appears to be a diminishing resource. The situation is serious, with not all demands able to be met, and yet everyone believes they should have the water they need. Rather than expect governments to ban water-hungry crops, we need a system of water allocation that allows farmers and other users to make their own choices in a water market that allows water to move to its highest value uses. The current drought shows that our water management system is not working, and will not cope with the diminishing resource we are facing with climate change. The incremental approach to fixing the problem of the last decade has failed and many important river and wetland systems have been further degraded. Now the economic system in many irrigation areas is also collapsing, as water entitlements that once had a high reliability can no longer be delivered, and many permanent crops are dying. Governments need to fix the mess that they have created by over-allocating water. They need to understand the available water resource, ensure that all entitlements are within the sustainable levels of extraction and give security to those holding entitlements. They need to ensure that a water market allows water to move between users efficiently and with integrity. Sufficient funds are already promised to fix these problems; the knowledge exists as to how to

149

150

Ten Commitments

do so; all that is needed is for governments to work together and not be paralyzed by the shrill calls of interest groups for special treatment. 1. Understand the resource Flying blind and hoping is not a good strategy and we have already shown it doesn’t work. You can’t manage water resources without knowing what they are. While we have a good meteorological network, we have an ageing stream gauging network that has been starved of funds. We have never developed an appropriate groundwater assessment network or a systematic assessment of river health. What is worse, it is hard for the community or even governments to access much of the data that are collected with public funding. The Howard Government committed $480 million to fixing this problem and to give Australia a 21st century water information system that can provide the necessary foundation for water management. As yet, we have no national systematic approach to measuring river and wetland health and yet we need periodic assessments and reports to ensure that environmental water is adequate and used to deliver agreed outcomes. This provides an adaptive management framework to the amount of water entitlements in the consumptive pool and allows for periodic readjustment if necessary. The National Water Commission has developed a National Framework for Assessing River and Wetland Health and this is being trialled in various jurisdictions. What is now needed is a commitment by States to undertake and report on these assessments on a regular basis. 2. Set proportional entitlements to consumers and the environment We realised by the early 1990s that we had over-allocated some of our river systems and began to see degradation of river ecosystem function and erosion of reliability of supply to entitlement holders. Now it seems that streamflow may have dropped to around half what we were accustomed to last century and we need a system that adjusts to future changes as they are experienced by ensuring that both consumptive and environmental entitlements specify a share of available water rather than a set volume. We now also understand that many of our surface and groundwater systems are connected and if we overdraw groundwater that rivers will dry up after a lag of 20–30 years, so surface and groundwater entitlements need to be integrated and managed as a single system. In regulated river systems, the available water resource needs to be allocated by first providing a maintenance amount to cover evaporation and transmission losses as well as some flushing to the sea, and then distributing non-flood inflows to shareholders in the consumptive entitlement pool available to irrigation, industrial and urban communities, and to the environmental entitlement pool. Previous attempts at regional water sharing plans have failed and most have now been suspended since they were based on horsetrading between interest groups rather than the reality of what we face. CSIRO is presently completing a study to identify likely water yields in each MDB catchment. Estimating the sustainable yield requires an assessment of river health. Best available science must be used for each river, and a community discussion as to the sort of environmental outcomes desired needs to inform these shares. However, if all floodwaters are allocated to the river, then an interim default position in over allocated systems should be 80% for consumptive users and 20% for the environmental managers until more river specific studies completed and discussed widely with the communities. 3. Rebalance entitlements in over-allocated systems It is now necessary to reset the whole system so that entitlements and the seasonal allocations bear some resemblance to the new water reality. Incremental recovery of water with massive public subsidy for water infrastructure has been ineffective at recovering water and it is now

Water

time for a step change to fix the system. Governments carry the responsibility for having issued excessive water entitlements and so it is reasonable to compensate at an appropriate level those who lose some entitlement. 4. Allocate water against each entitlement conservatively An independent skill-based system management body is needed to periodically make water allocations against the shares (the entitlement) as water becomes available and both consumptive users and environmental managers will have to make best use of this available water to achieve outcomes and to manage risk. To allow this they need to be permitted to carry over water in storages and to trade water as required. Allocations need to be conservative in that they should be based on actual water, not hoped-for conditions. They should be made uniformly against all entitlements and can be traded by entitlement holders as they see fit. The reason our present water management system has failed is that we have lacked a competent body able to make seasonal allocations of water to entitlement holders within the available resource. Agencies have not understood the sustainable levels of extraction, and even where they have acknowledged over-allocation, have been unable to reduce allocations due to political pressures from those wanting water. An independent authority needs to make these determinations within guidelines set by government in much the same way as an independent Reserve Bank sets interest rates. 5. Create a register of entitlements to give confidence to water trade If we are to use the market to reallocate water between users we need to ensure that both buyers and sellers are confident that the water they are trading actually exists and is owned by the seller. Each State is developing its own water registry at present, in a move reminiscent to the development of railways over 100 years ago, with the result that interstate trade in water will also be slow, expensive and cumbersome. The Federal Government should establish a single national register of water entitlements that would facilitate low cost water trade and give buyers and sellers the security that is presently lacking. 6. Establish a regulated and secure market We need a water market that allows water to move between alternative uses cheaply and easily, either permanently as entitlement or temporarily as seasonal allocations. The market needs to be carefully designed and regulated, much as the Stock Exchange is. This is not the case with the current water market where governments are virtually allowing self-regulation to occur. Those trading water need to be secure in what they are buying and selling, and there may need to be rules to ensure that no individual gets an excessive amount of water. The trading system needs to have hydrological integrity that considers delivery and other losses, so that a buyer and seller know what they are trading, and that the trading will not result in environmental damage. Market rules must include standardised and well-known policies on allocation announcements to ensure that the water market is kept properly informed. 7. Empower an independent environmental water manager It is not good enough to treat environmental water as that left over once entitlement holders have taken what they need. The environmental water needs to be just as secure as any other water entitlement, and be in the hands of responsible environmental managers who are accountable for the wise use of that water and can work with other agencies and catchment authorities to manage other pressures on rivers such as land use, riparian vegetation, infestation of exotics and point source pollution. Environmental Water Managers need to develop regional river

151

152

Ten Commitments

health plans and to utilise available environmental water to achieve the priority outcomes of such plans. Having environmental water under Ministerial control has been shown to be ineffective as those short of water have applied pressure to ensure water not be ‘wasted’ on the environment. This situation caused serious degradation in the Wimmera River in Victoria in 2005–6 when environmental water was held in storage rather than being used when needed to support platypus populations. Others had used their entitlements and pressured the Minister to not release environmental water. 8. Create a national register in multi-state basins Where water resources are shared across State borders, such as the Murray-Darling Basin, different arrangements are needed if we are to avoid endless wrangling. A national register should be developed with bulk entitlements made initially to each State and environmental trusts by assigning them shares in all the available non-flood water once system losses are accounted for. This could be based on existing sharing arrangements or could be renegotiated in the light of the changed circumstances. Periodically the system manager needs to make actual allocations of water against those shares, as water becomes available. We need to ensure appropriate penalties for those governments and individuals who take more than their share. In the absence of appropriate measurement and penalties here is little trust in the present system. Over time, the national register could be expanded to allow individuals the choice of having entitlements registered on a State register or on the national register, thus facilitating interstate trade of water. 9. Develop rigorous regional water plans Regional water plans need to identify the environmental outcomes being sought, and identify the various infrastructure proposals to meet human needs. Where water demands are growing, States should identify a series of augmentation proposals, evaluate them, and rank them in terms of when they may be needed. Identifying particular levels of water storage that act as trigger points when construction of the next water source must commence, as has been done in Sydney, is an excellent approach. All realistic options must be on the table for consideration, accepting that any proposal to augment water supplies will attract an articulate and organised group to oppose the proposal. All options must be examined on technical grounds to see if they might work, on economic grounds, and on environmental grounds. The GHG contribution of each must be assessed, as must the social acceptability. Plans need to be periodically reviewed to assess progress and readjust priorities as needed. 10. Establish performance incentives We have a long history of agreeing on general principles to manage water, but then find many reasons to avoid taking action. The most effective experience to date has been where States received payments under National Competition Policy once reforms had been demonstrated. We should revert to this system rather than believe that ad hoc subsidies to particular infrastructure projects are a useful driver of systematic reform. The Australian Government can drive these and the other reforms enshrined in the National Water Initiative by more judicious use of the funds already made available. Firstly, in recognition that the entire community benefits by good water information, the Federal Government needs to continue to work with States to build a national water data infrastructure system, and should provide funding to States to implement collection of streamflow, groundwater and river health data to agreed standards. Secondly, the Federal Government should get out of subsidising water infrastructure projects. We do not need duplication of bureaucracies assessing projects. If further controls are needed, the Federal Government could require infrastructure to be included in accredited

Water

regional water plans. Substantial funds will be needed by the States to put the reforms in place and the Federal Government should make payments to the States to assist with this, once clearly defined milestones are reached and have been independently assessed and reported on. Some of the milestones will require States to agree with neighboring States and implement common systems before any payments are made.

Conclusions The most severe drought since Federation has been a wake-up call that our approach to sharing water has failed and we have irreversibly degraded many of our iconic river and wetland systems. These sacrifices have not led to economic wealth for many communities who have been deluded about the amount of water available, and have built unsustainable farming systems that are now collapsing. Our new Federal Government needs to confront these new realities and fix the problem rather than just treating the symptoms with handouts. We do not know how our rainfall patterns are changing, but can rebuild our water allocation system giving shares to consumptive users and to the environment, and letting managers get on and use this water to the best effective for its various purposes. A well-designed and regulated market will facilitate movement between users as they judge necessary to achieve their objectives. We have the knowledge and the resources to fix this problem once and for all, but it needs clear thinking and courage to achieve this, rather than just frittering away the funds on cumbersome bureaucratic processes and ill-considered infrastructure projects.

References Anon. (2007) ‘Australian Water Resources 2005’. National Water Commission. Canberra. Anon. (2007) ‘National Water Initiative. First Biennial Assessment of Progress in Implementation’. National Water Commission, Canberra. www.nwc.gov.au CSIRO (2007) ‘Climate Change in Australia. Regional Impacts and Adaptation. Technical Report’. van Dijk A, Evans R, Hairsine P, Khan S, Nathan R, Paydar Z, Viney N and Zhang L (2006) Risks to the shared water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. Part II in a two part series on the shared water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country, Canberra. http://www.mdbc.gov.au/nrm/risks_to_shared_water_resources

153

BIODIVERSITY Hugh P. Possingham

1. Australia needs to invest in biodiversity proportionate to its value. 2. Better prioritisation of biodiversity conservation efforts with respect to both location and type of action. 3. Prevention is better than cure – most of the cost-efficient actions we can take are to stop doing things that cause biodiversity loss rather than curing past mistakes. 4. Strategic large-scale restoration of parts of southern Australia could reduce a huge ‘extinction debt’ – one important action that is not preventative. 5. Complete the National Reserve System (NRS). 6. Invest in long-term monitoring of cleverly chosen aspects of biodiversity and report honestly on how it changes. 7. A large investment in taxonomy is urgently required. 8. Natural resource managers need better training and resources. 9. Conservationists are too conservative: they must embrace new landscapes and radical ideas. 10. State and regional bodies need to take a more experimental approach to whole of landscape management.

Introduction Biodiversity is the diversity of life. It includes the variety of all kinds of organism: animals, plants, fungi, protists and so on. More generally, it is not just the diversity of all these types of organism, but also the diversity of their habitats, the ecosystem processes that enable species to flourish, and the variety within each species – genetic diversity. Australia is one of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries. Taken together, these countries contain more than 70% of the species on the planet (see ‘megadiverse’ section at http://environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/). Not only is Australia remarkably diverse, but a huge fraction of its species occur nowhere else in the world: 45–90% depending which group you are looking at, e.g. birds, mammals, plants. These species are called ‘endemic’. Australia has far more endemic vertebrates (excluding fish) than any other country in the world. Australia has sole responsibility for these endemics, and taken together they amount to about 5% of the world’s diversity. The people of Australia have more per capita responsibility for biodiversity

155

156

Ten Commitments

than any of the other megadiverse countries because of the large number of endemic species and our low human population. Biodiversity is the most important, but underrated, aspect of the environment. The world is likely to lose at least 10–30% of its species over the next few hundred years. Current extinction rates are 100–1000 times normal extinction rates or worse (Pimm et al. 1995). It will take 2–10 million years for this diversity to recover if it is lost. This means that for every person who has ever lived, 10 000 will suffer the consequences of biodiversity loss. Air pollution problems can be solved in years, water problems can be solved in decades, and even climate change can probably be reversed over hundreds of years. Future generations will solve these problems, and will blame us most for millions of years of impoverished biodiversity.

Key issues 1. Australia needs to invest in biodiversity proportionate to its value Biodiversity makes Australia billions of dollars a year and is central to our cultural identity. Australia’s biodiversity directly supports several of our biggest industries: tourism, forestry, agriculture and fisheries. For example, just one species, the koala, has been shown to be worth more than two billion dollars per year to the Australian economy (Hundloe and Hamilton 1997). Good businesses invest in the maintenance of capital assets at around 10–20% of their value. This means we should be investing tens of billions of dollars per year in biodiversity conservation. We are not. This allocation failure by Australian governments partly reflects two common mistakes: we are not good at looking after things we inherited for free, nor are we good at valuing the lives of future generations. It is also partly because we do not have clear and costed conservation plans (see point 2). A final reason for our lack of investment is because we do not have publicly available and credible measures of our biodiversity assets (point 6). Most Australians are well aware of changes in the economy and the weather and urban water storage levels because they are given weekly, monthly and annual reports of the state of these national performance measures. Without credible high-profile measures of the state of biodiversity it will be difficult to engage people and governments. People struggle to be concerned about things that they cannot measure. One of the best, albeit crude, measures of performance we have for biodiversity is the national list of species that are threatened with extinction. This list is very long, and getting longer. 2. Better prioritisation of biodiversity conservation efforts with respect to both the location and type of action The combination of inadequate resources, a large number of threatened species and increasing threats, means that the nation needs to be prudent how it allocates resources. Making smart conservation decisions are even more important when resources are limited (Possingham et al. 2001), yet few if any of our agencies use credible processes for prioritising investment in conservation. We face several problems in the area of prioritisation for biodiversity. First, there is a tendency for governments to spread investment across the continent roughly in proportion to population. This works reasonably well with respect to issues like health and education, where needs are indeed crudely correlated with population, but does not work with respect to biodiversity where the most cost-efficient actions for biodiversity conservation need have little correlation with human population density. The practice of allocating biodiversity funding to states and regional bodies equally, or in proportion to population, is flawed because biodiversity assets and their threats are not correlated with human population. For example, some of the best long-

Biodiversity

term conservation investments need to be made in northern Australia. In these regions, strategic endowed investment in Indigenous Protected Areas, targeted invasive control, sustainable grazing, and fine-scale fire management may secure a large fraction of Australia’s biodiversity very efficiently, yet it is the non-government sector rather than government that is leading the way. One of the few initiatives that attempted to concentrate conservation efforts for the national benefit was the Maintaining Australia’s Biodiversity Hotspots Programme. This clever attempt to focus investment and achieve the biggest biodiversity bang for the dollar invested had a trial investment of $36 million over three years that was recently cut by one-sixth. A credible approach to biodiversity investment at any scale, local, regional or national, must include at least the following steps. First, develop a number of projects that are believed to abate the critical threats for conservation assets of national significance, e.g. threatened species and habitats. Assess these projects on three criteria: L

L L

the biodiversity benefit they will deliver, in the long-term, above and beyond what would have otherwise occurred, the probability that they will succeed, and their long-term discounted cost.

The net expected efficiency of each project is the biodiversity benefit times the probability of success divided by the cost (Possingham et al. 2002). Decision-making agencies that do not use this approach leave themselves open to inefficiencies and manipulation. The Victorian Bush Tender approach (see http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/), and subsequent programs, represent one of the few cases where this kind of economically credible and rigorous conceptual framework is applied. The failure of agencies to adopt these approaches is a lot to do with inadequate professionalism in the natural resource management sector (McDonald 2006, see point 8 below). 3. Prevention is better than cure While proper prioritisation is critical, one thing that we can say that is almost always true is that prevention is better than cure in applied conservation. This argument is supported by analyses of national scale conservation actions presented to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in 2002 (Possingham et al. 2002). In that Report we showed that preventative actions, like stopping land clearing, protecting northern rivers, and reducing the rate of invasion of new species, was many times more efficient than the corresponding cures: land restoration, buying back water allocations and riparian rights, and eradicating species that have already arrived. Indeed we are not even sure that some of the cures will ever work – for example, very few weed species have ever been successfully eradicated from Australia, although some have been contained. A great deal of Australia’s conservation effort is going into cure. The huge expenditure on habitat restoration, which we shall discuss next in point 4, is extremely expensive. Restoring a cleared and cropped hectare of habitat to a state close to (but certainly not the same as) the original costs at least $10 000. This is far more than the cost of land over most of Australia. These facts, and the realisation that over-clearing in south-western Australia, South Australia and Victoria had, has, and will have huge economic costs, finally led all Australian states to call a halt to broadscale land clearing. History will show that these were the most important decisions Australia will ever take for biodiversity conservation. However, remarkably, we are still destroying valuable habitat and taking actions that will cost us more money than they make. Three areas where we need to stop taking stupid actions are: clearing high quality vegetation for urban expansion and infrastructure, introducing and spreading species of plant for

157

158

Ten Commitments

horticulture and agriculture, and inadequate controls over invasive freshwater fish and plants. While I acknowledge that the expansion of cities is unstoppable, a ‘no net habitat loss’ policy and biodiversity banking is one way of minimising the impact on biodiversity. New South Wales has initiated a potentially useful policy in this area and similar efforts need to occur across the nation. With respect to invasive species the problems are known and government needs to increase its commitment to firm action and policy on introductions and biosecurity (Australian Biosecurity Group 2005). 4. Strategic large-scale restoration of parts of southern Australia could reduce a huge ‘extinction debt’ If we remove 90% of the habitat in an area, then about 50% of the species that depend on natural habitats will disappear, in the long-term. This is one of the few fundamental rules of ecology founded in the theory of island biogeography and species area relationships. The key qualifier is ‘in the long-term’. Consider, for example, the Mount Lofty Ranges. This is an isolated area of 500 000 ha of wetter forests that once contained about 120 species of terrestrial bird (Possingham et al. 2001). Around 65 000 ha remain, most of which was fully protected by 1990. Theory suggests about 50 species should disappear, but only eight have. The gap is what ecologists call the ‘extinction debt’. Wise restoration of critical habitats and threat abatement, could reduce this debt to just a few species and the time lag between clearing and extinction gives us the opportunity to recover some of the extinction debt. So while in general cure is not cost efficient compared to prevention, we need to look to key areas where the extinction debt can be paid back. Large scale restoration projects are the latest fad in Australian conservation. Projects like Gondwanalink, Alps to Atherton, Habitat 141 and others, promise to restore largely degraded areas with linkages that create continental scale connectivity. While connectivity has been the key to these projects, rather than recovering the extinction debt, some of these projects do provide real focus for preventing further extinctions in parts of southern Australia. The problem, however, is that there has been no critical prioritisation of where to place these linkages that includes a full assessment of the ecological, social and economic costs and benefits. Such an analysis is overdue. 5. Complete the National Reserve System A system of protected areas is the cornerstone of every country’s efforts to conserve biodiversity. Given the profit Australia makes from biodiversity, it is reasonable to expect that a minimum of 10% of every kind of marine, freshwater and terrestrial habitat is primarily managed for biodiversity. We have failed to meet this objective, and the public and governments have a poor understanding of the principles of reserve system design. The most important principles of a good reserve system are that it is comprehensive and efficient. Let us discuss these briefly and then see what needs to be done. A comprehensive reserve system is one that includes an even sample of every type of habitat. So while just over 10% of Australia is in a protected area, the majority of habitats are not protected at a 10% level. This is because we have prefered to conserve cheap and worthless land (Pressey 1994). The habitats that are not favoured for development are well represented in the reserve system (salt lakes, mountain tops, deserts) and cost us money to manage. Future investments in protected areas must be targeted at the high quality management of habitats that are absent from, or poorly represented, in the existing network. This is precisely the intent of the National Reserve Systems programme which is funded at less than $10 million per annum, but needs $50 million per annum if Australia is to meet its international commit-

Biodiversity

ments with respect to building its network of protected areas (Sattler and Taylor 2008, see also http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/building-natures-safety-net/). Fortunately, and while this paper was being written, the Government appears to have made the necessary investment to acquire, although not necessarily manage, a significantly expanded National Reserve System. The need to build a reserve system that underpins whole of landscape biodiversity conservation is as true for the sea as it is for the land. While the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was a world-class example of comprehensive and efficient conservation planning, the recent rezoning of Australia’s Commonwealth waters in south-eastern Australia represents a very poor example (Fernandes et al. 2005). That rezoning conserved about 20% of the seascape but did not fulfill basic conservation planning principles because it concentrated on areas of no interest for extractive users (the worthless ‘land’ approach again, Pressey 1994). Hence most of the coastal shelf habitat was very poorly protected. Finally, our efforts to build a freshwater conservation reserve system are in their infancy. A well-designed national reserve system would integrate the terrestrial, freshwater and marine reserve networks. 6. Invest in long-term monitoring of cleverly chosen aspects of biodiversity and report honestly on how it changes As we have shown above, Australia’s investment in biodiversity is inadequate and not particularly smart. However, despite those problems, the public probably want to know how Australia’s biodiversity is faring and if the investment we have made is working. At present we have no idea. Australia’s state of the environment reporting on biodiversity is vague at best. Australia needs an annual set of national environmental accounts and these must include biodiversity. Why haven’t we got broad-scale credible and repeated sampling of Australia’s biodiversity? First, to do it well, would be impossible. Consistent, credible, cheap and independent reporting on the state of Australia’s biodiversity requires us to make some decisive leadership about what to measure and a commitment to measure those things forever. This may all seem too hard, but the United Kingdom has committed to report annually on a suite of national indicators of which twelve are natural resources, including several metrics related to biodiversity: bird populations, fish stocks, priority species and priority habitats (see http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/national/index.htm). A small suite of biodiversity indicators measured properly, and as part of broader national environmental accounts, will provide us with the ‘Dow Jones’ of Australian biodiversity in that it would be meaningful to the public. Without such indicators, at national and regional scales our investments in the environment provide only vague and nebulous outcomes that do not provide the investors, the Australian public, with much confidence. And why would we expect the Australian public to invest in something where the return on their investment is at best highly uncertain, and at worst unknown? 7. A large investment in taxonomy is urgently required Australia has a small and generally ageing group of scientists in charge of discovering and classifying new species. The single enabling science that biodiversity conservation must have is taxonomy. Knowing what we have, that is, identifying biodiversity infrastructure, is a critical step in its conservation. Much has already been written about the global and Australian crisis in taxonomy. It is time now to invest in more long-term careers for staff in our museums, herbaria and tertiary institutions in this field.

159

160

Ten Commitments

8. Natural resource managers need better training and resources Natural resource managers probably have the most important jobs for the long-term future of the country, yet are poorly paid and trained. It seems ironic that health professionals, who are among the most highly-paid workers in the country, solve short-term problems for individual people. Engineers, who are almost as well remunerated, solve slightly larger-scale problems that impact on society for many years, sometimes decades. Natural resource managers make decisions over huge landscapes, that affect thousands of people now and millions more over many generations. Despite this, they often have only a three year degree, are poorly remunerated, and are employed on short-term contracts. A good natural resource manager needs training in not just the natural sciences, including ecology, water, soils and chemistry, but a sound grasp of statistics, the philosophy of evidence, management, public policy and economics. Australia urgently needs to upgrade the qualifications of its natural resource managers to include these higher level skills. It also needs to provide its existing policy makers and managers time to become familiar with the recent and rapid changes to fields like conservation biology. This will not happen unless we provide better salaries, opportunities for skill development, and demand higher qualifications. 9. Conservationists are too conservative: they must embrace new landscapes and radical ideas The prevailing paradigm for Australian conservation has invariably been to put things back exactly the way they were, which means before Europeans invaded. The spectre of climate change means that we are having to contend with a rapidly changing world. Many scientists believe that climate change is a major threat to biodiversity and that species restricted to islands of habitat, whether naturally or unnaturally, will not be able to adapt or respond to a changing climate. Whether or not climate change is a major driver of biodiversity loss of not, the fact remains that the landscape is changing quickly and an obsession with returning Australia to some point 250 years ago is unrealistic. We need new, more flexible paradigms of conservation; paradigms that are less conservative. Many threatened species live in habitats created by Europeans and new habitats are being made as Australian and introduced species move rapidly across the landscape. While there must be a major attempt to conserve samples of pre-European habitats, in much of the landscape we need to think about new habitats that are being partially used to sustain human livelihoods and partially there to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Making cities, agriculture and unnatural wetlands biodiversity-friendly is what the Europeans have been doing for hundreds of years, but we have only just begun. Governments should provide more incentives, both financial and non-financial, for biodiverse production landscapes. 10. State and regional bodies need to take a more experimental approach to whole of landscape management Lack of knowledge is no reason to delay action with respect to biodiversity conservation. In most cases we know enough to make reasonable decisions about threatened species management, habitat restoration and whether or not to introduce new species. However, classical small plot ecological science and natural history observations cannot provide all the answers we need to deliver conservation at a landscape scale. The effect of some landscape-scale activities are uncertain and require an active adaptive management approach to landscape management. Active adaptive management is management with a plan for learning. Rigorous examples are rare, even in the theoretical literature (McCarthy and Possingham 2007). The key is this: to learn at the landscape scale, we must try different things in different landscapes. This is diffi-

Biodiversity

cult because exactly how we manage landscapes is generally a subject of fashion. For example, Australia has had a recent love affair with corridors that reconnect landscapes. While connectivity is useful, it seems no-one asked whether it would have been better to have corridors or new patches of habitat, or make existing patches bigger. We don’t know the answer to questions such as these, and the only way forward is landscape-scale experiments monitored over decades. Indeed there are many suggestions in this chapter, and other chapters in this book, that are amenable to active adaptive management, the science of learning by doing. A bold vision like this must be coordinated at the national level and requires leadership in the government environment agencies.

Conclusion This chapter provides not just a suite of independent suggestions, but a suite of interdependent actions that would provide a first step in reducing the rate at which Australia’s biodiversity is being lost. For example, good natural resource management requires better taxonomy, more investment, better trained professionals and hence more professional prioritisation of actions. Ultimately this is what I believe the Natural Heritage Trust was meant to deliver. It may well do so, but only after substantive reform, a bigger investment, and a longer-term vision and commitment to performance evaluation.

Acknowledgements This paper has benefited from past work and the shared ideas of innumerable colleagues: David Lindenmayer, Mark Burgman, Drew Tyre, Brendan Wintle, Kerrie Wilson, Peter Kareiva, Bill Murdoch, Mick McCarthy, Simon Linke, Martin Taylor and Bob Pressey, to name but a representative sample. The time to enable me to think and write was funded by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship, several other ARC grants and a Commonwealth Environmental Research Facility hub grant to AEDA (Applied Environmental Decision Analysis).

References Australian Biosecurity Group (2005) ‘Invasive Weeds, Pests and Diseases: Solutions to Secure Australia’. CRC for Pest Animal Control, CRC for Australian Weed Management and WWF-Australia, Canberra. http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/ABGInvasiveSolutions/ Fernandes L et al. (2005). Establishing representative no-take areas on the Great Barrier Reef: Large-scale implementation of theory on protected areas. Conservation Biology 19, 1733–1744. Hundloe T and Hamilton C (1997) ‘Koalas and tourism: an economic evaluation’. Discussion paper 13. The Australia Institute, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. McCarthy MA and Possingham HP (2007) Active adaptive management for conservation. Conservation Biology 21, 956–963. McDonald T (2006) Tools for change: Interview with Hugh Possingham. Ecological Management & Restoration 7, 169–172. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL and Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350. Possingham HP and Field SA (2000) Regional bird extinctions and their implications for vegetation clearance policy. Lifelines 7, 15–16.

161

162

Ten Commitments

Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Noon BR, Trombulak S and Pulliam HR (2001) Making smart conservation decisions. In Research Priorities for Conservation Biology. (Eds G Orians and M Soule) pp. 225–244. Island Press, Washington DC. Possingham HP, Ryan S, Baxter J and Morton SR (2002). ‘Setting biodiversity priorities’. A paper prepared as part of the activities of the working group producing the report ‘Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity’ for the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in 2002. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_ innovation/science_agencies_committees/prime_ministers_science_engineering_ innovation_council/meetings/eighth_meeting.htm Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations – forward or backwards steps in developing representative reserve systems. Conservation Biology 8, 662–668. Sattler P and Taylor M (2008) Building Nature’s Safety Net 2008. Progress on the Directions for the National Reserve System. http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/building-naturessafety-net/.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR Max Bourke

1. Create a clear roadmap agreed by scientists giving an accurate picture of what Australian biodiversity will look like at set periods in the future. 2. Enlist a credible figure to condense the scientific information, translate it into a political action agenda, and sell it to politicians and the public. 3. Explain how loss of biodiversity represents an acute example of market failure. 4. Remove any remaining negative incentives in tax, planning, land allocation and administration that encourage environmental harm on private land. 5. Review all Federal, State and local government laws that might be used to encourage private investment and management of land for improved environmental outcomes. 6. Instigate market pricing for commodities like water beside emission trading schemes. Resulting funds to be used for biodiversity investment. 7. Use the tax system to encourage biodiversity investment or introduce forms of ‘green bonds’. 8. Ensure that the philanthropic ‘system’ investing in good environmental outcomes and providing innovation and leverage for public sector funds, continues. 9. Find urgent ways to cross-pollinate the private and public/academia sectors NOW. 10. If all else fails, try an ‘environmental levy’.

Introduction Scientists write books and papers, public servants hold seminars and publish pamphlets on behalf of governments while environmental lobby groups hang around in koala suits, but still the species keep disappearing. Meanwhile the private sector keeps maximising opportunities, within the existing laws, for the most part. In the Australian polity of a mixed economy in a democratic state, engagement of the private sector (both white and Indigenous land owners) will be crucial if we are to see improved biodiversity conservation and resources managed in an ecologically sustainable way. The core issues, from the point of view of the private sector, include a persuasive and reputable case for what needs to be done. Lindenmayer and Hobbs (2007) offer a step in the right direction. But the differences in opinion that arose from the multiple contributors of that book shows that developing a consensus of views still has some way to go. A second core issue is to 163

164

Ten Commitments

ensure that the case made must be conveyed in a way which inspires public action and private investment and innovation. Third, clever ‘inducements’ to action, legislative, tax and exemplary leadership from philanthropy will all be needed.

Key issues 1. A consensus on the state of the environment and in particular its biodiversity The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, the Australian State of the Environment Report and the National Land and Water Audit are all steps in the right direction, but we need a clear, focused and Australian statement, free of political filtering, signed off by a majority of reputable scientists to lay out the biodiversity situation just as was done by the IPCC signatories. This is a platform for public and private action. A scientist of considerable stature from CSIRO or a university should convene such a process. 2. Find the ‘Al Gore clone’ The Wentworth Group has made some progress but not nearly enough and not with enough urgency. The ‘agenda’ from Item 1 must be sold to the public and the political classes just as relentlessly as climate change was by Al Gore over a long period. A charismatic speaker not overtly politically connected would be ideal. 3. Address issues of market failure Over 70% of Australia is privately owned and managed. This is not going to change significantly. Who ‘manages our landscapes’ and therefore the bulk of our biodiversity? In the private sector, it is largely farmers and graziers. Statistically they are getting older, their farms are getting larger or they go broke. Farmers’ terms of trade have been declining for 100 years. Efficiencies of production have markedly improved and been adopted rapidly in this sector, which requires larger operations. Larger operations, if profitable, can, but do not necessarily ‘carry’ better environmental management. Intensification of agriculture, where possible and where soils and water are available, has been significant. But this still leaves increasing areas of land with little possibility of improving returns (often less than 2% return on investment) in a drying landscape, a recipe for increased environmental damage. Shareholders and regulators both need to ensure they do what they can to encourage better environmental management, which is certainly being done in some places. Larger private and publicly owned agribusinesses have the potential to bring younger, well educated managers into the rural environment. There is also recruitment of people into the rural landscapes, in a wave of ‘sea/tree changers’, who bring both upside and downside to the rural environment, from increasing numbers of small holdings. Many of these people ‘value’ the rural landscape, the reason they want to live there, but their footprint is often serious in terms of landscape effects. Some fantasies about ‘shifting agriculture to the north’ seem to have ignored the 100+ years of trying, with some success and some serious failures, to do just this. Ancient fragile soils of low fertility like laterites commonly occur and our dry tropics are particularly hot (unless we totally change our diets most of the crops we eat cannot grow there) making this a dubious economic proposition and possibly a disastrous environmental proposition. The National Farmers Federation and a Commonwealth body like the Department of Agriculture working with an appropriate research institution could do this. 4. Remove any remaining perverse incentives Throughout the Australian jurisdictions are two centuries of inbuilt encouragement and legal support for the land management systems we now have. Many of these need to be closely

The private sector

examined to ensure they now ‘fit’ our need to conserve biodiversity rather than facilitate, even accidentally, its destruction. The Productivity Commission could do this. 5. Actively review all Federal, State and local government laws and practices For over 100 years we have had legislation protecting flora and fauna and natural landscapes, aimed at curbing soil erosion, preventing invasive species and protecting waterways and fisheries. By any biodiversity yardstick, the command and control approach has, at best, been palliative. At worst it has been a waste of time and money. For generations, Australians have tried to position environmental issues as ‘the Government’s responsibility’ and this has infected the thinking of the public and academic sectors to an extent that they frequently cannot imagine otherwise. In the public sector, the land management is largely in the hands of both parks and forestry services. For the best part of a decade, additions to these estates, while not large, have been offset by reducing the management inputs, particularly staffing. Accordingly, informed observers argue that many of the conservation/biodiversity values of this estate are declining. In any case, much of the estate in public ownership misses strategically important sites for biodiversity conservation. The private business sector and individuals must feel confident that the governments are pulling their weight in this task too. Federal and State Attorneys General working with their respective land management agencies could do this. 6. Market pricing The private sector, and private individuals, though often unintentionally, have been a major cause of environmental degradation; they must be central to environmental repair. To develop the rhetoric for this there must be dialogue between conservation biologists and researchers and writers in the field of economics. The discourse of economics is much better understood by the private sector than that of the ecological sciences. Work has been done on ecosystem services but much of it seems like wishful thinking to the private sector. Boyd and Banzhaf (2006) document the fundamental need to come up with an accepted definition of ‘environmental services’ before any regular market can develop. They argue: The problem with ecosystem service markets is that the market itself does not define the units of trade (whereas conventional markets do). Instead, units of trade and compensation have to be defined by governments, governments being the trustees of environmental quality. This is a point often missed by advocates of trade in ecosystem services. In a conventional market, the buyer is concerned selfishly about the quality of the ‘unit’ they buy. In an ecosystem market, the environmental good is a public good and the buyer is therefore indifferent to its quality. A well-written book by the American academic Geoffrey Heal (2000) explores a range of ideas and concepts in this field and interrelates it to the workings of the economy in ways that the private sector can understand. The key problem with this book, and sadly mirrored in much Australian discussion of this subject, is that it has not deeply thought about the ‘sustainability’ of subsidy from the public purse. Many of the proponents of ‘ecosystem services’ seem to think a subsidy scheme from the tax system is viable (which it may be in the shortterm), but it is hard to imagine it surviving politically in the long-term, which is what is required. There is not enough money to waste it and not enough time to make the wrong call. Hugh Possingham and his team have published widely on ways investment in nature conservation might be optimised and have focused on highlighting how private investment might get more ‘bangs for the bucks’, which is a good start. This now has to have input from both the National Farmers’ Federation.

165

166

Ten Commitments

7. Use the tax system A recent attempt by Paul Martin to develop novel concepts for private sector investment in nature conservation for Land and Water Australia is also good start. But the proposals outlined are not sufficiently structured to attract strong private sector investment and there may need to be a ‘soft money’ incentive to make them more palatable to the market place in order to work. 8. The philanthropic ‘system’ In the last five years through not-for-profits like The Nature Conservancy, Bush Heritage Australia, Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Greening Australia, Trust for Nature Birds Australia and others, hundreds of thousands of hectares have been acquired and some tens of millions of dollars spent on biodiversity conservation. This has come from concerned individuals and the corporate sectors. But it is still not enough. Private individuals are now beginning to respond to the challenges of climate change (rainwater tanks, hybrid cars, low energy light bulbs). In the same way, they must be encouraged to see that their ‘private’ investments in food, shelter and clothing all have environmental footprints and should be encouraged to re-think those purchasing decisions. Those who do not like cotton farming or rice growing can hardly confront a cotton grower while wearing cotton underpants or a rice grower while eating a bowl of rice, and complain. The parallel with climate change is that market signals (prices of fuel) and public exhortation (An Inconvenient Truth) have produced some behavioural changes. We have to find ways to do the same with biodiversity conservation. Solving biodiversity loss, just as with climate change, will need multiple solutions at varying scales. The difficulties will be greater than those involved in climate change. Indeed we have to recognise that climate change is ‘just’ another factor in biodiversity loss. This will be hard to convey to the public. The danger in trying to inform the public of the issues and thereby change the private management of land is that they seem too complex to comprehend. But then that was once true of climate change. There is also the issue of ‘two cultures’, the divide between private and public sector views of the world. There must be a meeting place for all those wanting to reshape the environment. For example, have many of the authors of this publication ever worked outside the public sector/ academia or been entrepreneurs in the private sector? Is it that the risk takers, the environment ‘changers’, those prepared to put their money where their mouth is largely have to work in the private sector, and those who have ‘prescriptions for how to save the environment’ largely live off wealth created by others? What do we do about bringing these disparate world views into agreement or some form of consensus? There is already evidence that both small and large scale philanthropists are prepared to invest in improving the management of Australia’s biodiversity. Rob McLean, the Chairman of The Nature Conservancy’s Advisory Board and highly experienced in private sector critical thinking, has been exploring innovative ways for engaging private investors. 9. Find urgent ways to cross-pollinate sectors Occasional great collaborations like Landcare stand out as beacons of what might be done. But it is not enough and not urgent enough. There are many examples of private individuals not only making sacrifices, but finding clever ways of remaining profitable and giving good environmental outcomes. Individual land owners and managers scattered lightly around the country have either managed their land well or undertaken important steps towards restoration of biodiversity values. But we need much more and soon. The sixth wave of extinctions, the human-induced one, is upon us. Conservation biologists debating ways to optimise biodiversity reserve design need to give us a hard prescription and quickly.

The private sector

10. An ‘environmental levy’ There are obvious equity issues in aligning private and social costs. But if this issue is incapable of a rapid form of solution by any of the other methods suggested above it may be called for. Something akin to the Medicare levy might be tried, although one should be aware that all levies are not seen to be economically efficient and some are inequitable. However, the ecosystem we live in seems to be the only one available. This could only be brought about by political action if all else fails.

References An excellent summary of the global situation with connections to other references can be found at www.nature.org, see ‘Mind the Gap’. Boyd J and Banzhaf S (2006) ‘What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units.’ Discussion paper. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-06-02.pdf (accessed February 2008). Heal G (2000) Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington DC. Lindenmayer DB and Hobbs RJ (2007) Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation: Moving from Perspectives to Principles. Blackwell, Melbourne.

167

POPULATION Barney Foran and Nicole Gurran

1. Define new indicators of prosperity to decouple the links between ‘population growth’ and ‘GDP growth’ in the national accounts. 2. Tax carbon, water and land disturbance content of personal consumption and allocate those monies specifically for environmental remediation and ecosystem renewal. 3. Articulate a national population policy for a stable population size from 2050 on of 25–27 million people. 4. Equalise the size of age classes via immigration and birthing policies to help balance opportunity for young dependents, younger workers, mature workers and older dependents. 5. Increase the aid budget for countries in Australia’s neighbourhood to help create reasonable opportunity and lifestyle for all. 6. Relieve the environmental and housing affordability pressures from capital cities by investing in the (re)creation of viable regional centres. 7. Link regional and capital cities through new investment in high speed and clean forms of transportation and communication technology. 8. Concentrate housing within city and regional centres to create human-scale density with sufficient critical mass to support a range of services and economic diversity. 9. Limit overall settlement growth to maintain internal local and regional capacity to provide high order energy, water and ecosystem services. 10. Insist on the most innovative, climate appropriate and carbon neutral forms of technology in urban and building design via appropriate local planning controls.

Introduction Ironically, some of the fathers of modern economics were the first to voice their concerns about the resource or environmental dangers inherent in rampant population growth. Scholarly journals now cite Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population of 1798 as the first in a long line of publications by incompetent economists or ecological pessimists (Malthus, Wallace, Jevons, Caton, Ehrlich, Diamond) who were blind to human innovation and its capacity to support the growing number and affluence of the world’s peoples (Tainter 2006). On the propopulation team were Malthus’s long-time critic, the Marquis de Condorcet, and in more recent 169

170

Ten Commitments

debates, the economist Julian Simon has been fierce critic of Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb. Simon’s own book The Ultimate Resource, advocated that increased populations represent the ultimate solution for, rather than the cause of, any environmental problems. Times move on and the population issue has become more complex. Even as Malthus saw in the New Year of 1800, globalised trade was in full-flight allowing colonisation, warfare and trade in manufactured goods to source food and raw materials when domestic supplies became constrained. Nation states could thus escape the physical limits imposed by their domestic borders. Most advantageous for population growth was the German industrial innovation at the start of the 20th century, which fixed atmospheric nitrogen. This allowed agricultural production systems to escape the natural nitrogen cycle central to dietary protein production. Vaclav Smil’s book, Enriching The Earth argues that without this industrial process, the global population size would not have expanded beyond 3 billion people, being limited by organic agriculture and natural cycling processes (Smil 2004). Notwithstanding a national commitment to populate or perish, Australian studies on a numerate underpinning of population size and possible limits were few. Thomas Griffith Taylor, a geographer at Sydney University, proposed in the 1920s that environmental determinism would limit Australia’s population to around 20 million by the end of the 20th century. A variable immigration program for most of that century allowed population to grow in advance of natural increase. Only in the 1970s, and in tune with an emerging global environmental movement, did Australian science begin to link population with environment from the perspective of pollution and resource constraints. Reports and conferences multiplied almost as fast as human population itself during the period 1990 to early 2000s as pro- and antigrowth lobbies matched concerns on resource depletion, environmental degradation, economic growth prospects and social cohesion (Jones 1997; Cocks 1996). The Future Dilemmas Report, using a long-term scientific perspective, arraigned high, medium and low growth options against future inconsistencies for physical trade, population ageing, GHG emissions, material flows, resource depletion and environmental quality (Foran and Poldy 2002). In the last five years the population debate has been largely dormant in both policy and media. This debate should only be embraced by consenting adults as it harbours the best and worst of human intentions. The simple ‘best intention’ arguments have caring humanists and reputable economists pitted against reputable environmentalists. The reputable economist knows that more people drive increased economic activity, creating a bigger cake, and eventually providing more cake for everyone, if the cake is distributed equitably. The reputable environmentalist knows that Australia has poor soils, scant rainfall, opportunistic agriculture, a degrading environment and was peopled for 50 000 years by no more than 1 million Aboriginal people whose permanent settlements were spasmodic, and whose footprints were the lightest imaginable. The caring humanist sees space, potential for widespread affluence, the benefits of multiculturalism, refugees rescued from a tide of human misery, and asserts that Australia can offer safe harbour for more than just the lucky few. The simple ‘worst intention’ argument brings together pressured policy makers, property developers, industrialists who rely on per capita churn and closet racists, to infuse their personal requirements within the trappings of many ‘best intention’ arguments. The rise and crash of politically motivated racism through the One Nation Party years revealed a disquiet about the downside of progress felt most keenly by some regional communities. The same concerns, mostly headlined by immigration policies, are repeated in some European elections where nationalist sentiments embrace racist overtones to win electoral support. The ’bigger is better’ position, frequently posing as national leadership, emerges from media owners, project builders and recycling kings who ‘make brass from muck’ and so are financially advantaged by

Population

larger populations and per capita consumption. The most recent example was the 30/50 Report (30 million people by 2050) supported by the Scanlon Foundation whose mission statement is ‘to support the creation of a larger cohesive Australian society’ (ATSE 2007). So where did the theory go wrong? Humankind’s activities and affluence growth are now consuming the Earth, of this there is no doubt. Having moved beyond local and regional impacts, human activities now threaten global functioning. This is shown by atmosphere and global climate change, biodiversity extinction rates, fresh water quality and quantity. Many global indicators including hunger, poverty, slum dwellers, educational attainment, disease and human misery tell a story of many unhappy endings. Today’s affluent Australia presents a mixed picture of this global condition. We sit at the top of environmental rankings for per capita GHG emissions, mammal extinctions and stressed river systems. Human habitats in our urban and regional areas give a mixed picture of some things done to best practice standards, and others done appallingly. Facing this failure of human ingenuity requires that the human population and its appetite to consume must once again become the concerted focus of national and local policy and action. The national question must be asked: ‘what should the population of Australia be, for the good of its citizens, but also for the good of humanity?’ At a local level, human settlements must now be designed to minimise global impact and built to sustain their occupant’s well being for centuries. The following 10 points detail what Australia should do about human population. The first five are macro-level for consideration and action at a national level. The second five look at how we can manage these populations at regional and local scales.

Key issues 1. Decoupling population growth from economic growth Driving economic growth through raw population growth is all that remains when developed economies lose intellectual advantage and watch their complex problem-solving skills migrate to smarter and/or low wage countries. This first point advocates a revamping of national accounting standards so that measures such as GDP growth rate are not over-estimated by raw population growth rates and new housing starts. The international system of national accounts (SNA) retains a convention that overstates or double counts the contribution that domestic housing makes to the measure of gross domestic product (GDP) or its state equivalent (GSP). The accounting convention applies a fair market rental (as a measure of value adding) to fully owned and mortgaged housing, as well as houses that are leased or rented. Realistically, the owned and mortgaged houses make their contribution through the financing, maintenance and home furnishing sectors. The over-counting means that the ‘ownership of houses’ sector is the largest in the economy, twice the size of its nearest competitors in the value adding stakes, wholesale trade and health services. The National Treasurer or State Premier requiring good growth rates can see them magically unfurl, provided that population grows and requires new houses. This covert multiplier gives a double whammy for GDP figures because new housing (the taps, tubs and tiles economy) has a high multiplier or knock-on effect through production chains and therefore local employment. It is almost the original Magic Pudding. 2. Tax the environmental content of personal consumption Personal consumption drives economic productivity but we suggest that consumers should now pay an environmental price for their consumption decisions. Until now, from the point of

171

Ten Commitments

35 Greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes/capita)

172

WA SA

30

NT Qld

25

ACT NSW

20

Vic Tas

15 10 $10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

Annual per-capita income Figure 5: A graph of per capita income versus the per capita GHG emissions embodied in the yearly consumption activities for each suburb and shire in Australia (Dey et al. 2007).

view of the consumer, most environmental resources, be they inputs to production or places to void waste, have been perceived as almost free. The relationship between personal consumption and its full environmental impact has long been clouded by selective data analysis and untested hypotheses such as the environmental Kuznets curve (which suggests that richer people impact less). When the relationship between consumption spending and its full impact through the production chain is fully analysed, it reveals that big spenders create the biggest impacts (Figure 5). Relating GHG emissions embodied in per capita earning and spending reveals two important issues. The first is a linear relationship between earning and impact with the most affluent having twice the impact of the least impact, i.e. 30–34 tonnes of emissions versus 14–15 tonnes. The second is the spread of emissions volume for any one income level, e.g. for an income of $20 000 greenhouse emissions range from 17–28 tonnes per capita. This describes firstly a difference in consumption choice, and secondly, the production mixes from the different states, e.g. Tasmania is lowest because it is firstly poorest but also uses mostly hydroelectricity. Similar relationships are evident for embodied water use and embodied land disturbance, the latter being a strong proxy for biodiversity loss. Any nationwide response is further complicated by interactions between population growth and economic growth. A new data set for Figure 5 produced a decade from now will have changed in two ways. First, total population size will have grown by at least 2 million people giving an extra 40 million tonnes of GHG emissions at today’s mean per capita value. Secondly, economic growth and increased consumption will see each point in Figure 5 move up by at least three tonnes per capita giving an extra 60 million tonnes. So, in 10 years, the combination of population growth and consumption growth will raise the consumption-based contribution to GHG emissions by 100 million tonnes. Therein lies the environmental risk of combining population growth and consumption growth.

Population

The solution lies in economic instruments (e.g. an environmentally-weighted GST) that put a price on the content of carbon, water and land disturbance for each consumption good and service. This imposes a market penalty or consumer discomfort for items with a high carbon, water and land content, and accelerates the consumer change necessary for fluent and fair free market function. The environmental taxes raised must be promised or hypothecated to environmental refurbishment (see point 10). 3. Stabilise population number by 2050 Stabilising population size by 2050 will be necessary to cap levels of personal consumption as we change to an economic structure with low GHG emissions, resilient water, land and biodiversity resources while constructing enduring human settlements. This point acknowledges that the physical dimensions of ‘growth forever’ are no longer possible globally, even though Australia might endure for another century under the current paradigm. It accepts the need for interim population growth (another 4–6 million people by 2050) for four reasons. The first is to spur the construction and refurbishment of resilient human settlements (see Points 6–10 below). The second is to maintain or increase our international obligations for refugee resettlement. The third is slowly and surely balance the age distribution of demographic groups (see point 4 below). The fourth is to help maintain economic stimulus and social optimism as the economy restructures substantially over two human generations. Proposing 25–27 million people as a target cannot be proven in a traditional scientific sense. However its feasibility is well documented in many thousands of whole-economy simulations underpinning the Future Dilemmas Report (Foran and Poldy 2002). Reaching feasible solutions requires reasonable demographic assumptions to be successfully intertwined with aggressive technological innovation, which is in turn matched with infrastructure turnover rates avoiding wasted assets and not bankrupting the nation, although many of today’s industries and activities might reduce in size or disappear. Articulating a national population policy and establishing pathways for implementation will not be without challenge. At the very least it requires strong leadership and a re-invigoration of Federal Government involvement in urban and regional development (see points 6 and 7). 4. Balance population age classes This aims to relieve the social and infrastructure tensions driven by lumps and troughs in the structure of national demography. It provides a relatively balanced age structure through a complex mix of immigration and birthing policies. While this is impossible in an exact sense, it seeks reasonably equal numbers of people for each functional group of society to improve intergenerational cohesion and reduce aspirational envy. This balancing nests within the requirement for a stabilised population number by 2050 articulated within the context of a national population policy (see point 3). The societal groups loosely put are: younger dependents, younger workers, mature workers and older dependents. Equity and opportunity within and between all groups should be a measure of a just and civil society Equalising the structure within a stabilised size brings four advantages. Firstly, equalisation bounds population policies, be they pro-natal or immigration ones, with a long-term strategic role rather than short-term economic pump priming. Secondly, it aims to avoid baby booms which in developing countries such as East Timor and the Solomon Islands result in too many young people with too few opportunities. Conversely, we need to avoid the ageing and declining populations of Japan, Italy and Spain caused by protracted low fertility. Thirdly, some foreknowledge of infrastructure requirements gives the ability to decentralise, link concentrate and limit (see points 6–9 below) to provide the societal structure that will endure for

173

174

Ten Commitments

centuries. Fourthly, it may help reduce the circle of inequity and the envy now emerging between our generations. 5. Develop opportunity in Australia’s near neighbours We should extend our current obligations to our near neighbours while acknowledging that Australia alone cannot reduce global poverty and inequity. Australia’s affluent lifestyle is a beacon to countries that surround us, yet environmental reality asserts that ours cannot be shared by all, particularly in the future. To achieve equitable opportunities and lifestyles across all countries, Australian affluence may have to reduce by up to 80% in greenhouse terms while the opportunity and lifestyle of neighbouring countries may have to double or triple. Good governance is now the focus of much Australian aid and will help ensure that large wealth transfers do not corrupt institutions in the receiving countries. If left unchecked, the grinding poverty, inequity, high birth rates, limited resource base and rudimentary institutions describing most of our near neighbours will result in failed states. Finding the effort and money to mount more than just a token effort seems difficult today. But by 2050 Australia’s GDP will triple its present size and be close to $3 000 billion. Some climate change strategies require that consumption opportunities be limited by withdrawing $300 billion per year (10% of GDP in 2050) which must be set aside in a future fund, or used outside the Australian economy to prevent the re-stimulation of personal consumption activities. In 2050, this yearly stipend represents one-third of Indonesia’s GDP in today’s money, or 15 times today’s combined GDP of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and East Timor. This confirms the financial feasibility of the effort even if our population is uneasy about the size of the transfer. 6. Relieve pressure on environment and housing affordability in capital cities There are alternatives to the growth machine. Many Australians are at the vanguard of an international turn towards voluntary simplicity, in favour of lighter, greener ways of working, travelling, eating and consuming. Between 1993 and 2003, nearly a quarter of all Australians undertook a long-term change in lifestyle resulting in reduced income but more work-life balance, time with family, fulfilment, or a healthier lifestyle (Hamilton and Mail 2003). These ‘downshifters’ are part of a social phenomenon that eschews rampant growth and consumerism in favour of altruism, fulfilment and quality of life. Australia’s coastal ‘sea changers’ and their newer cousins, the inland ‘tree changers’, are expressions of this trend. Other examples are the ‘slow food’ and its offshoot, ‘Citta Slow’ (‘slow cities’) movements, which originated in Italy in the late 1990s and have since spread around the world. ‘Slow cities’ limit their populations to 50 000 residents, resisting growth for growth’s sake. Rather, in conscious reaction to current models of material consumption and environmental exploitation, these cities celebrate and renew local qualities of place, from landscape to culture, tradition, craft, cooking and conviviality (Beatley 2004). These exciting new movements offer a counterpart to standard models of urban growth. If managed correctly, such spontaneous forms of decentralisation present an opportunity to relieve some of the environmental and housing affordability pressures from the capital cities. Support for regional decentralisation must come from all levels of government through strong economic development policies prioritising investment in infrastructure for the new economy – universities and research centres, outstanding hospitals, schools and high quality cultural, community, and recreational facilities to reinforce the lifestyle and leisure orientation of the new regional destinations.

Population

7. Link regional and capital cities Regional renaissance depends on strong communication and transportation links between regional centres and the major cities. High-speed wireless broadband technology is critical, reducing regional and rural isolation and the need to travel. If the impetus to reduce GHG emissions is not enough, rising fuel prices and the spectre of ‘peak oil’ make alternatives to car and air travel imperative (Dodson and Sipe 2005). Highspeed rail run on renewable energy supplies are an important solution to the tyranny of distance and are being rolled out across much of Europe, Asia, and parts of the United States. Rail freight infrastructure is also critical, avoiding increased road freight services and providing new economic opportunities for regional communities. Renewed Federal investment in regional infrastructure and development is imperative to achieve these new urban and regional city networks. 8. Create human-scale settlements and greater interaction Within settlements themselves, the aim should be to increase connectivity while decreasing the need for motorised travel. If speed is the goal for distance travel, a slower pace is adequate within communities themselves. Infrastructure like cycleways and walking paths within and between regional settlements may attract new residents and visitors alike. Such facilities have contributed to the reinvention of villages like Beechworth in north-eastern Victoria, which has become a key destination along the ‘Mountains to Murray’ cycle path connecting towns of the Murray Valley with Bright at the foothills of the Victorian Alps. Walkable, cyclable communities are human-scale places built for human interaction and engagement, where people dominate the streets, not cars. An optimal level of low-rise density (like smaller homes, row houses, villas) allows a critical mass of people to coexist within a series of linked neighbourhoods, supporting the diversity of services, retail outlets, cultural activities and educational opportunities needed to experience rich quality of life beyond the capital cities. This model means that population growth spreads away from the primary centres, not dispersed along the urban fringe or in isolated new suburbs, but concentrated through regional settlement plans that define constellations of cities, towns and villages. The provision of magnet infrastructure in the form of quality education and research facilities, hospitals, cultural, community, and recreational centers, as well as high technology transport and communications infrastructure (see points six and seven) will not only attract a critical mass of new residents, but also support business and industry growth. 9. Live within the physical capacity The overriding settlement planning goal for these communities is to maximise self-sufficiency, satisfying as many basic requirements – food, energy, water, waste disposal – within the local or regional area. This means prioritising the use of local food and other produce (so minimising ‘food miles’), and meeting energy and water needs within the local and regional catchment. It means articulating waste strategies for reducing, reusing, recycling, and disposing waste onsite or as close as possible to the source of generation. It means preserving and restoring local biodiversity, landforms and waterways through strong and consistently applied local planning requirements. The same principles can be gradually reapplied to the major population centres, where environmental impacts will inevitably extend far further, but may ultimately reach equilibrium, particularly if productive agricultural hinterlands and the rich natural conservation

175

176

Ten Commitments

areas surrounding and protecting urban catchments are preserved. Urban biodiversity and foodlands can be reintroduced to the inner areas too. Think pocket gardens and green patches on forgotten street verges, back lanes, and neglected reserves within many inner city areas, more city farms, food cooperatives, and neighbourhood waste reuse facilities sponsored by progressive urban councils or local firms. 10. Leading edge technology Niche industries and amenity-based economies are inconsistent with homogenous cookie cutter suburbs, mega shopping malls and highway homeware barns. Our planning laws must emphasise design excellence – promoting a culture of innovation and flexibility, while supporting new eco-technologies and industries and promoting patterns of growth that build local sustainability, climate resilience and sense of place. Unlike the capital cities, where space for large scale eco-opportunities like wind power, carbon sequestration, or solar energy production, is harder to come by, regional areas have significant opportunities to develop and demonstrate path breaking innovation in environmental technology. Such nascent opportunities are fragile, depending on a supportive policy setting that dismantles barriers to innovative technology and protects access to environmental services – sun, wind, water, vegetation. At the micro scale, sustainable building design requirements emphasise water retention and conservation, solar orientation and climate comfort, energy efficiency and waste reduction and reuse. Such requirements are increasingly critical to reduce the carbon impacts of new development and to provide a basis for adapting to the impacts of climate change that are unpreventable. An environmental tax (see point 2) would make these requirements more economically viable by creating a dedicated market and sending the right price signals. Revenue from this tax can be dedicated to easing the short-term economic impacts of transition and investing in the development of creative environmental technology.

Conclusion A decade of good economic times and low rates of unemployment has pushed population policy aside as skill shortages and infrastructure bottlenecks hog the headlines and drive political debate. Inevitably, an economic downturn promises financial hardship and social rancour if regions and suburbs fail to provide tomorrow’s skills, relying instead on today’s easy bounty of minerals exports and the rolling construction boom. Any country seeking a resilient economic base should advance its population policy in three main ways. Firstly, that policy must ensure reasonable equity and opportunity for its current population and that of the next two generations. Secondly, that policy must not further expose its citizens to dangers posed by climate change, economic misfortune and possible resource constraints such as oil and water. Thirdly, that policy must use current good fortune to help repair global systems and help support disadvantaged citizens in neighbouring countries. In 1972, the Club of Rome released The Limits to Growth, a prescient study, or an infamous heresy, depending on the disciplinary point of view. Lost in the ensuing turmoil of discussion and misinformation were the three salient points, here much abbreviated from the original text: L

L

L

If present growth trends continue, sometime in the next 100 years civilisation will face environmental and industrial chaos, and possibly catastrophic decline. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability. The sooner society begins the change, then the greater the chance of success.

Population

Given the challenges now facing the atmosphere, water resources and biodiversity loss at global and national scales, The Club of Rome’s advice seems almost too cautious. The pressing need today is to reduce harmful patterns of development and consumption that contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect, while promoting strategies to help vulnerable populations and natural systems adapt to the uncertain impacts of climate volatility that are already underway. Today we know that population number and each individual’s consumption pattern both drive economic growth, and in turn are driven by it. This relationship is complex and it forces an almost insoluble policy tension. In a never-ending race around the policy track, the capacity to cope is always lapped by the need to grow. Therefore population policy at national, state and local government scales needs to be turned on its head. Rapid increases are now required in our capacity to cope, institutionally, socially and environmentally. Moderation is required in both the population size we want and the lifestyle to which each of us aspires. Reversals are difficult to implement, but not impossible to contemplate. Once the economic mirage of never-ending population growth disappears in its own pollution haze, we have today’s citizens to care for, and tomorrow’s to plan for. That is enough to maintain a buoyant economy and to keep us all well occupied.

References ATSE (2007) ‘30/50: the technological implications of an Australian population of 30 million by 2050’. Report of a Study for the Scanlon Foundation by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, April 2007, http://www.atse.org.au/index. php?sectionid=128 (accessed 30-1-2008). Beatley T (2004) Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age. Island Press, Washington DC. Cocks D (1996) People Policy: Australia’s Population Choices. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Dey C, Berger C, Foran BD, Foran MJ, Joske R, Lenzen M and Wood R (2007) Household environmental pressure from consumption: an Australian environmental atlas. In Water Wind Art and Debate: How Environmental Concerns Impact on Disciplinary Research. (Ed. G Birch) Sydney University Press, http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/2104/1/ WaterWindCh9Dey.pdf (accessed 31-1-2008). Dodson J and Sipe N (2005) Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City, Urban Research Program, Research Paper 6, December 2005. Urban Research Program, Griffith University, Brisbane. Foran BD and Poldy F (2002) ‘Future dilemmas: options to 2050 for Australia’s population, technology, resources and environment’. Consultancy project report for the Federal Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, October 2002, http:// www.cse.csiro.au/publications/2002/fulldilemmasreport02-01.pdf (accessed 30-1-2008). Gurran N and Blakely E (2007) Suffer a sea change? Contrasting perspectives towards urban policy and migration in coastal Australia. Australian Geography 38(1), 113–132. Hamilton C and Mail E (2003) ‘Downshifting in Australia; A sea-change in the pursuit of happiness’. Discussion Paper Number 50. The Australia Institute, Canberra. Jones GW (1997) ‘An Australian population policy’. Research Paper 17. Australian Parliamentary Library, Canberra, http://sitesearch.aph.gov.au/wsi/hithighlight.aspx?ss=b &sq=%22barry+jones%22+and+population&search=Go&doc=1 (accessed 31-1-2008). Smil V (2004) Enriching the Earth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Tainter JA (2006) Archaeology of overshoot and collapse. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 59–74.

177

SUSTAINING AUSTRALIA’S HEALTH Anthony J. McMichael

1. Improve our understanding of the fundamental role of the natural environment’s processes and products as the real basis for the population’s health. 2. Make systematic assessments of health risks from environmental changes, to enrich and guide Australia’s decision-making for environmental management. 3. Use awareness of health risks from climate and environmental change to further stimulate Australia to assume a leading role in the international effort to slow greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Sustain Australia’s rural communities and their resource base under the emerging conditions of climatic and environmental change. 5. Develop and share understanding and adaptive strategies about health risks from environmental change, particularly in Indigenous communities. 6. Ensure the quest for ‘sustainable cities’ addresses how the built environment, transport modes, energy use and food systems affect behaviours, activities, social relations and, hence, health. 7. Transform our food systems and nutrition policy, to achieve both sustainable production and good health. 8. Revitalise the policy debate about Australia’s population size, growth rate and associated environmental pressures, and connect it to the ‘sustainability’ discourse. 9. Develop stronger links between the health sectors and other sectors whose environment-related policies have long-term structural/contextual consequences for health. 10. Make population health central to the concept of ‘ecologically sustainable development’.

Introduction An urgent challenge for Australians is to understand how nature’s systems and processes underpin our population’s health. The essentials for health (food, water, textiles, building materials, natural constraints on infectious agents, stabilisation of physical environment) derive from nature’s biophysical and ecological systems. In modern urban environments we may no longer seem to be a part of nature, but we certainly cannot live apart from nature. Such understanding, once widely shared, will motivate improved management of our environment. Yet currently, our popular beliefs, media reporting, health-care structures and 179

180

Ten Commitments

prevailing neoliberal values (which displace responsibility from community to the individual) foster the misleading view that health is predominantly a personal matter and responsibility; that it reflects individual behaviours (food choices, physical activity, smoking, alcohol, etc.), genes, luck and access to health-care. This lack of a ‘biosensitive’ understanding of the ecological determinants of population health is evident, for example, in the misdirected public discussion about the rise of obesity. The rapidly increasing prevalence of fat persons cannot plausibly be due to a shift in human nature (i.e. individual misbehaviour) or in population genetic profile. No. The root cause is environmental. Our evolved way of life entails a systemic imbalance between ease of energy ‘input’ (food) and reduced energy ‘output’ (physical activity). Long-term resolution therefore requires changes to urban design, food systems and cultural priorities – i.e. to the population’s way of living. It is an issue of human ecology. Our continuing ambivalence towards ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (originally promoted by the Hawke Government) indicates a limited understanding of this fundamental dependence of human well-being, health and survival on nature’s life-support systems. We often view environmental damage as being somewhere ‘out there’, not directly affecting our well-being. This has slowed our response to the mounting evidence of the dehydrated MurrayDarling system, farmland salinity, coastal over-fishing, accelerating loss of species, and other environmental damage. Perhaps the dawning recognition of the health risks from climate change will hasten awareness that our society’s stability, well-being and health depend crucially on the conditions of the natural environment. We do, and should, value the species and ecosystems that abound in nature, but, in the succinct words of Nelson Mandela: ‘Ultimately, conservation is about people’.

Key issues 1. Improve our understanding of the fundamental role of the natural environment as the real basis for population health Achieving recognition that population health depends, absolutely, on the flow of nature’s ‘goods and services’ will require a shift in our thinking. ‘Health’ is much more than a personalised commodity, negotiable via personal choice and health-care access. Rather, the population’s health reflects the suitability and adequacy of our physical, biological and social environments in relation to our innate, evolved, biological and psychological needs (Boyden 2004). The unprecedented pressures we are placing on the natural environment at local, national and global levels, pose long-lasting risks to health. The UN Environment Program’s report Global Environmental Outlook 2007 (UNEP 2007) emphasised that social stability and human well-being and health are increasingly jeopardised by adverse trends in soil fertility, regional agricultural yields, freshwater supplies, coastal ecosystems, fish stocks, concentrations of human-activated nitrogen (from fertilisers and fossil fuels), ocean acidity, stocks of species, and global climate. Key examples of how these environmental changes can affect health are shown in Figure 6. 2. Make systematic assessments of health risks from environmental changes, to enrich and guide decision-making for environmental management Governments and electorates are typically preoccupied with the economic impacts of environmental change and degradation, particularly within the short electoral timeframe. Economic impacts can affect livelihoods, material prosperity and social stability. However, over the

Sustaining Australia’s health

Large-scale (systemic) environmental changes

Stratospheric ozone depletion

Direct Direct impacts impacts

Climate change

Direct impacts

Land cover (forest, etc) Human predation

Land use

Skin damage/cancer Eyes (cataracts, etc.) Immune suppression

Complex-pathway impacts infectious diseases and nutritional health

Thermal stress: death, disease events, injury Storms, cyclones, floods, fires Sea-level rise: physical hazards, displacement Infectious disease risks

Stressed fisheries

Biodiversity changes

Changes in host species, vectors (mosquitoes, etc.) e.g. pollination

Water-sheds, systems

Urbanisation; urban ecosystem

Primary food production systems

Food yields: nutrition and health

Avian flu, Nipah virus, BSE, etc.

Poverty, slum, hygiene; physical hazards; infectious disease risks (mobility, density)

Figure 6: Main pathways by which large-scale ‘structural’ (systemic) environmental change and disruption can influence patterns of human health and disease. The impacts on food yields and nutritional health and on the occurrence of infectious diseases, highlighted, illustrate the often complex and interactive nature of these environmental influences on health.

medium- to longer-term it is the risks to well-being, health and survival that are of paramount importance. Indeed, economic growth cannot sustain gains in population health if it erodes the environmental life-support system (McMichael 2006). National, State and Territory governments should therefore conduct systematic, and recurrent, assessments of the health risks to Australia’s population (and its relevant sub-populations) from current and projected environmental and climatic changes. The lack of such assessments, and resultant insights, impoverishes and distorts the basis for decision-making in relation to environmental management and damage amelioration. 3. Use awareness of health risks to further stimulate Australia to assume a leading role in the international effort to slow greenhouse gas emissions The World Health Organization estimates that global climate change currently causes around 200 000 extra deaths each year, mostly in developing countries, from malnutrition, diarrhoeal disease, malaria and floods (McMichael et al. 2004). On current national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting, Australians cause around 2 500 of those deaths in the world’s poorer countries each year. Meanwhile, compared to other developed countries, Australia’s environment – freshwater supplies, soil fertility, coastal and alpine ecosystems, etc. – is particularly susceptible to climate change (IPCC 2007). So, too, there are particular vulnerabilities in population health. Various environmental consequences, such as droughts, coastal cyclones and extreme bushfires, will

181

182

Ten Commitments

directly affect human health, physical and mental. Australia’s highly urbanised population will experience higher temperatures and more extreme heatwaves (plus urban ‘heat-island’ amplification) in future, and hence greater risks of death and serious heat-related health events. Many infectious diseases are sensitive to climatic conditions. Salmonella and other diarrhoeal foodpoisoning increases in hot weather; dengue fever outbreaks are favoured by rain and surface water (for mosquito breeding); other mosquito-transmitted viral infections respond to temperature, rainfall and tidal patterns; cryptosporidium contamination of drinking-water reservoirs is more likely with heavier rainfall and rural run-off. Finally, much of rural Australia may be affected by mid-latitude drying trends and, hence, adverse health effects (see point 4). Recognition that the emerging risks to well-being and health from climate change signify that the world community is currently on a non-sustainable path should spur Australia and its governments to play a stronger leading role in achieving global reduction of GHG emissions. Australians, along with societies everywhere, are now playing for stakes way beyond the mere maintenance of economic gains. 4. Sustain Australia’s rural communities and human well-being under the emerging conditions of climatic and environmental change Rural Australia faces increasing stress, particularly from water shortage, warmer temperatures, bushfires and salinity. Livelihoods are shrinking in some locales, as are communities’ social institutions. This is an ‘ecological’ problem – a way of life and its economy are being endangered by climatic and environmental changes. While economic indicators may command immediate political concern, the core problem is the impaired environmental capacity to support community, livelihoods and sustained well-being and health. The many health risks (Bi and Parton 2008) include direct hazards of heightened extreme conditions (temperature, dust, smoke), mental health threats, freshwater shortage, impaired local food production, and exacerbated ‘risk’ behaviours (smoking, alcohol, self-medication, etc.). There is urgent need to study and understand the diverse health risks. Australia’s research funding agencies must accommodate broad-spectrum interdisciplinary research into these complex climatic-environmental-economic-social impact topic areas. Health impacts and costs burdens, now and in future, should be estimated, and social, institutional and health-care interventions developed. This will necessarily include adaptive changes to the geography and processes of agricultural production, and strategies to maintain and strengthen rural communities. 5. Develop and share understanding and adaptive strategies about health risks from environmental change, particularly in Indigenous communities In the popular view, environmental health hazards are mostly thought of as urban-industrial pollutants that cause exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, asbestos, chemicals in drinking water, etc. However, today’s widening range of larger-scale systemic environmental problems (Figure 6) focuses particular attention on rural Australia (see point 4) and on rural and remote Indigenous communities. Under conditions of climate change, for example, many of those indigenous communities will face extremes of heat, freshwater shortage, diminished supplies of traditional plant and animal foods, fires and other weather disasters, and erosion of parts of their cultural base. Displacement of some communities from high-risk areas (e.g. coastal erosion and cyclone zones) may cause tensions and conflicts, especially if the environmental resource base is already under stress. Via a collaborative research agenda, these environmental health risks can be understood, and strategies developed to lessen the risks. This, though, will require greater institutional readiness to fund research and evaluations that are directed at the periphery of our society.

Sustaining Australia’s health

6. Ensure quest for ‘sustainable cities’ addresses how built environment, transport, energy use and food systems affect behaviours, activities, social relations and, hence, health Modern urban development in Australia has been strongly influenced by population pressures, road-building, a car-based consumer culture, poorly controlled ‘development’ activities, and neglect of local community facilities. Beyond the familiar, itemised, environmental hazards such as urban air quality, road hazards and noise is a larger range of environmental influences affecting patterns of living, consumption and health outcomes. For example, our outer-urban landscapes typically lack a sense of local ‘community’, resulting in isolation, dissatisfaction and elevated levels of mental depression (Eckersley 2006). Our cities often militate against physical activity (thus contributing to the rise of overweight and obesity), reflecting the mismatch between modern urban environments, motorised transport and consumer culture, on the one hand, and the biologically evolved needs of the human animal on the other. The formal health sector, especially at government level, should participate centrally in the future reshaping of Australia’s cities. This assumes the health sector can take a more ecologically-informed and inclusive view of the long-term, enduring, determinants of population health. Prevailing health promotion models, too reliant on local and individual-level ‘healthy’ actions, fail to engage constructively with the many other sectors that determine our environmental living conditions, choices, and hence behaviours. 7. Transform our food systems and nutrition policy, to achieve both sustainable production and good health In principle we produce food to eat, stay healthy and survive. In practice, the economic weight and significance of the agricultural sector (including food exportation) largely overshadows considerations of human health and environmental sustainability. The growth in population numbers, export markets and local and distant consumer expectations contributes to intensification of our food-producing systems, a process that is often environmentally damaging. In future, rising concerns over energy use and GHG emissions may well heighten consumer preference for locally-produced foods and prompt reforms of environmentally-damaging production (e.g. the climatic consequences of high-warming-potential methane emissions from livestock production). Recognition of significant health benefits from seafood should reinforce conservation of this precious marine commodity. In light of increasing international evidence of food production stresses, shortages, environmental damage and rising costs, the Australian Government should espouse an environmentally attuned national food and nutrition policy, congruent with the criteria of the international New Nutrition Science project (Cannon and Leitzmann 2005; McMichael 2005). 8. Revitalise the policy debate about Australia’s population size, growth rate and environmental pressures, and relate it to population health risks The intermittent and disconnected debate on Australia’s desirable population size has been hampered by poor understanding of relationships between population size, distribution and the capacity and condition of the environment. Key research disciplines, including demography, have taken little interest in this relationship. Meanwhile, the widespread assumption that population growth is both natural and good for the economy has distorted public debate. Internationally, the population topic has been suppressed for two decades (largely via ideology-driven US influence within the UN system, on top of the unbending position of the Catholic Church). Now, however, as the extent and ubiquity of environmental problems

183

184

Ten Commitments

becomes apparent, the ‘population question’ is being paid renewed attention in the policy discussion agenda. This revitalisation can be enabled in Australia via academic curriculum restructuring, joint activity by learned societies and academies, wider public consultation and improved inter-sectoral processes within government. 9. Develop stronger links between the health sector and other environmentrelated sectors whose policies affect health An enduring institutional deficiency in government, academia and the private sector is topic specialisation and territoriality. Health departments, beset by the burgeoning capacities and costs of modern medicine and rising ‘consumer’ expectations, are preoccupied with illnesscare provision. This is to the detriment of long-sighted strategies to reduce illness incidence and disease burden. As human connectedness increases (travel, trade, migration, urbanisation, etc.), economic activity intensifies, and the scale of environmental loss and degradation grows, so a greater proportion of the risks to population health (infectious diseases, water shortages, over-nutrition, mental health problems, etc.) derives from these more systemic disturbances. In line with point 1, government health departments should extend their conceptual and policy horizons, and engage collaboratively with other sectors in long-term environmental planning and management that can achieve a health-sustaining environment. This will enable our society to move beyond a reactive mode of dealing with public health crises, and work proactively for a health-sustaining local and global environment. 10. Make population health central to the concept of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ Why do we organise ourselves into societies? Defending territory, codifying social relations, and generating wealth may seem to be the main rationale, but these activities are in fact means to achieving human-centred ends: security, well-being, health and survival. Selection pressures, over aeons, have favoured groups and societies able to self-organise in ways that maximise health, fitness and survival. With the relentless growth in human numbers this process has required incremental gains in per capita output per unit of land – until, today, our demands exceed many of the limits of the land and biosphere. Corrective environmental management, on behalf of direct human interest (health, fitness, survival), is now needed. That objective is the real bottom line of ‘ecologically sustainable development’. A related, regional, issue is that Australia must anticipate some adverse social and human consequences of environmental deterioration and climate change in the Asia-Pacific region (Dupont and Pearman 2006). If agro-ecosystems degrade, if cereal yields decrease with warming, if crops are damaged by floods and pests, and if coastal conditions are damaged by rising seas, then geopolitical instability and environmental refugee flows will increase – with widespread health consequences (mental health, infectious diseases, nutritional state, and conflicts). Enlightened regional assistance with environmental management would lessen this risk.

Conclusion Via technologies, trade and the acceptance of a degree of environmental degradation, we have managed to live beyond nature’s budget for a while. However, this is not sustainable. We are actually weakening the environmental foundations of sustained good health. If we can understand better that the well-being and health of humans are inextricably dependent on the integ-

Sustaining Australia’s health

rity of the natural world, then public discussion and implementation of the management of Australia’s environment will be enhanced.

References Bi P and Parton KA (2008) Effect of climate change on Australian rural and remote regions: what do we know and what do we need to know? Australian Journal of Rural Health 16, 2–4. Boyden S (2004) Biology of Civilisation: Understanding Culture as a Force in Nature. UNSW Press, Sydney. Cannon G and Leitzmann C (2005) The new nutrition science. Public Health Nutrition 8, 673–694. Dupont A and Pearman G (2006) Heating Up the Planet. Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney. Eckersley R (2006) Is modern Western culture a health hazard? International Journal of Epidemiology 35, 252–258. IPCC (2007) ‘Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability’. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. McMichael A (2005) Integrating nutrition and ecology: Balancing the health of humans and biosphere. Public Health Nutrition 8, 706–715. McMichael A, Campbell-Lendrum DH, Kovats RS, Edwards S, Wilkinson P, Wilson T et al. (2004) Climate change. In Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease due to Selected Major Risk Factors. (Eds M Ezzati, A Lopez, A Rodgers and C Mathers) pp. 1543–1649. WHO, Geneva. McMichael AJ (2006) Population health as the ‘bottom line’ of sustainability: a contemporary challenge for public health researchers. European Journal of Public Health 16, 579–581. McMichael AJ, Woodruff RE and Hales S (2006) Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet 367, 859–869. UNEP (2007) Global Environmental Outlook: Environment for Development 4. United Nations Environment Programme, Valletta.

185

LANDSCAPE FIRES A. Malcolm Gill

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Develop a national philosophy of fire. Dispel all the myths surrounding fires. Improve fire mapping (and collect other core data). Improve probability (risk) analysis. Achieve effective management for multiple objectives. Assess the impact of fires on biodiversity. Assess impacts of fire regimes on water supplies. Address global warming issues. Consider the implications of the trend to domesticate fire regimes. Improve scientific concepts and models.

Introduction Landscape fires – bushfires –gained headlines around the world in 2007 because of alarming events in Greece, California (twice) and Victoria. The headlines reporting these and other similar events, reflect the drama of intense fires and their impact on people’s lives. The tragic loss of human life and the rapid and violent destruction of homes, especially at the edges of urban areas, become the focus of attention. However, these fires originate and spread across ‘wildland’ and other rural land before reaching urban areas. Thus, attention often shifts from the urban areas to landscapes in seeking a solution, so that ‘these events will never happen again’. Like many fire matters, such situations are complex, multifaceted; simple solutions are unlikely and would have been already implemented if they were easily reached (Gill 2005). The urban edge situation highlights two types of assets. On the one hand are tangible monetary assets in the urban area while, in ‘wildland’, there are intangible, non-monetary assets such as biodiversity (the variety of organic life) and scenery. Judgements on the effects of fires, or treatments made to mitigate fires, are often made on the basis of assets as they are perceived by commentators. Landscape fires that gain most public attention are ‘bushfires’ – fires not planned by landscape managers (hence ‘unplanned fires’) of high intensity. These can be contrasted with prescribed (or ‘planned’) fires that are set by landscape managers for explicit purposes in defined areas under prescribed weather and fuel conditions; these fires may be lit to reduce stubble or forest ‘debris’ after logging, for ecological purposes or for fuel reduction in intact vegetation. 187

188

Ten Commitments

Below, 10 key tasks that concern fires and the Australian environment are outlined. They are seen as being important to various groups including policy makers, the public and the scientific community.

Key issues 1. Develop a national philosophy of fire Learning to live with fire is an important theme requiring constant attention (Stanbury 1981; Ellis et al. 2004). How should society view the occurrence of fires? Do we know how to react to a fire nearby? While bushfire is a natural feature of Australian landscapes, the nature of its naturalness is usually poorly appreciated in the community. A few basic facts would help. For example, recognising that fires have various important properties (such as flame length, intensity, ember production and rate of spread), which vary widely around a fire perimeter would help. Furthermore, it may be unappreciated that fires vary in area from a few square metres to over 4 million hectares, may be of generally low intensity or reach intensities well over the limit for direct fire control. For species of organisms and the longer-term understanding of the effects of fires on air, soils and water, knowing the history of fires and their properties (‘fire regimes’ – with the components of intensity, season, between-fire interval and type of fire: Gill 1975) is important. 2. Dispel myths The most serious and common myth is that fire destroys the environment. Perhaps this myth originated because trees in forests burned by high intensity fires look like charred skeletons after fire and the belief is that ‘nothing could possibly have survived’. Soon, however, signs of life appear in the form of new shoots and seedlings. Most, or all, of the species of animals that were present before the fire may be readily found once a search is made. This myth is easy to dispel because it is a matter of observation that landscapes subject to many fires, let alone any one fire, are not destroyed; ‘burned’ is a better term. Perhaps calling fires ‘wildfires’ is part of the reason for this myth? A second major myth is that prescribed burning is a panacea for all our fire problems (see also Esplin et al. 2003). This too is easily dispelled, at least in part, when it is realised that it is an inappropriate practice for most farms, orchards, vineyards, and for plantations of fire-sensitive pines. This does not mean that prescribed burning has no place at all. Prescribed fires are part of the fire regime of an area and their effectiveness can be judged in terms of land use objectives. 3. Improve fire mapping (and collect other core data) (see also Esplin et al. 2003) Collecting and collating comprehensive databases can be seen as indulging in ‘too much paper work’ or they can be seen as a critical aspect of management practice. A simple example is the mapping of every fire, including prescribed fires, at a suitable scale. Mapping of final outer perimeters is part of this, but the mapping of unburnt islands within the perimeter is also important. These maps are the basis of fire regime analyses which, in turn, are often an explanatory variable for the observed effects of fires on the environment. They are also the basis for detecting change as global warming takes place. While advances in remote sensing are a great aid to mapping (Russell-Smith et al. 1997; Justice et al. 2003), they are not yet sufficient to be comprehensive and cost-effective at the most appropriate scale everywhere; ground methods are needed to supplement them. An advance would be the routine measurement by remote sensing of fire intensity or post-fire severity (e.g. Hammill and Bradstock 2006) along with measurement of vegetation height. Achieving such results involves the recognition that effec-

Landscape fires

tive analyses cannot be done unless data are collected rigorously and comprehensively by government agencies for extended periods. Then, analyses can be performed, results assessed and changes in policy made as necessary – i.e. adaptive management. Data collection for core variables (see also other points below) should be seen as a routine task to be done in perpetuity. Individual fire areas overlap in time and form intervals, and intervals provide a way of benchmarking fire data sets. Thus, a good fire atlas may be seen as one that has a duration equal to at least four or five times the mean interval between fires: this is being achieved in those parts of northern Australia where mean intervals are short and perhaps also in south-western Australia where mean intervals are somewhat longer. 4. Improve probability (risk) analysis Without good data, the probability of events cannot be adequately measured. Prediction of house loss from landscape fires is an example. Houses differ in their exposure to fire and their vulnerability to it. Leaving the latter aspect aside for the present, what is the chance of a particular home being burnt down from an unplanned landscape fire – the owner’s perspective – compared with the fire-fighting agency or land manager’s approach which may be to estimate the probability of house loss anywhere within the agency’s jurisdiction? Not only are good data needed on the probability of fire occurrence but data on the properties of fires relevant to the situation are also needed (e.g. ember production and transport – associated with fire intensity, vegetation type, wind speed profiles and wind direction). Managers may modify fuels near houses but what is the reduction in probability of loss, quantitatively? A worthwhile principle is that there is always a residual risk to houses and other assets at the rural-urban interface no matter what reasonable steps have been taken to modify fuels (Esplin et al. 2003, p.114). What risks are posed to environmental values in ‘wildland’ while built assets are being protected? Are there trade-offs between risks to environmental and social assets and, if so, can they be rationalised? How important is relative risk versus absolute risk? Examining the risk to assets is important but risk management (and opportunity management?) should perhaps be seen as part of the process, only, needed to optimise fire regimes for specific purposes, especially environmental ones. 5. Achieve effective management for multiple objectives – especially when there are multiple agencies involved Multiple objectives can apply within a landscape set aside primarily for forestry, conservation or water supply, for example, or may occur as ‘jigsaw’ elements across tenures, including private ones, in a landscape. Overarching all of these is the general objective of protecting human lives from the impact of fire, a particular imperative of emergency services. Multiple uses in a national park may be the conservation of native plants and animals (biodiversity) primarily, but also involve recreation (of various types), supply of drinking water to cities and protection of cultural heritage. The park may also be the location of roads and utility corridors, accommodation facilities and infrastructure of various types. Not only is there a difficulty in deciding just how to manage for multiple objectives, lobby groups, emergency services and others may have a strong influence on policy and planning even though some may lack a basic understanding of the fire and environmental implications of various alternative courses of action. How can clear and rational lines of planning and action be formulated and approved in a way that allows land managers to act with confidence? 6. Assess the impact of fires on biodiversity Fires are listed as threatening processes for many Australian species. With over 20 000 indigenous vascular plant species, and many thousands of species of non-vascular plants (lichens, mosses, fungi), about 2000 species of vertebrates and over 200 000 species of invertebrates

189

190

Ten Commitments

(Australian Department of Environment, Sport and Territories 1994), the task of understanding how biodiversity responds to fires is enormous. The task is multiplied in complexity when the range of fire regimes possible is understood and when interactions and changed circumstances are taken into account. Significant change may occur to fire regimes due to the naturalisation of introduced plant species like the African gamba grass (Andropogon gayensis) in northern Australia (Rossiter et al. 2003) and, consequently, their effects on native species. Expressing responses in relation to primary variables, such as components of habitat, rather than secondary ones like time since fire, remains a challenge. 7. Assess impacts of fire regimes on water supplies As water demand challenges water supply due to drought or increasing human population, having a sophisticated management system for water catchment becomes more important. What are the effects of unplanned fires and prescribed fires burning different proportions of the catchment? How do fire regimes affect water yield and quality for human consumption in catchments with different soil depth, topographic relief and precipitation regimes? How can steep forested fire-prone catchments be managed most effectively for water supply? Similarly, how can vegetation overlying ground-water systems best be managed? 8. Address global warming issues There are two aspects to the challenges of global warming; one is to predict the effects while the other is how to modify the phenomenon. Fires are involved in both cases. Predicting the effects of global warming on biodiversity is extremely difficult given that it is not just warming that is involved but other weather variables and changed lightning frequencies are also involved (Cary 2002). So too are effects of enhanced CO2 on productivity and fuel loads (Morgan et al. 2007). In ‘fragmented’ landscapes, the ability to disperse and find suitable habitat becomes important. Emissions from fires may affect the global supply of greenhouse gases (GHGs) while fire regimes also affect carbon sequestration. Anticipating change, there is the challenge of creating an effective but streamlined system for tracking it and responding to it – i.e. adaptive management. 9. Consider the implications of the trend to domesticate fire regimes To reduce possible economic loss, to avoid socially disastrous urban-edge fires or even prevent unwanted ecological change in rangelands and conservation areas, governments have attempted to domesticate fire – keeping the fire situation always under control – by prescribing low intensity fire and by expanding fire-fighting capability, especially through new equipment. Keeping fires within boundaries of land-use parcels implies a need to control ignition and spread. However, complete domestication is unlikely to be easily achieved. To what extent can domestication be realised, and, at maximum domestication, can land-use objectives for indigenous ecosystems (like parks) be achieved? What are the environmental effects of suppression infrastructure and operations? Can we predict fire behaviour sufficiently well? Can we model suppression adequately? What is the best way forward ecologically, economically and socially? 10. Improve scientific concepts and models Fires form burnt patches of widely varying size, the largest having undue importance ecologically relative to their low frequency; extremely large fire patches form under extreme weather conditions (especially) in southern Australia and when fuels are continuous over large areas in arid Australia. The general scientific problem of predicting statistical extremes occurs here if predictions of fire regimes are to be forthcoming. Burnt areas form a statistical distribution

Landscape fires

which has been attributed to a self-organising capacity in fire-prone landscapes, although the simple ‘forest fire model’ generated to explain this is being questioned with regard to its realism (Boer et al. 2005). Burnt patches create a pattern by themselves but also have internal patterning; how important are pattern and scale of burnt patches ecologically? (See Bradstock et al. 2005; Parr and Andersen 2006.) Burnt patches of vegetation form patches with different times since fire and between-fire intervals as fires recur over landscapes (Gill et al. 2003), but the ecological significance of this is unknown. Indeed, our knowledge of the responses of plants and animals to fire regimes and how they can be meaningfully classified will come under further scrutiny; predicted responses of plant species to repeated fires are currently based on plant responses observed after an individual fire and from life-stage times, time of regeneration after a fire and between-fire intervals (e.g. following Noble and Slatyer 1981) but other aspects of the fire regime and interactions between fire regime components are usually ignored and need to be assessed. The fire regime concept itself needs further scrutiny in relation to various applications; in particular, the use of ‘area’ and ‘severity’ as components needs clarification. New iterations could involve profiles of particular fire properties such as temperature-durations. There are other serious fire matters worthy of attention that cannot be addressed here. High on the list of ‘others’ is the retention of experienced people who may feel disgruntled in an era of increasing litigation, adverse media and continual official inquiries. For the general public, learning how to identify a fire threat and what they can do about it is a significant issue.

Conclusions There are many significant tasks that need to be addressed in relation to Australian landscape fires. This is especially so considering the predictions of greater fire activity under climate change. A particular difficulty in addressing the tasks identified here is that fire events and regimes affect a wide range of perceived assets held by a wide range of stakeholders. Thus, there is a major role for governments at different levels in facilitating research and management. Governments can help not only by funding research and supporting management programs but by facilitating the collection and flow of information to the research community, especially following social disasters.

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the many frank discussions I have had with Park and Forest managers, emergency services personnel and water supply people over many years. My scientific colleagues – especially Professor RA Bradstock and Dr GJ Cary - have been a source of continual support and encouragement; they have my sincere thanks also. Drs A Andersen and ND Burrows kindly commented on the draft manuscript.

References Australian Department of Environment, Sport and Territories (1994) ‘Australia’s Biodiversity: An Overview of Selected Significant Components’. Biodiversity Series, Paper 2, Biodiversity Unit, Canberra. Boer MM, Grierson PF and Gill AM (2005) Power law behaviour of wildland fires reflects fractality of fire weather? European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Research Abstracts 7, 06097.

191

192

Ten Commitments

Bradstock RA, Bedward M, Gill AM and Cohn JS (2005) Which mosaic? A landscape ecological approach for evaluating interactions between fire regimes, habitat and animals. Wildlife Research 32, 409–423. Cary GJ (2002) Importance of a changing climate for fire regimes in Australia. In Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent. (Eds RA Bradstock, JE Williams and AM Gill) pp. 26–46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ellis S, Kanowski P and Whelan R (2004) ‘National inquiry on bushfire mitigation and management’. Council of Australian Governments, Canberra. Esplin B, Gill AM and Enright N (2003) ‘Report of the Inquiry into the 2002–2003 Victorian Bushfires’. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. Gill AM (1975) Fire and the Australian flora: a review. Australian Forestry 38, 4–25. Gill AM (2005) Landscape fires as social disasters: An overview of ‘the bushfire problem’. Global Environmental Change B. Environmental Hazards 6, 65–80. Gill AM, Allan G and Yates C (2003) Fire-created patchiness in Australian savannas. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 323–331. Hammill KA and Bradstock RA (2006). Remote sensing of fire severity in the Blue Mountains: influence of vegetation type and inferring fire intensity. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15, 213–226. Justice CO, Smith R, Gill AM and Csiszar I (2003) A review of current space-based fire monitoring in Australia and the GOFC/GOLD program for international co-ordination. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 247–258. Morgan JA, Milchunas DG, LeCain DR, West M and Mosier AR (2007) Carbon dioxide enrichment alters plant community structure and accelerates shrub growth in the shortgrass steppe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 14 724–14 729. Noble IR and Slatyer RO (1981) Concepts and models of succession in vascular plant communities subject to recurrent fire. In Fire and the Australian Biota. (Eds AM Gill, RH Groves and IR Noble) pp. 311–335. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Parr C and Andersen A (2006) Patch mosaic burning for biodiversity conservation: a critique of the pyrodiversity paradigm. Conservation Biology 20, 1610–1619. Rossiter NA, Setterfield SA, Douglas MM and Hutley LB (2003) Testing the grass-fire cycle: alien grass invasion in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Diversity and Distributions 9, 169–176. Russell-Smith J, Ryan PG and Durieu R (1997) A LANDSAT MSS-derived fire history of Kakadu National Park, monsoonal northern Australia, 1980–94: seasonal extent, frequency and patchiness. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 748–766. Stanbury P (Ed.) (1981) Bushfires; their effect on Australian Life and Landscape. The Macleay Museum, University of Sydney.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT John Handmer and Naomi Brown

1. Conduct a review of policy and legislation to ascertain the presence of incentives to create disasters, transfer risk, and undermine resilience. 2. Review, and alter as needed, liability regimes to ensure liability resides with the creators of the risk. 3. Reduce obesity as it may be undermining fire and emergency management in a number of ways. 4. Create whole-of-government-and-society (including commerce) approaches to emergency management. 5. Reframe efficiency to avoid creating high vulnerabilities – and be cautious with commercialisation of emergency management. 6. Adapt to global environmental change rather than rely on emergency management to handle growing residual risk. 7. Use internationalisation to enhance local capacity while ensuring locally appropriate approaches. 8. Align fire and emergency risk management with changes in demographics and settlement patterns. 9. Make knowledge accessible and relevant for emergency management agencies drawing on technology as appropriate. 10. Better collaboration and interoperability across government and with the private sector to reduce waste and improve outcomes.

Introduction Emergency management is one of our society’s fundamental approaches to risk and uncertainty, a way of dealing with the residual risks of nature, and of our technology, culture and lifestyle. Emergency managers work to identify risks and reduce the risks and the negative consequences from them. In Australia, the main emergency management organisations are the State/Territory emergency services (SESs) and the fire agencies. Apart from the urban fire brigades, these are primarily based on volunteers, as are the many associated organisations covering surf safety, relief and recovery. However, an agency focus is increasingly far too narrow as emergency management is seen as not only a cross-government function, but a whole of society activity. Fire and emergency managers deal with crises and potential crises, 193

194

Ten Commitments

but it is actions by the whole of government and society that help both create and mitigate the conditions for the losses that make a disaster. For emergency management agencies, the stakes are often very high with lives and economies – and environments – at immediate risk. Unlike most areas of public policy, emergency management is often tested in public with immediate feedback. During emergency response, there may be only minutes or hours to assess situations, make life or death decisions, and implement them with no chance for correction. These decisions are then often subject to intense public scrutiny over ensuing months or even years. Frequent devastating disasters are compatible with neither safety nor with sustainability. Appropriately, the overall aim of fire and emergency management is to contribute to ‘safer sustainable communities’, according to Australia’s federal emergency management agency EMA (Emergency Management Australia). Similarly, the mission of the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) aims: ‘to build disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an integral part of sustainable development …’ (UN-ISDR 1999). Such communities need to be resilient in many dimensions, including environment and economy. At the UN’s Second Conference on Disaster Reduction at Kobe in 2004, 168 countries signed up to the Hyogo framework for action on disaster reduction, which among other things is to build a ‘culture of resilience’ through ‘knowledge, innovation and education…’ In his synthesis report on the ‘reassessment’ of US natural hazards and related research, Dennis Mileti develops the theme that disaster management should be fully integrated with sustainability (1999). Reducing the number and impact of disasters requires attention to how society interacts with the environment and how to avoid creating high levels of vulnerability. It requires more than the emphasis on technology advocated by the US National Science and Technology Council (2005). There have been many enquiries within Australia. Two recent reports from the Council of Australian Governments take a national view of the areas of bushfires and institutional arrangements for natural hazards (COAG 2004a and 2004b). Much of the work in emergency management results from our interactions with the natural environment. Especially if we think of emergency management as risk management, shifts in climate and booming land development are likely to create increasing risks and challenges for the field. Emergency management can enhance or degrade the environment through action taken to mitigate the hazard, e.g. by protecting wetlands and forest health, or by damaging it through drainage and high intensity fires, and increasingly through large scale engineering works. The challenge is to think strategically about the future.

Key issues 1. Review policy and legislation to ascertain the presence of incentives to create disasters, transfer risk and undermine resilience There is a strong emphasis on accident prevention and safety in Australian policy and legislation. However, this emphasis does not always extend to larger scale events and to the avoidance of potential disasters from our settlement patterns. Disaster prevention efforts, and to some extent safety regulations, are often seen as little more than impediments to economic growth, the opposite of how the connection is generally portrayed in a developing country context. It is true that some regulations limit development activity in some areas and may limit or prohibit certain processes. But these rules are usually very weak and are an attempt to limit the economic costs of disasters which are almost always borne by the individuals impacted and by governments, rather

Emergency management

than by those responsible for creating the risk who often find it easy to transfer risk to others, a theme returned to below under points 2 and 6. Often, there appears to be strong incentives in legislation and policy to create vulnerable situations through, for example, policies that provide subsidies for the development of floodprone land, that permit the development of high hazard – and often environmentally important – coastal and stream areas, that remove sources of information on hazards, or that unintentionally undermine the resilience of people and communities. Overarching these important details is a very strong ethos for economic growth and development, seen as the main goal of governments and Australian society (e.g. Handmer 2008). To the extent that this is the case, even where sound policies and laws are in place, they will have to compete successfully with this dominant ethos. Changing such entrenched structural impediments to effective emergency management is difficult, but an important first step could be to review our law, policies and institutions for their role in creating disasters. This would be a large task, but it has been done already for national competition policy. A key result would be to break the linkage that sees disaster management as impeding economic growth. 2. Review and alter liability regimes to ensure liability resides with those who create the risk The review advocated in point 1 targets institutional structures that promote vulnerability and undermine resilience. However, individuals also create vulnerabilities by undertaking developments in certain areas, introducing processes and successfully pressuring for changes or exceptions to regulations, or through changes over time. One of the common examples is the development of flood-prone or otherwise unsuitable land. Another is the location of entities that are inherently vulnerable such as nursing homes, or that create additional risk – including environmental risk - for those nearby, such as some types of industries and research facilities. Where property owners who find themselves with a defective structure have sued, they have sued government bodies for not being vigilant enough (and for their deep pockets), while those who created the problem escape litigation. This problem may be very serious where, for example, there is a large residential development that is seriously flood-prone. Local authorities will often be blamed, but their supposed power to regulate is often overruled by State governments or planning tribunals. In any case, most Australian jurisdictions do not use prescriptive planning regulations, and planning is increasingly about facilitating major developments rather than attempting to enhance local economic advantage or hazard avoidance. Whatever the merits of performance-based planning, the result is that development can be very hard to prevent even in high risk areas. Given that a return to prescriptive regulation is unlikely, liability regimes should be reviewed with a view to ensuring that those who create and profit from the risks bear a fair proportion of the responsibility. 3. Reduce obesity as it may be undermining fire and emergency management in a number of ways There are many aspects of contemporary lifestyles that have implications for emergency management. People have very high expectations of these services even though much of the effort is provided by volunteers. Despite the protests of agencies that expectations are far too high, the reality is that in Australia, they are usually more or less met, and when there is a serious gap between agency performance and expectations, public and coronial inquiries reinforce the public’s expectations by chasing the chimera of zero risk. This is especially the case after fires for

195

196

Ten Commitments

the institutional reason that a post-fire coronial inquiry is mandatory in some jurisdictions, and also because there appears to be a widespread belief that all fires are predictable in their behaviour, and ultimately controllable. Controllability depends in large part on the weather, and we cannot yet control this. Bringing expectations into line with what can realistically be delivered is likely to be achieved with a ‘whole-of-society’ involvement as suggested in point 4, supported by political leaders dedicated to increasing resilience. This would require challenging the culture of dependence and compensation helped along by its political attractiveness. In contrast with the weather, there are many aspects of lifestyle that involve matters of individual choice, such as obesity (Zimmet and James 2006). Reducing vulnerability is closely connected with enhancing health and life expectancy. Obesity is well connected with reducing both. In terms specifically of emergency management, mobility is fundamental for both personnel whether volunteer or career, and for the safety of people at risk in ways only just being recognised, such as making existing building codes relating to egress redundant as the human body is getting much larger than catered for by current codes. An obesity epidemic threatens to make recruitment difficult, and to undermine health and resilience across Australia – especially in an era where the rhetoric is that risk should be shared between government and those at risk. Addressing the 2008 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Chairman of the International Obesity Taskforce argued that obesity was as big a challenge as climate change (Briggs 2008). Reducing obesity could have a major positive impact on emergency management and sustainability. 4. Create whole-of-government-and-society approaches to emergency management – including the private sector Disasters and emergencies are a whole-of-society problem, and especially a joint concern of responsible government and potentially affected communities (Handmer and Dovers 2007). The ownership of the problem, and participation in the response to it, are wider than often assumed in both a traditional preparedness-response approach and in the more contemporary risk management approach. Wider ownership of the problem necessitates different policy processes and policy responses, based on different relationships, information and sources of authority. Ownership of, and participation in managing the problem requires recognition of community vulnerability and resilience (and the role of civil society in this), the increasing role of the private sector in both essential infrastructure and livelihood provision, and a range of non-tangible issues. This is in addition to the more generally accepted notion of ‘whole-of-government’ whereby agencies cooperate traditionally though committees and task forces, now joined by powerful industry associations. Processes are needed to move this beyond platitudes. 5. Reframe efficiency to avoid creating high vulnerabilities – and be cautious with commercialisation of emergency management The transfer of public goods and services to the private sector has been pursued vigorously in Australia, although less obviously in fire and emergency management than other fields. In the US, the experience has been quite different with the private sector now playing a key role in fire fighting for example. There are three ways that this trend affects emergency management: L

Directly, through the performance of emergency management functions by commercial entities. Such entities are dedicated to making profit and usually to expanding their market share. Low cost, low margin approaches do not bring the commercial returns provided by expensive technologies. So the approaches favoured may not be the most

Emergency management

L

L

effective at reducing vulnerabilities and community-based approaches may be ignored. The effect is likely to be that emergency management costs escalate. Increased vulnerabilities, as margins are squeezed. Including some redundancy in our systems may be sound practice not simply for emergency management, but for any enterprise operating in the face of uncertainty and with much at stake. Yet this is seen as inefficient in a commercial world dedicated to eliminating any slack. The issue for emergency managers is that a small failure in any part of such ‘optimised’ systems is likely to concatenate through the rest of the system. Charles Perrow calls these highly sensitive arrangements ‘tightly coupled systems’ (1984). In rich countries this is well demonstrated by just-in-time food and energy distribution systems that may be highly vulnerable to disruption. Our argument is not for built-in inefficiency, but for consideration of the impacts of failure and the use of ‘fail safe’ design where appropriate – some of this may come from increased flexibility and from harnessing informal or community capacity. Some private critical infrastructure providers are simply not interested in emergency management issues and resist efforts to pressure them to make provisions. As this infrastructure underpins our society and economy it seems strange that an opt-out option exists.

6. Adapt to global environment change rather than simply relying on emergency management to handle the growing residual risk Australians are concerned about their environment and, as highlighted by a recent ABS report (2006), almost all take some action through recycling. But in other areas such as energy and transport, the nation is increasingly profligate. By ignoring environmental change and continuing to develop and settle in areas increasing prone to natural hazards such as bushfires, floods, cyclones and storm surge, without appropriate safeguards, much of the risk is transferred to the emergency services. Increasingly, higher risk in property development traded against enhanced emergency management is explicitly part of development proposals. Emergency management has effectively accepted this challenge, albeit under protest. Development occurs and the role of emergency management is to protect it. Paradoxically the relative success of Australian emergency management has unintentionally supported an approach to global environmental change of denial by planners and developers. We suggest that far more effort should go into adapting to change. Part of this requires a recognition of the importance of the creeping or slow-onset disaster of climate change in contrast to the current focus on rapid onset and well-defined ‘events’. Adaptation issues can seem contradictory. For example, with water, there are issues of too much as well as not enough, with the result that we have to get better at flood risk management; and at the same time have to deal with more dry periods, increased bushfire risk and with less water for fire fighting including, unexpectedly, fire fighting in high-rise buildings (an unintended consequence of reduced water pressure is poorly functioning fire sprinkler systems). 7. Use the internationalisation of emergency management to enhance local capacity while ensuring locally appropriate approaches to fire and emergency management Aspects of emergency management have long had international dimensions through deliberate agency policy, international commerce, and through the global reach of major disasters. Many emergency management organisations seek to identify and implement best practice, and increasingly, this involves international exchange of personnel and working visits. However, the emphasis up until now remains on techniques and equipment rather than policy, and it is oper-

197

198

Ten Commitments

ational rather than strategic staff who have benefited the most. While agencies benefit, the role of the private sector may be double-edged. Firms marketing emergency management services are increasingly doing so globally and in the process may be encouraging economically inefficient approaches that may be unsuited to other jurisdictions (see also point 5 above). Disasters in one part of the world have long been recognised to have impacts on other locations far from the initial point of impact. This was dramatically illustrated recently by the 2004 Asian tsunami and 2002 Bali bombings. People from all over the world died, impacting their home countries, and the events resulted in global changes in thinking about tsunamis and terrorism. Many events have international reach in more subtle ways: for example, through media promotion and interpretations of the events, the impact on overseas relatives of the reported events, and global changes to planning and regulations emerging from the events. All three areas of internationalisation mentioned above, by agencies, commerce and the reach of the events themselves, provide opportunities for critical reflection, enhancing local capacity and the adoption of locally appropriate approaches. 8. Align fire and emergency risk management with changes in demographics and settlement patterns The pattern of settlement in Australia today can be characterised by sustained strong growth at the rural-urban interface of most major cities, and by steady internal migration to the coast and in particular to the northern tropical coast. The coastal migrants are known as ‘sea changers’ and those part of a weaker trend to move into the bush are known as ‘tree changers’. Many sea and tree changers are older people. In addition, a notable proportion of the country’s population growth is driven by migration (see Salt 2003). The result is that large numbers of people are moving into areas with significant natural hazards like bushfires and cyclones. In addition, this trend is placing substantial assets and local economies at risk. Emergency management capabilities in many of these areas depend on volunteers and on local resilience and self-reliance. But the risk is being compounded by the fact that new arrivals in these areas are often unaware of the risks, and may not be interested in or capable of volunteering. Planning schemes and building regulations which consider biophysical hazards are in place in many areas, but difficulties often arise in ensuring compliance. In any case, no account is taken of the other aspects of the risk: the people and the scale of the developing problem. This all points to much more consideration being given to all aspects of the risk, and to mechanisms that go well beyond a case-by-case approach to a strategic approach that for example, takes account of the whole coast. 9. Make knowledge accessible, relevant and usable for emergency management agencies through appropriate technology Knowledge underpins contemporary emergency management. There are many types, including local knowledge and the vast pool held in the minds of practitioners. One major challenge is to capture and make all types of knowledge accessible. Another is to maximise the utility of the information, avoiding blame and potential legal liability issues. At present, this last issue may be impeding take-up and learning as agencies inevitably are careful in public forums apparently (whether by design or otherwise) dedicated to blame. Full and frank disclosure may seem like an invitation to be sued, and legal clarification and change may be needed. Information and knowledge should be taken by agencies and applied to their own needs and circumstance. Information and communication technology, including spatial information handling

Emergency management

software, are tools to facilitate information exchange and collaboration, but should not be seen or funded as an end in itself. Potential legal impediments to learning and the use of knowledge should be identified and removed, and a lot more thinking is needed around the concepts of ‘knowledge’ and ‘lessons learned’. 10. Better collaboration and interoperability to reduce waste and improve outcomes Global environmental change and its intersection with social and economic shifts appears to be bringing larger events of longer duration. Increasingly, no single emergency service or agency is able to deal with these complex protracted events without collaboration with other agencies and sectors – as mentioned in point 4 above. This is leading to the need for collaboration on the setting of common standards for skills, equipment and systems which allow for interoperability between different service providers whether they are from another State, country or the private sector. An example of this is that all the fire and emergency service agencies in Australia and New Zealand have adopted the Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS ICS) for incident control. Partnering with communities at risk is becoming standard rhetoric as it is expected that they understand their risks and share the responsibility. Using a unifying operating system and working in a coherent way across the range of agencies and multitude of other stakeholders should produce better outcomes including better environmental outcomes. Much more effort is needed, for example to put in place compatible information and communication systems (also see Point 4).

Conclusions Australian emergency management has been very successful – although it could be more environmentally benign. But success can bring its own hazards. For emergency management, these include unrealistic expectations on the part of those at risk and perhaps governments, as well as an implicit belief that as the climate changes, and as many of our settlements and activities become more vulnerable, emergency managers can provide protection. This increasing dependence on fire and emergency management provides a short-term solution to the issue of adaptation to change, but is not compatible with sustainability. We have set out a number of issues that could be addressed to improve this situation. None of the suggestions is radical in that it lies outside current practice in some field of governance, and as such provides one way forward. Implementation may require institutional change. For example, the establishment of an active national network of stakeholders, with a funded secretariat to drive the suggested reviews and develop implementation plans.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006) ‘What do Australians think about protecting the environment? Current or emerging issues paper’. Prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2006. Briggs H (2008) Quoted in ‘Obesity ‘requires climate plan’’. BBC News. 18 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7250608.stm COAG (2004a). ‘National disasters in Australia: reforming mitigation, relief and recovery arrangements’. Dept. of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra.

199

200

Ten Commitments

COAG (2004b) ‘Report of the national inquiry on bushfire mitigation and management’. Council of Australian Governments, Canberra. Handmer J and Dovers S (2007) The Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions. Earthscan, London. Handmer J (2008) Risk creation, bearing and sharing on Australian floodplains. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24, 527–540. Mileti D (1999) Disasters by Design. Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents. Basic Books, New York. Salt B (2003) The Big Shift: Welcome to the Third Australian Culture. Hardie Grant Books, Melbourne. UN–ISDR (UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (1999) Declaration of intent. Geneva: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs. US National Science and Technology Council (2005) Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction. Zimmet PZ and James WP (2006). The unstoppable Australian obesity juggernaut. What should politicians do? Medical Journal of Australia (Editorial) 185(4), 187–188.

ENERGY Ian Lowe

1. Accept the principle that carbon dioxide emissions must be cut by 25–40% by 2020 as the first step in reducing by 95% by 2050. 2. Regulate to require energy efficiency of appliances, vehicle fleets, industrial equipment and buildings to reflect world’s best practice. 3. Set ambitious targets for renewable energy electricity generation. 4. Mandate solar hot water for all dwellings except where solar access is limited. 5. Phase out all the present subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use, and redirect investment to establishing a well-funded energy research, development and demonstration program. 6. Levy carbon taxes or establish an emissions trading scheme. 7. Develop effective public transport systems for all major urban areas. 8. Develop planning principles to produce compact urban villages. 9. Set the highest environmental standards for public buildings, as well as energy and other resource use by government and public authorities. 10. Involve the whole community in a process of social learning to develop political support for a clean energy future.

Introduction Economic development in the 20th century was fuelled by plentiful cheap energy. It has been clear for decades that the energy outlook for this century is totally different (Lowe 1977). There is disagreement about the peak of world oil production, with optimists thinking it might still be up to 10 years away, while pessimists think it has already passed (Deffreyes 2001). Whether optimists or pessimists are right, there is no escaping the conclusion that the age of plentiful cheap petroleum fuels is ending; the scientific basis for ‘peak oil’ was established more than 50 years ago (Hubbert 1956). So the energy source which now powers almost all our transport will certainly become more expensive. Depending on the politics of the Middle East, oil supplies may also be limited. The near-term future will require a new approach to transport. Public subsidies have encouraged road freight rather than rail and coastal shipping, while inept urban planning has encouraged single-person car use for city trips. These wasteful practices are squandering limited petroleum fuels.

201

202

Ten Commitments

The second challenge for future energy use is global warming. The science has now been refined to the point where there is no serious dispute about the human influence on climate (IPCC 2007). Politicians of the developed world accepted the scientific arguments 10 years ago when they negotiated the Kyoto Protocol to slow down release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Australian Government demanded the world’s most generous Kyoto target, but then made no serious effort to cut emissions. For a decade, we slowed progress toward a global carbon dioxide stabilisation regime. Australia rejoined the international community in 2007 by ratifying the Kyoto Agreement. The Bali Conference set out a process for developing a future global treaty that can potentially accommodate all major polluters. The issue is very urgent. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of human civilisation is in the balance. Climate change doesn’t just have short-term effects on human societies or our economic prospects. The Millennium Assessment Report (United Nations 2005) warned that we are losing species at an accelerating rate as the driving forces of habitat loss, introduced species and chemical pollution are supplemented by climate change. This Report forecast we could lose between 10–30% of all mammal, bird and amphibian species this century. These are alarming consequences that demand a concerted international response.

Key issues 1. Set a science-based emissions reduction target and commit to achieving it The science shows that the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must peak by 2015 and then decline steeply so as to be no more than 40% of the present level by 2050 (IPCC 2007). To achieve this global target while allowing for improvement in material living standards in poorer countries, the IPCC has called for the industrialised nations to reduce their emissions by 25–40% by 2020 as a first step toward cuts of 80–95% by 2050. Some government sources are currently promoting a much weaker target, effectively putting short-term economic goals ahead of Australia’s obligation to the rest of the world. We must set a serious science-based target and develop a concerted plan to achieve it. This will require courageous action from all levels of government to develop cleaner energy supply and much more efficient conversion of energy into the services we need. To reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the air, we must use cleaner fuels and use them more efficiently. Using coal-fired electricity to heat water or cook, rather than burning gas, puts about four times as much carbon dioxide into the air. Renewable energies, such as solar or wind power, release very little carbon dioxide, so they should be the preferred option. Where it is impractical in the short term to scale up renewable electricity to replace coal-fired power, gas should be used as a transition fuel. 2. Achieve efficiency improvements Equally important, we must convert energy more efficiently into the services we want. Nobody actually wants energy; we want hot showers and cold drinks, the ability to cook our food, wash our clothes and move around. Most of the technology we use is very wasteful. The European Union now has a target of cutting energy use by a quarter by 2020, and some countries like the Netherlands have more ambitious aims. There is no reason at all to be less ambitious than the EU; since we haven’t taken many of the easy cost-effective actions already adopted in Europe, we should be able to achieve greater savings in the near future. Saving energy is often much cheaper than buying it. The Natural Advantage of Nations gives a number of case studies (Hargroves and Smith 2005), showing that improving efficiency makes business sense. At the

Energy

household level, if domestic appliances are more efficient, people save money as well as slowing climate change. So we should move immediately to set minimum efficiency standards for office equipment, domestic appliances and industrial processing, reflecting world’s best practice. We should also improve building standards for houses and offices, again reflecting best practice in design and orientation to reduce energy demand. 3. Set targets for renewables We should set targets for renewable energy in the same way that progressive nations in the Northern Hemisphere have done. We could aim at generating 25% more electricity from renewables by 2020 than we are currently generating, and 50% more by 2030. These are realistic targets based on existing technology. The change need not involve significant price increases. More than 15 years ago, a Commonwealth report (Stevens 1992) estimated that we could get 30% of our electricity from renewables at no significant extra cost. The clean energy supply technologies have improved dramatically since then, despite meagre funding and limited political support compared with the huge sums lavished on ‘clean coal’ and nuclear delusions. Bright Future (Rutovitz et al. 2006) showed that we could still get 25% of our power from a mix of renewables by 2020, despite 15 years of inaction since the 1992 report. This strategy would be better for employment and the economy generally than the present approach. The National Framework for Energy Efficiency (Commonwealth of Australia 2003) estimated that domestic, industrial and commercial energy use could be cut 30% using measures that would repay the initial investment in less than four years. That approach would create more than 10 000 jobs in activities such as retro-fitting buildings, installing solar hot water systems and replacing inefficient equipment, mostly in regional Australia. Efficiency measures and a real commitment to renewable energy would employ about as many people as the entire workforce of the coal industry. 4. Mandate solar hot water In ‘A clean energy future for Australia’ (Saddler et al. 2004), measures such as solar hot water and improved efficiency are used to reduce electricity demand in 2040 to 14% below the 2001 value, despite anticipated population growth. This is a crucial point. Studies that assume continuing growth in energy use often conclude that new renewable capacity cannot be built fast enough. Solar hot water is the most obvious cost-effective way of reducing electricity demand, since the time to recoup the capital cost almost anywhere in mainland Australia is less than the guarantee period for modern equipment (Lowe et al. 1984). It makes sense to mandate solar hot water now for all of mainland Australia except those few sites where solar access is limited by other buildings. 5. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies There are always winners and losers from major policy changes, so we should develop transitional strategies to handle the structural consequences. Achieving change on the necessary scale requires price signals, appropriate regulation and a process of social learning involving the whole community. The obvious way to fund the transition is to phase out the huge current subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use. Various studies estimate the annual public subsidy of fossil fuel supply and use in Australia to be between five and eight billion dollars, without allowing for the costs of climate change (Diesendorf 2007). We should systematically transfer these public funds to the expansion of renewable energy supply technologies and efficiency gains. A high priority should be the restoration of a fund to support research, development and demonstration projects in these fields.

203

204

Ten Commitments

6. Develop financial incentives to encourage low-carbon approaches We should also provide financial incentives to encourage low-carbon approaches to meet our material needs. There is still a robust debate about the relative merits of carbon taxes, with the revenues used to fund development of clean alternatives, or an emissions trading scheme. A well designed cap-and-trade system would be a solid basis for limiting our future emissions, while a poorly designed scheme would simply allow profiteering by the worst polluters. While emissions trading has the potential to harnesses market forces to achieve savings in economically optimal ways, design of the trading regime will be crucial. 7. Invest in public transport We should begin planning immediately to reduce our transport fuel use, inflated by the longstanding subsidies of road freight, the encouragement of single-person car use for urban trips and vehicle efficiencies that are very poor by international standards (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). As well as moving to set serious standards for vehicle efficiency and phasing out the subsidy of road freight, we should begin to invest in world-class public transport systems for all major urban areas, rather than squandering huge sums on dinosaur road schemes. The twin forces of climate change and ‘peak oil’ both demand a move to improve dramatically the fuelefficiency of urban transport. 8. Focus urban planning on sustainable development Future planning should also emphasise compact urban villages with everyday needs within walking or cycling distance to reduce the transport task. Such cities would provide a better social environment and improve community health by promoting physical activity in more natural surroundings, as well as meeting energy goals. 9. Governments set the example and ensure implementation As discussed above, some changes require regulation: efficiency standards and targets for clean energy supply are obvious examples. Governments will have to be modelling good practice by ensuring that they set the highest environmental standards for public buildings as well as for energy and resource use by government and public authorities. The sustainability reform agenda clearly needs an institutional base to work through the Council of Australian Governments, taking a whole-of-government approach at all levels. The new government has a policy commitment to establish a National Sustainability Commission which would develop a sustainability charter, setting out broad principles of a desirable future as well as specifying science-based targets for key areas such as energy, GHG emissions, water use, transport, biodiversity, buildings and urban planning. This will be a vital step toward implementing the reforms spelled out in this chapter. 10. Involving the community Finally, a low-carbon future will only be politically sustainable if it is developed through a process of public involvement, along similar lines to the approach used recently in Sweden to arrive at their future energy strategy. A community conversation to develop our future energy strategy should be a high priority.

Conclusion The two big challenges of ‘peak oil’ and climate change demand a different approach to energy supply and use. A concerted response strategy is environmentally essential, technically possible, socially desirable, economically achievable and politically preferable to the alternative of

Energy

waiting until there is massive social and ecological disruption. It should not need saying, but a future sustainable society clearly must have stabilised both its population and its overall resource use, including its energy consumption, at levels consistent with the limits of natural systems. This is a radical departure from present thinking and would be widely seen as bordering on heresy, but it is an inescapable conclusion if we are serious about a sustainable future.

References Commonwealth of Australia (2003) National Framework for Energy Efficiency. www.nfee.gov.au Deffeyes KS (2001) Hubbert’s Peak. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Diesendorf M (2007) Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. University of NSW Press, Kensington. Hargroves K and Smith M (Eds) (2005) The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century. Earthscan, London. Hubbert MK (1956) ‘Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels’. American Petroleum Institute Drilling and Production Practice, Proceedings of Spring Meeting, San Antonio Texas pp. 7–25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) ‘Fourth Assessment Report’. IPCC, Geneva. www.ipcc.org.ch Lowe I (1977) Energy options for Australia. Social Alternatives 1, 63–69. Lowe I, Backhouse DE and Sheumack M (1984) The experience of solar hot water systems. Search 15, 165–167. Newman PWG and Kenworthy JR (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington DC. Pearse G (2007) High and Dry. Penguin, Melbourne. Rutovitz J, Wakeham M and Richter M (2007) A Bright Future: 25% Renewable Energy for Australia by 2020. Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Climate Action Network Australia. Saddler H, Diesendorf M and Denniss R (2004) ‘A clean energy future for Australia’. WWF Australia, Sydney. http://wwf.org.au/publications/clean_energy.future.report.pdf Stevens M (1992) ‘Renewable Electricity for Australia’. NERDDC Discussion Paper No. 2. Department of Resources and Energy, Canberra. United Nations (2005) ‘Millennium assessment report’. www.mar.org

205

INDIGENOUS LAND AND SEA MANAGEMENT Jon Altman and Sue Jackson

1. Recognise the environmental significance of the Indigenous estate. 2. Recognise Indigenous customary marine tenure and aspirations to manage coastal country. 3. Recognise that customary natural resource management is a legitimate basis for joint management of protected areas. 4. Recognise that Indigenous land owners need assistance to manage their estates. 5. Respect the contributions that Indigenous knowledge can make to address environmental problems. 6. Resource Indigenous knowledge production and reproduction and exchange with Western science. 7. Address the investment deficit in management of the Indigenous estate through equitable funding. 8. Recognise Indigenous property rights in existing and emerging natural resource markets. 9. Resource Indigenous aspirations to live on-country and ensure a peopled landscape. 10. Resource research to assess the cost-effectiveness of Indigenous management regimes.

Introduction Australia is increasingly aware of the issues of climate change, water shortage, biodiversity loss and ecological sustainability. What is not yet well understood is that Indigenous people, given their substantial land holdings and traditions of sustainable management, have a crucial role to play in confronting these challenges and finding solutions in the national interest. Indigenous Australians own and have effective control of over 20% of the Australian landmass. A further 10% comprises the conservation estate which is managed in many places with the involvement of Indigenous people. This is especially so in 25 Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) that fall within both the Indigenous and conservation estates and comprise 23% of the conservation estate. Still greater areas of environmental significance fall within Indigenous customary estates not yet formally recognised by Australian law but nonetheless subject to Indigenous institutions of ownership and management. The Indigenous estate includes some of the most biodiverse terrestrial and aquatic environments in Australia. Maps from the National Land & Water Resources Audit indicate that many 207

208

Ten Commitments

of the most intact and nationally important wetlands, riparian zones, forests, reefs, rivers and waterways are located on the Indigenous estate (www.nlrwa.gov.au). Mapping also shows that these lands are at risk of species contraction and face major threats from feral animals, exotic weeds, changed climatic and fire regimes, pollution and over-grazing. The latest available climate science suggests that substantial biodiversity impacts on this crucial part of the continental land-mass and adjacent offshore areas are inevitable. In the face of this, an innovative national policy approach is required to support community-based efforts to ameliorate threats and minimise adverse biodiversity outcomes. This position is based on the recognition that effective resource management is much less expensive than environmental repair. Paradoxically, this vast land ownership coincides with high levels of Indigenous poverty and disadvantage that are arguably the most persistent and intractable social problems facing the nation. The Indigenous population is quite heterogeneous and diverse. While the majority of Indigenous people live in urban settings, the substantial numbers resident in rural and remote Australia face immense and unique challenges. Restitution of environmentally beneficial relationships with the land may contribute to reducing the vast differences in social outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. If the last 30 years has been the era of land rights – when Indigenous interests struggled to attain recognition of their prior ownership of the continent – the next 30 years will be the era of land and resource challenges, when the nation must work to implement effective environmental management regimes and resource strategies on the Indigenous estate. Currently, there is an ‘investment deficit’ in managing the Indigenous estate, putting at risk one-fifth of the country and exacerbating the potential for adverse spill-overs onto adjacent conservation estates and private lands. In the Northern Territory for example, conservation estate properties receive three times as much per sq km as IPAs and yet the conservation issues are remarkably similar. This chapter is based on the following four principles: (1) The social justice principle that the ownership of land should benefit Indigenous people in accord with their aspirations. It is recognised that aspirations are diverse – not all Indigenous people want to be land managers and conversely not all want to work in mines or tourism or migrate to mainstream employment. Indigenous land owner aspirations in relation to land management need to be clearly established, heard and respected. (2) The funding equity principle that Indigenous people should be remunerated equitably from the public purse for land and resource management undertaken in the national interest. At present, most work is undertaken by ‘community rangers’ under the Community Development Employment Program that only pays part-time wages equivalent to welfare entitlements rather than proper wages. (3) A national interest principle that it is for the benefit of all Australians to ensure that assets on the Indigenous estate are maintained and well managed. For example, a large proportion of Australia’s pristine rivers are on the Indigenous estate; their maintenance will require resource management in the riparian zone to protect them from threats like exotic weed infestations, wild fire, and feral animals (Jackson and Douglas 2007). (4) A cultural difference principle recognising that many Indigenous people believe their environmental relationships and philosophies are essential to cultural vitality and resilience, as well as underpin social and economic well-being. Current environmental policy tends to promote recognition and protection of Indigenous cultural values. However, a narrow view of heritage management has often resulted in the exclusion of Indigenous people from conservation and natural resource management activities. The most direct and enduring

Indigenous land and sea management

means of embracing, protecting and, in some cases, enhancing cultural values is through ensuring access to country and the equitable participation of Indigenous people in a suite of management activities.

Key issues 1. Recognise the environmental significance of the Indigenous estate The Indigenous estate, mainly in central and northern Australia, has very high biodiversity value and much of it is contiguous and ecologically co-dependent with the smaller conservation estate. A review of the National Reserve System in the 1990s concluded that the inclusion of Indigenous lands in remote Australia was critical to establishing a system that is comprehensive, adequate and representative of the full range of ecosystems (Thackway et al. 1994). In the last decade two-thirds of lands added to National Reserve System have been Aboriginalowned and are managed as IPAs (see Figure 7). Figure 8 represents the Australian conservation management system in relation to Indigenous land holdings. 2. Recognise Indigenous customary marine tenure and aspirations to manage sea country Australia has some of the most diverse, unique and spectacular marine life in the world. Indigenous groups in many of these rich and often remote environments regard the sea, islands, reefs, sandbars and sea grass beds as an inseparable part of their estates. They possess extensive knowledge of environmental zones in the coastal and marine environment (Jackson 2004). Through sea claims and the strategic activities of local land and sea management agencies, coastal Indigenous communities are seeking a primary role in the use and management of marine and coastal environments and resources. Marine management requires restructuring to allow for two things: Indigenous economic engagement in the commercial fishing industry, and the co-management of Australia’s maritime jurisdiction alongside Indigenous systems of governance and management. This step could serve as a means of settling the many claims to sea, inter-tidal zones and estuaries, and islands and aquatic living resources. As with point 4 below, sufficient resources are urgently needed to support the environmental protection and stewardship activities of land and sea management groups, such as coastal surveillance, marine debris clean-ups and threatened species management. 3. Recognise that customary natural resource management is a legitimate basis for joint management of protected areas To advance Indigenous recognition and protection of ‘natural values’ according to a protected area model of conservation, governments need to recognise and protect Indigenous values and objectives on lands where Indigenous ownership and connection has been disrupted. This can be achieved through the restoration of Indigenous land management practices under joint management arrangements. Australia should aim to match world best practice in protected area management by encouraging all levels of government to set a goal of negotiating consent agreements with the appropriate Indigenous groups for the management of all existing protected areas by 2013, the date of the next World Parks Congress (Bauman and Smyth 2007).

209

210

Ten Commitments

Figure 7: Indigenous Protected Areas and the Indigenous estate, November 2007

Indigenous land and sea management

Figure 8: Relationship between the Indigenous estate and the conservation estate

4. Recognise that Indigenous land owners need assistance to manage their estates While the Indigenous estate is relatively environmentally intact, it faces numerous challenges, many from introduced pests. Managing these remote locations constitutes one of the nation’s most significant land management challenges (Altman and Whitehead 2003; Whitehead 1999). Most Indigenous owners are socio-economically disadvantaged and lack financial and other capacity to address the myriad of current and future threats independently, and to restore degraded ecosystems. 5. Respect the contribution that Indigenous knowledge is making to address environmental problems Indigenous natural resource management practice is shaped by culturally specific systems of knowledge, historical association, practical experience and social institutions such as property rights. The tremendous growth in grass-roots Indigenous initiatives in recent years has seen the emergence of partnerships between Indigenous experts and western-trained scientists in many parts of Australia (Baker et al. 2001). Indigenous knowledge – values, beliefs and specific content – may help improve current understanding of critical ecological processes, as well as offer insights into ethical and policy trade-off dilemmas facing consumer societies in the quest for sustainability (Fischer et al. 2007). 6. Resource Indigenous knowledge production and reproduction and exchange with Western science In many remote places, the production and transfer of knowledge continues to be sustained by Indigenous traditions that differ from place to place. Environmental changes have brought new requirements for information. There is an urgent need to negotiate new systems and

211

212

Ten Commitments

practices to allow the engagement of different ways of thinking about natural resource management research and practice (Christie 2007). There is an urgent need for a major program to conserve Indigenous languages, support youth education and other social practices that validate and transfer Indigenous knowledge across generations. Such a program should include support for junior ranger initiatives and inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in school curricula. Indigenous land management agencies require digital technologies (e.g. geographic information systems) and the capacity to record, codify and integrate different forms of Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge. There is also a pressing need to support building of Indigenous capabilities to ensure strengthening of blended customary and western natural resource management institutions. Addressing this challenge will require a major effort beyond discrete national resource management initiatives. However, the potential significance of Indigenous contributions to the sustainability challenge could well encourage broader innovation in Indigenous policy reform. 7. Address the investment deficit in management of the Indigenous estate through equitable funding There is growing recognition of an investment deficit on the Indigenous estate (Altman and Dillon 2005; Altman et al. 2007). Funding has not kept pace with the growth in IPA declarations and only supports very basic land management activity (Gilligan 2006). Indigenous land owners and residents are currently delivering a suite of environmental services in the Top End of the Northern Territory. A ‘Caring for Land and Sea Country’ network of 36 community-based groups is providing services in weed control, fire management, coastal surveillance and biosecurity supported by welfare entitlement equivalents paid under the Community Development Employment Program (Northern Land Council 2006). Such arrangements, while suitably flexible to accommodate diverse local circumstances, are financially inadequate. In 2007, the Federal Government introduced a new Working on Country Program that will fund over 200 salaried positions throughout the Indigenous estate. Such equitable resourcing of proper employment in natural resource management could be greatly expanded. Universal standards of good management and accountability will need to apply with procedures for evaluating outcomes. 8. Recognise Indigenous property rights in existing and emerging natural resource markets There is political debate and often protracted legal dispute over Indigenous access to natural resources like fisheries, evident in cases such as Blue Mud Bay in north-east Arnhem Land where the High Court of Australia recently (July 2007) confirmed Aboriginal ownership of the intertidal zone and an associated right to exclude commercial or recreational fishers. Such problems could be avoided if Indigenous interests in new forms of property in emerging natural resource markets such as fresh water, carbon, and biodiversity offsets were legally recognised. This would offer Indigenous land owners the opportunity to trade in the provision of environmental services, many of which are compatible with other aspirations (like the production of arts and crafts) and promote desirable environmental outcomes. Changes need to be made to natural resource policies to provide clarity of property rights and to assist with the establishment of institutional arrangements to deliver benefits and re-investment in environmental objectives. 9. Resource Indigenous aspirations to live on country and to ensure a peopled landscape There are over 1000 small Indigenous townships and outstations located on the Indigenous estate, mostly in remote Australia. There has been considerable policy debate in recent years

Indigenous land and sea management

about the economic viability of these small communities; some, like outstations, average only 20 persons per community (Altman 2006). On the other hand, with the Indigenous estate growing as a result of successful land claims and native title determinations, Indigenous people are exercising their aspirations to live on the land they now legally own. There is growing recognition that occupied landscapes are essential for the effective management of Australia’s environment (Altman and Whitehead 2003). Appropriate support of outstations is central to cost-effective Indigenous natural resource management delivery (Luckert et al. 2007). The restoration of sustainable settlement patterns on the Indigenous estate will enhance Indigenous social well-being and health (Johnston et al. 2007), while also improving the nation’s environmental management capacity. 10. Resource research to assess the cost effectiveness of Indigenous management regimes While there is no doubt that a peopled landscape is essential for effective land management, there is little research that assesses the cost-effectiveness of different management regimes and the contributions that Indigenous people make to meet national and international conservation goals. Additional research is urgently needed that encompasses both Indigenous and nonIndigenous perspectives on effectiveness and that are inclusive of environmental, economic and socio-cultural costs and benefits.

Conclusion Indigenous Australians are owners and managers of a very significant portion of the Australian continent. Much of the Indigenous estate is environmentally intact and abuts or forms a part of the conservation estate. At a time of heightened national awareness about issues like climate change, water shortages, environmental degradation, and ecological sustainability and about Indigenous disadvantage, there are clear opportunities to enhance Indigenous engagement in land and sea management as a form of sustainable Indigenous economic development. Such ‘caring for land and sea country’ accords with the aspirations of many Indigenous people to live on their ancestral lands and to be actively engaged and properly rewarded for land and sea management work. Such activity, if realistically resourced, would generate local, regional, national and global environmental and other benefits.

References Altman JC (2006) ‘In search of an outstations policy for Indigenous Australians under the new administrative arrangements’. CAEPR Working Paper No. 34. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra. Altman JC and Dillon MC (2005) Commercial development and natural resource management on the Indigenous estate: A profit-related investment proposal. Economic Papers 24, 249–262. Altman JC and Whitehead PJ (2003) ‘Caring for country and sustainable Indigenous development: Opportunities, constraints and innovation’. CAEPR Working Paper No. 20. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra. Altman JC, Buchanan GJ and Larsen L (2007) ‘The environmental significance of the Indigenous estate: Natural resource management as economic development’. CAEPR

213

214

Ten Commitments

Discussion Paper No. 286. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University, Canberra. Baker R, Davies J and Young E (Eds) (2001) Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Bauman T and Smyth D (2007) Indigenous Partnerships in Protected Area Management in Australia: Three Case Studies. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in association with the Australian Collaboration and the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), Canberra. Christie M (2007) Knowledge management and natural resource management. In Investing in Indigenous Natural Resource Management. (Eds M Luckert, B Campbell, J Gorman and S Garnett) pp. 86–90. Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin. Fischer J, Manning A, Steffan W, Rose D, Daniell K, Felton A, Garnett S, Gilna B, Heinsohn R, Lindenmeyer D, MacDonald B, Mills F, Newell B, Reid J, Robin L, Sherren K and Wade A (2007) Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22, 621–624. Gilligan B (2006) The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme 2006 Evaluation. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Jackson S (2004) Maritime agreements and the recognition of customary marine tenure in the Northern Territory. In Honour Among Nations? Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous People. (Eds M Langton, M Teehan, L Palmer and K Shain) pp. 220–236. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Jackson S and Douglas M (2007) A case for Indigenous water management. In Investing in Indigenous Natural Resource Management. (Eds M Luckert, B Campbell, J Gorman and S Garnett) pp. 53–61. Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin. Johnston F, Burgess P and Bowman D (2007) A case for Indigenous natural resource management and health. In Investing in Indigenous Natural Resource Management. (Eds M Luckert, B Campbell, J Gorman and S Garnett) pp. 91–95. Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin. Luckert M, Campbell B, Gorman J and Garnett S (Eds) (2007) Investing in Indigenous Natural Resource Management. Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin. Northern Land Council (2006) Celebrating Ten Years of Caring for Country: A Northern Land Council Initiative. Northern land Council, Darwin. Thackway R, Szabo S and Smyth D (1994) Indigenous protected areas: a new concept in biodiversity conservation. In Biodiversity: Broadening the Debate 4. (Ed. R Longmore) pp. 18–34. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Whitehead PJ (1999) Is it time to fill the north’s empty landscapes? Savanna Links 11, 6–7.

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS Stephen Dovers

‘The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change; the policies and institutions concerned must.’ World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987, p. 9) ‘Politics is the essential ingredient for producing workable policies, which are more publicly accountable and politically justifiable ... While some are uncomfortable with the notion that politics can enhance rational decisionmaking, preferring to see politics as expediency, it is integral to the process of securing defensible outcomes. We are unable to combine values, interests and resources in ways which are not political.’ (Davis et al. 1993, p. 257) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Factor in the long-term. Integrate environment, society and economy in policy. Ensure sustainability and its aims are clearly coded in statute law. Support international sustainability efforts. Adopt innovative policy approaches. Involve the community. Decouple growth and environmental degradation. Refashion the statutory framework. Attend to overlooked sectors. Establish a bipartisan agenda.

Introduction Human societies achieve common goals or reconcile differences through institutions and political and policy processes operating through those institutions, via the interactions of governments, communities, civil society and industry (Connor and Dovers 2004; Young 2002). A pathway of development that is humanly desirable and ecologically sustainable is the great challenge of the 21st century. It has been articulated and pursued for some time, and a key reason for poor progress is lack of reform of institutions and policy processes. Compared to other social and political goals, sustainability has not been pursued vigorously through institutional reform. 215

216

Ten Commitments

This chapter takes a public policy perspective on environment and sustainability issues. In a departure from much environmental policy discussion, it does not advocate specific policy instruments or organisational forms. Rather, it identifies the functions needed to be fulfilled to seriously address long-term sustainability and indicates a range of possible forms that could fulfill those functions. This concentrates attention on reforming underlying policy processes and institutional systems for longer term impact, as opposed to more common and superficial arguments over policy instrument choice, departmental structures, or short-term programs. Three qualifications. First, the options presented are framed to be achievable within existing norms of Australian politics, law and governance. Some believe that only radical institutional shifts will suffice. That may be true, but is it argued here that very significant progress can be made within existing parameters. That makes arguing against such reforms harder. Second, the focus is mostly at national/Federal Government level, with some reference to other levels. This is largely due to limits of space. Third, the focus is on public policy and institutions, not to deny the importance of civil society and private sector actions, but in recognition of the primary role of responsible government in creating legally defensible policy and institutional settings. Sustainable development is a goal and policy agenda that seeks to reconcile human development and security with long-term ecological integrity (for overviews, see Berkhout et al. 2002; Page and Proops 2003). This agenda was proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development more than 20 years ago (WCED 1987). It was accepted by the majority of countries of the world at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (United Nations 1992), and by Australian governments in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) (Commonwealth of Australia 1992). The goal and principles of ESD are stated in aspirational form in countless Australian government, non-government and private sector policies, and in over 100 pieces of State and Commonwealth legislation. Yet many have tired of the big idea of sustainability and its Australian policy manifestation, ESD. Too vague, too hard, not yet achieved – better to seek another framework, or to focus on single important issues rather than an integrative synthesis. I will persist with ESD for three reasons. First, there is no other credible candidate for an integrative policy framework. Second, without an integrative framework and set of principles, we are reduced to the very same fragmented policy approaches, sector-by-sector and issue-by-issue, that have caused much environmental (and human) degradation. Third, the lack of implementation and achievement should not surprise. If we understand sustainable development as a higher order social goal, quick gratification is unlikely, but rather a generational challenge to knowledge, policy and behavior, and institutional reform (Connor and Dovers 2004). Other such goals – democracy, equity, peace, the rule of law – have been around far longer, are still hotly contested, but few would abandon them impatiently.

Policy processes and institutional systems ‘Policy’ and ‘institution’ are words used variably, but in the context of driving sustainable development the focus here will be on the policy processes that produce specific policy. Similarly, features of the more important institutional system within which particular, more ephemeral organisations operate are dealt with rather than organisations themselves.. Too often, environmental policy debates are about which policy instrument is best – market mechanisms, regulation, education, local participatory programs – no matter what

Policy and institutional reforms

the problem, rather than about creating the processes best capable of comprehending different problems and informing policy choice. Similarly, much debate ignores the capacity of our institutional system. What passes for institutional change thus far has been more buck-passing, renaming programs, complication through duplication, and tinkering with organisational identities. Most importantly, the implications of sustainability as a wholeof-society and whole-of-government challenge receive little attention. Specialisation in bureaucracies and professions has benefits in focus and competence, but produces partial or fragmented responses to integrated sets of problems. Issues such as biodiversity, climate change and strategic land use planning cannot be left to the environment agency: there are few portfolios of government, communities or industry sectors not relevant to responding to these problems.

Institutionalising sustainable development The following are widely accepted as the goals and guiding principles of sustainable development or ESD, similarly stated in countless international, national and non-government policies: L

L

L

An overall objective of a pattern of economic and human development that protects the opportunities of future generations to use natural resources and enjoy a healthy environment, while allowing for human development goals, especially for the world’s poor, to be met in the near term. Recognition of major social and policy goals, generally including: – the importance of biodiversity and ecological life support systems; – the need to treat environment and development in an integrated way rather than as separate, competing considerations. Guiding principles for policy and decision making, generally including: – factoring in both short- and long-term considerations in policy making; – integrating environmental, social and economic concerns in policy making; – taking precautionary measures in the face of possible serious environmental degradation (the Precautionary Principle); – considering global implications of domestic policy; – utilising innovative, new policy approaches, such as participation, institutional change and market mechanisms; and – involving communities in decisions and actions that affect them.

These goals and principles attract little criticism as aspirations, and summarise a huge task – sustainable development as the universally agreed goal of human progress (Harrison 1992). Achieved, they would represent a significant positive move forward toward a future that is considerably more humanly desirable, productive economically and sustainable ecologically. In the interim, if Australia addressed these goals and principles seriously through purposeful policy and institutional structures and processes, it would be making a credible institutional commitment to sustainability (following North 1993; see Connor and Dovers 2004). Here, they provide the focus for 10 areas of reform. The following suggestions for policy and institutional reform first address the six guiding principles, as these incorporate the objective and goals and state the intent and function needed to be fulfilled. The final four address cross-cutting, key issues. More detail is given in the references cited.

217

218

Ten Commitments

Key issues 1. Factor in the long-term Ecological sustainability involves issues operating over decades and centuries – forest growth, climate shifts, infrastructure planning, slow onset salinity, the inertia of urban forms. The mismatch with the much shorter time frames of politics and economics is a cause of many sustainability problems (Marsh and Yencken 2004). Yet some long-term social and economic challenges have been addressed: universal superannuation in response to demographic change, for example. Others have not, such as infrastructure provision. Once, Australia had a Commission for the Future, and a Federal Parliamentary Standing Committee on long-term strategies: both have been discontinued. The Resource Assessment Commission too was axed. Long-term monitoring of issues such as stream flow and climate have been weakened through downsizing, and research and development programs focus increasingly on short-term economic benefit. To force consideration of the long-term in policy making, some options are: L

L

national (i.e. not solely Commonwealth) institutional machinery comprising multiple, coordinated elements (an inclusive commission, ministerial council, stakeholder forum, R&D program) to focus attention, generate knowledge and promulgate policy ideas around long-term environment and development challenges. refocusing research and development (R&D) investments and priorities to rebalance the R&D system’s efforts more toward long-term, public good issues, serious attention to long-term environmental and monitoring, an area of chronic under investment.

2. Integrate environment, society and economy in policy This is the crux of sustainability: to account for interactions between the ‘three pillars’, especially the environmental and social implications of economic policy, a task often termed ‘environmental policy integration’ (e.g. Ross and Dovers 2008). In Australia there have been some attempts at policy integration in certain sectors, such as in the Regional Forest Agreement and National Water Initiative processes, but there is a distinct lack of effort in embedding policy integration through structures and processes of policy making. Leading policy and institutional options have at least partial precedents in existence in many countries, and a range is required to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They include: L

L

L

L

an integrative framework sustainability policy in each Australian jurisdiction, comprising general principles and targets, and coordinating sector and issue-specific policy, constantly reviewed and reinvigorated in accordance with policy experience. a robust regime of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) or sustainability assessment, extending the tradition of scrutiny of development projects to scrutinise the sustainability impacts of significant policy, budget and legislative proposals (Marsden and Dovers 2002). Such provisions have lain largely unused in Australian law for decades, but there is rapidly growing experience with SEA internationally (especially under the EU SEA Directive). cross-government mechanisms equipped to enforce consideration of sustainability across policy sectors, such as a policy unit in Ministers’ departments, a parliamentary commissioner or a separate commission (several State and Territory jurisdictions have recently experimented with such mechanisms). a national commission for sustainable development or equivalent body, as exist in some 70 other countries, to bring policy sectors, government and non-government together to maintain discussion of and focus on coordination of long term policy.

Policy and institutional reforms

3. Ensure sustainability and its aims are clearly coded in statute law Of all ESD principles, the Precautionary Principle (PP) is the most recognised and advanced in policy and in emerging jurisprudence (Peel 2005; Fisher et al. 2006). The standard definition in law and policy is: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. The PP encourages recognition of uncertainty, encourages more proactive rather than reactive policy actions, and shifts the onus of proof from those concerned about the environmental effects of policies and developments to those advocating development. This codifies a shift in social values: once the environment did not matter much, and now that it does we should be more cautious. The PP does not, as some think, mean a uniformly higher bar for development proposals, but rather that uncertainties and possible irreversible impacts should be carefully assessed. While widely stated in law and policy, there is scope for better implementation of the Principle, specifically through: L

L

clearer codification of the Principle in law and policy, and especially clearer guidance (codes of practice, recommended methods, decision support processes, etc) for informing decision made that consider the PP. embedding the Principle in higher order policy assessment such as SEA (see (2) above) (Dovers 2006).

4. Australia to support international sustainability efforts Sustainability is an international issue, and global concern and policy often outstrip domestic policy in intent and vigour. However, it is at national level that agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change must be implemented. If only some parts of the world seek sustainability, it will not be achieved, and countries can be laggards or leaders. Australia could choose the latter by: L L

L

ratifying international environmental agreements. implementing the intent of such international agreements to world’s best level, rather than simply minimal box-ticking. meeting or exceeding the agreed development aid target of 0.7% of GDP, minimising intentional return flows of this aid to Australian businesses and agencies, and organising all aid around the goal of sustainable development.

5. Adopt innovative policy approaches Innovation in policy is much-needed given the implementation deficit so far in sustainable development. However, unthinking application of fashionable instruments – market mechanisms implemented half-heartedly at present, for example – is unlikely to work. Advocacy of particular instruments is often undertaken in the absence of proper analysis of their alternatives, a failure of policy analysis. More important is to achieve greater clarity and sophistication in the art and craft of policy instrument choice: selecting instruments in an evidence-based manner from a full menu; in accordance with the attributes of the problem at hand; designing mixed packages of instruments that operate synergistically; and supporting policy learning with sustained policy monitoring and evaluation (Dovers 2005). This contrasts with a history of policy ad hocery and amnesia in recent decades in Australia. No singular institutional reform can answer this need. Specific training and R&D programs are needed, along with mandated persistence and evaluation of policy interventions over time.

219

220

Ten Commitments

6. Community participation Community participation is accepted as necessary in resource and environmental management, and is a basic principle of sustainable development. While community-based programs have increased, they tend to be poorly resourced, switched on and off according to near-term government priorities, and often seemingly more about cost-shifting and delegation of government policy implementation tasks than genuine sharing of knowledge and power. More worrying has been a trend in recent years of reduced civil society roles in higher level policy formulation. Participation is relevant and needed across scales of governance, from national policy debates through Australia’s shaky regional natural resource management arrangements, to local, on-ground management programs. Key to proper and effective participation are: L

L

L

L

a formalised and ongoing national scale discussion between governments, civil society and industry, such as through a national council on sustainable development. guarantees of longevity and funding, if community-based initiatives at local and regional scale are to be considered truly important. acceptance and implementation of the rule that participation is a long-term strategy and need, not to be used simply to relieve governments of near-term difficulties. clarity as to the duration, resources, process and above all degree of decision-making power to be devolved in any participatory initiative.

7. Decoupling economic growth and environmental degradation At the root of sustainable development is the question of whether economic activity and prosperity can be decoupled from resource use and waste production. Can we have a vibrant economy with far less environmental degradation? This is a highly contested issue, but it is becoming increasingly clear that a significant degree of decoupling is possible, especially in terms of energy efficiency gains, and at least in the order of 30–50% (e.g. Hargroves and Smith 2005). Whether the degree of decoupling would be sufficient to address, for example, GHG emissions in the face of rising population and economic growth is debatable, but laxity over recent decades in pursuing decoupling in Australia equals a chronic failure in strategic policy and of public duty by governments and industry. Currently, scattered programs aside, Australia has no coherent focus on the issue of decoupling in policy or in R&D and needs: L

L

national and industry-scale inquiries into opportunities for decoupling, supported by renewed and coordinated R&D programs in relevant areas. reviews of tax and other incentives, supported by regulated long-term targets for key performance areas such as energy use.

8. Refashion the statutory framework The role of statute law (legislation) is often seen as being purely to regulate, ignoring its crucial role in establishing policy processes, fashioning institutions, defining public participation and setting agency objectives. Statute law is the wiring of the institutional system. Under Australia’s National Competition Policy in the 1990s, thousands of statutes were subjected to scrutiny for ‘anti-competitive’ elements, in the pursuit of economic efficiency. Why not a similar seekand-destroy mission targeting ‘unsustainable’ elements? Sustainability as a cross-sectoral, whole-of-government problem requires attention to non-environmental policy sectors (see point 2), and thus to the statutory settings in those sectors. Possible options are a comprehensive review of Federal and State/Territory legislative frameworks to identify and correct elements that operate to retard pursuit of sustainability (e.g. perverse incentives, lack of instruction to attend sustainability), and to identify opportunities for synergistic pursuit of sustainability and other policy goals. Binding and operational codification of ESD principles

Policy and institutional reforms

to guide decision making in non-environmental sectors would be a prime goal (as opposed to current, largely discretionary statements). 9. Attend to overlooked issues and sectors In the absence of a framework ESD policy, Australia has given patchy attention across the suite of sustainability issues. Some, like forests and water, have received significant policy attention, and rural natural resource management has been a particular (and deserved) focus of efforts. Other sectors and issues have been comparatively overlooked. Three stand out – coasts, energy, and urban issues – and demand significant increases in policy attention (for reviews, see Lazarow et al. 2006; Diesendorf 2007; SOAC 2007). It is astonishing that Australia has been lax on strategic energy policy. As classic long-term cross-sectoral issues, these are everybody and thus nobody’s business and the decline of public-good R&D capacity has had a particular impact. Australia’s energy R&D corporation was discontinued in 1996, along with the Bureau of Immigration, Population and Multicultural Research, just as both were developing sustainability-relevant programs. Shifts in government policy toward short-term economic benefits in research spelt the disappearance of public good environment-oriented Cooperative Research Centres such as those dealing with coasts, weeds, reefs, rainforests and renewable energy. There has been a lack of coherent framework policy and intergovernmental cooperation on coastal, urban and energy issues. There is a serious lack of focus and coordination in urban sustainability R&D, in one of the most urbanised countries on earth. Long-term strategic R&D programs, intergovernmental policy development and coordination, and promotion of informed public discussion are required. 10. Establish a bipartisan agenda This final recommendation is critical to establishing genuine purpose and persistence in environment and sustainability policy as befits their importance and their decade-plus time spans. Constant shifts in government policy and associated changes in portfolios and other structures have created undue and damaging turbulence and lack of continuity. Australia needs to identify key long-term sustainability policy and institutional issues, and negotiate cross-Party for necessary reforms and efforts – such as some of those above – and commit to their maintenance and evolution over time. Compared to basic environmental monitoring data (patchy, discontinuous, contested), no government would question the value of the socio-economic data streams produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and shut it down. Governments can and should have the right to adjust priorities, but sustainability issues deserve far more continuity of attention than they currently enjoy. Recent initiatives by the Australian Government in the Indigenous domain and via the Australia 2020 Summit process can be seen as an encouraging start.

Conclusion One could suggest other reforms, such as a systematic review of R&D and training across policy sectors and professions to embed the long-term capacity needed to implement sustainable development. The sorts of reforms above need to be considered at State and Territory, local and the emerging regional scale of government (Robins and Dovers 2007a,b). The design and implementation of a comprehensive suite of institutional reforms in any jurisdictions, and between them, is a big and long task. It is a sketchy start, but the menu above indicates that we may know what kinds of reforms would probably work, and that we could construct a worldbest credible commitment to provide the policy and institutional underpinning to construct a much more sustainable future, within existing parameters of governance.

221

222

Ten Commitments

References Berkhout F, Leach M and Scoones I (Eds) (2002) Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Commonwealth of Australia (1992) National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Connor R and Dovers S (2004) Institutional Change for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Davis G, Wanna J, Warhurst J and Weller P (1993) Public Policy in Australia. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Diesendorf M (2007) Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. UNSW Press, Sydney. Dovers S (2002) Sustainability: reviewing Australia’s progress, 1992–2002. International Journal of Environmental Studies 59, 559–571. Dovers S (2005) Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation, Implementation, Evaluation. Federation Press, Sydney. Dovers S (2006) Precautionary policy assessment for sustainability. In The Precautionary Principle and Public Policy Decision Making. (Eds E Fisher, J Jones and R von Schomberg). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Fisher E, Jones J and von Schomberg R (Eds) (2006). The Precautionary Principle and Public Policy Decision Making. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Handmer J and Dovers S (2007) Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions. Earthscan, London. Hargroves C and Smith M (Eds) (2005) The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century. Earthscan, London. Harrison P (1992) The Third Revolution: Population, Environment, and a Sustainable World. Penguin, Harmonsworth. Lazarow N, Fearon R, Souter R and Dovers S (Eds) (2006) Coastal Management in Australia: Key Institutional and Governance Issues for Coastal Natural Resource Management and Planning. pp. 1–10. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/Coastal_Management_in_ Australia.pdf Marsh I and Yencken D (2004) Into the Future: The Neglect of the Long Term in Australian Politics. Black Inc, Melbourne. North DC (1993) Institutions and credible commitment. The American Economic Review 84, 359–368. Page E and Proops J (Eds) (2003) Environmental Thought. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Peel J (2005) The Precautionary Principle in Practice: Environmental Decision Making and Scientific Uncertainty. Federation Press, Sydney. Robins L and Dovers S (2007a) Natural resource management regions in Australia: the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. Geographical Research 45, 273–290. Robins L and Dovers S (2007b) Community-based NRM Boards of management: are they up to the task? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14, 111–122. Rose R (2005) Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide Routledge, London. Ross A and Dovers S (2008) Making the harder yards: environmental policy integration in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67, 245–260. SOAC (2007) http://www.unisa.edu.au/soac2007/program/SOAC_Program_FINAL.doc. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21: the UN programme of action from Rio. United Nations, New York.

Policy and institutional reforms

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Young OR (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

223

SYNTHESIS AND OVERVIEW

SYNTHESIS AND OVERVIEW David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton

Introduction It is a truism to state that many aspects of Australia’s environment need urgent attention. Our contributors have done a valuable job in articulating the key issues in their area of expertise that need addressing as part of improving Australia’s environment. The 10 issues in each chapter almost always cover a far broader set of policy, taxation, institutional and management suggestions than is traditionally the case from those with scientific backgrounds. In their breadth of thinking, our contributors have the nation’s environment and its future at heart. In the spirit of this book, and hence the brevity of its chapters, this chapter also will be short. Our aim is to synthesise the key themes and important synergies that have emerged.

Resilience The term resilience appears frequently in many chapters. The broad notion of what it means is generally similar in all cases; it implies an ability to recover from disturbance or some type of negative impact. Resilience is a critical concept in policy making and management of natural resources (Walker and Salt 2006). However, a precise application of resilience is far more problematic and it needs to be carefully defined before it can be useful in a practical context (Fischer et al. 2007). Without careful definition, the concept of resilience has the potential to become a panchreston – a concept that is so loosely defined that it means all things to all people, thus losing all usefulness (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2007). Finally, there is also a sobering realisation that attempts to enhance resilience in one direction might weaken an ecosystem or the sustainability of a given natural resource in another (Walker and Salt 2006). Despite these difficulties, we need to work on ways that might make ecosystems and other entities that are targeted for management more resilient, particularly in response to climate change. Also recurrent in many chapters is the question of the vulnerability of the communities and economic sectors that depend on and manage our environment and resources. Whether in urban, rural or remote Australia, the future of our resource base and unique environment is inextricably tied to the communities that inhabit the continent. Constant adaptation to change is a hallmark of resource-dependent societies, and that capacity will be more crucial in future as pressures on environments increase and climate changes.

227

228

Ten Commitments

Climate change The potential impact of climate change was raised in many chapters. It was notable however, that most contributors considered climate change to be one among many problems rather than being a key driver of environmental problems to date. This is a critical point. Climate adaptation strategies may well prove to be unsuccessful unless serious attempts to tackle other key environmental stressors are embraced. Many environments and large numbers of species are more threatened by problems such as land clearing, altered fire regimes and invasive species than by climate change. Hence, under current management regimes, there are likely to be major cumulative impacts of climate change and other environmental stressors, which management will need to address. For example, recent data suggest that land clearing is likely to have exacerbated regional changes in climate (such as drying and temperate increases) in parts of Australia (McAlpine et al. 2007). Finally, current landscape conditions set the background against which future climate change will occur. Yet it appears there are relatively few new and additional strategies needed to improve our capacity to adapt to climate change. Rather, we need to do current management better – much better. A strong start to climate adaptation can be made by examining the many well-evidenced proposals across many of the sectors covered here; ones that as yet remain under-implemented but will make Australia more resilient in the face of climate change.

Monitoring and adaptive management Many contributors highlighted the serious lack of monitoring in many sectors. This issue is far from new; the problem has thwarted progress in tackling many environmental problems for decades. It is clear that our nation is lagging woefully behind many others around the globe. A lack of monitoring affects our ability to assess the effectiveness of policy initiatives and management actions. For example, more than half the 100+ indicators for the national State of the Environment Report have poor data or no data! Without a serious commitment to targeted ecological monitoring there is also (after Lindenmayer 2007): L

L

L

L

L

no mechanism to assess progress on sustainability criteria and product certification programs in major natural resource management arenas, for example the Australian Forestry Standard and the Marine Stewardship Council. no mechanism to gauge the effectiveness of Federal and State government policies such as the Protected Area Network. ‘Evidence-based policy’ demands evidence, and in the environmental domain the basis of evaluation is understanding of long-term changes. no mechanism to assess the legislative framework for biodiversity conservation, particularly the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. no mechanism to assess progress in the biodiversity and environmental management components of, and investment strategies for, regional natural resource management delivery, for example by catchment management authorities. limited ability to understand how ecosystems work. If we understood, we could better predict and more quickly, effectively and cheaply mitigate major environmental problems or future problems such as climate change, salinity, altered agricultural land use patterns, altered spatial patterns and frequencies of unplanned fire, and modified patterns of urbanisation.

The paucity of monitoring programs is reflected in the absence of adaptive management studies needed to link science and policy and hence provide a basis for learning how to improve

Synthesis and overview

environmental management (Walters and Holling 1990). It is not possible to manage natural resources, and hence Australia’s environment, without sound knowledge to guide that management. We should be able to establish a national environmental monitoring framework to guide the current investments being made in the environment. It is also impossible to manage adaptively without accepting the inevitably of both pervasive uncertainty and the need to act with purpose (Bammer and Smithson 2008). The chapters here emphasise and offer solutions that allow both action and ways to improve as we learn. The lack of long-term monitoring reflects another recurrent theme in these chapters – the dominance of short-term programs and a lack of longer-term targets supported by ongoing policy and institutional processes. In recent decades there has been a discounting of the value of long-term planning – especially in urban Australia – that is not consistent with managing decadal or longer drivers and processes in society and in the environment.

Need for institutional reform A recurring message from many chapters was a plea for better coordination across governments and between agencies within a given level of government. As an example, the clearly apparent disconnect between land management and development in coastal areas (Lazarow et al.) and its effects on fisheries (Kearney) has not been well addressed. Similarly, Kingsford highlighted the tensions within the water industry where the need for environmental flows is at odds with the water infrastructure development sections of the same organisation. The integration of policy across and within government is a major challenge in all countries; Australia has made some early steps but clearly needs to go further (Ross and Dovers 2008). In Australia’s oceans, rangelands, cities and agricultural areas, there is a common need for integrated approaches to managing the environment. Despite progress in catchment management, regional marine planning, and so on, this need for connection continues to challenge largely disconnected policy sectors, management agencies and research disciplines. Some contributors presented radical suggestions for new resource management organisations to address the failings of current ones. Stafford Smith’s call for a rangelands body for the inland parts of most mainland States and the Northern Territory is an example. Australia’s current environmental crisis is symptomatic, in part, of institutional and policy failings and new approaches to address this are warranted, but with a careful eye to what has been tried and worked or failed before (Dovers). Australia has a fascinating history of radical changes in its institutions and we should learn from previous experience in considering the merits of further changes.

Cross-sector cumulative problems All chapters in this book highlight some cross-sector cumulative problems that might surprise some readers. An example is the link between urban development policy, reliance on motor vehicles for transport and human health (the obesity epidemic). In other cases there were some fascinating conflicts between sectors. The sea and tree-changing demographic proposed by Foran and Gurran as part of decentralisation and rural renewal is discussed by Handmer and Brown as a potential problem for emergency management. This was, in part, because the human health issues raised by McMichael will mean that an increasing number of these people will be physically ill-equipped to deal with natural hazards. Similarly, Buckley suggests that eco-tourism can help secure an economic base for conservation and improved land management, whereas Stafford Smith sees the diversion of funds from park management to people

229

230

Ten Commitments

management within national parks as a problem. Both are valid points; witness the fact that the major increase in the number and area of parks in the States has not been universally matched by an equivalent increase in management effort and staffing (Bourke).

Absence of magic bullets Magic bullets to fix Australia’s environment don’t exist. If anything, the opposite – ‘wicked environmental problems’ – are the norm. These are problems that have multiple human perspectives, no stopping rules to determine when a problem has been adequately addressed, high levels of uncertainty, and no rigorous test for a solution (Ludwig et al. 2001). Nevertheless, our contributors frequently suggest that tackling these environmental problems requires that we do the things already stated in policy and management documents but do them far better than they have been done to date. In some other cases, large changes will be essential. For example, recommendations by Foran and Gurran to think deeply about stabilising Australia’s population size by 2050 are thought-provoking, but lead to reconsideration of the validity of economic and human migration models that are underpinned by unbounded growth in numbers of people and levels of consumption. Other problems of a similar scale but not previously well recognised are emerging. For example, the mining industry is generating unprecedented wealth for Australia, but with dwindling quality of ore bodies, it is using vast amounts of water, and producing a billon tonnes of waste rock annually (Mudd). Identifying ways to balance wealth generation with the environmental impacts of mining remains a significant challenge.

Concluding thoughts Australia has major opportunities for environmental best practice in many sectors – fisheries, forests, savannas, rangelands, river systems and tourism, to list just a few. Many contributors outline how this might be done – through institutional reform, tax reform, altered policy settings and cross-organisational partnerships. However, ultimately, nice words won’t improve Australia’s environment. Only actions on the ground do that. For example, the reality of paying the true environmental costs of agriculture means that the costs of groceries for consumers will rise – possibly substantially. The hope is that this book will stimulate all Australians to think more deeply about how to secure the environmental integrity of this continent and the well-being of its human inhabitants – and then act to ensure just that.

References Bammer G and Smithson M (Eds) (2008) Uncertainty and Risk: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. Earthscan, London. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Blomberg S, Montague-Frake R and Felton A (2007) Functional richness and relative resilience of bird communities in regions with different land use intensities. Ecosystems 10, 964–974. Lindenmayer DB (2007) On Borrowed Time. Penguin/CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Lindenmayer DB and Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22, 127–132. Ludwig D, Mangel M and Haddad B (2001) Ecology, conservation and public policy. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 32, 481–517.

Synthesis and overview

McAlpine CA et al. (2007) Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia’s regional climate. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L22711, doi:10.1029/2007GL031524, 2007. Ross A and Dovers S (2008) Making the harder yards: environmental policy integration in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67, 245–260. Walker B and Salt D (2006) Resilience Thinking. Island Press, Washington DC. Walters CJ and Holling CS (1990) Large scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–2068.

231

Index

Aborigines see Indigenous acidification, ocean 56, 57 adaptive management 56, 61, 91, 150, 160–161, 228–229 adventure tourism 7 affluence 174 age classes 173–174 agriculture 22, 39–40, 105–111, 119–124, 183 agro-ecosystem 109–110 aid, international 174, 219 alien species 55–56 alpine ecosystems 73–77 Anthropocene 143–147 apex predators 54–55 aquaculture 97–98, 102 Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System 199 Australasian Pacific Extension Network 122 Australia Plan 38 Australian Heritage River System 80 Australian Rangelands Collaborative Information System 13 Australia’s Ocean Policy 61–62 behavioural change 70, 166, 197 biodiversity 155–161 biodiversity conservation 31, 62, 122, 135, 156–157, 189–190 bogong moths 76, 77 building design 176 bushfire see fire camels 8 carbon dioxide 56, 190, 202 carbon sequestration 28, 44, 46, 108, 139, 190 carbon taxes 204 carbon trading schemes 28–29, 139, 204 Caring for Land and Sea Country 212 Caring for our Country program 29 child-friendly cities 41 civil society 40

climate change, 60, 70, 106, 121, 133–140, 145, 160, 202, 228 and alpine ecosystems 75–76 and fisheries 102 and forests 47 and health 181–182 and tourism 128–129 and tropical rainforests 68–69 and tropical savannas 31 climate forecasts 121 climate variability 14–15 coastal areas 56–57, 87–92 collaboration 166, 184, 189, 196, 229 community gardens 40 community participation 39–40, 91–92, 183, 204, 220 Conservation Management Networks 23 conservation paradigms 160 conservation, of private land 126–127, 128, 138–139 Cooper Creek 79 cross-cultural learning 15–16 cross-sector co-operation 166, 184, 189, 196, 229 cultural identity 89 dams 82, 83 decentralisation 174 deserts 5–9 disaster prevention 194–195 disasters 194–198 downshifting 174 drought 106 drought-related subsidies 14–15 dynamic global vegetation model 144 Ecological Restoration Projects 40 Ecologically Sustainable Development 99, 184, 216, 217, 219, 220–221 economic growth 171, 172–173, 181, 195, 220 ecosystem resilience 69, 146 ecosystem services 13, 40, 106–108, 165

234

Ten Commitments

ecosystem-based management 61 ecosystems, alpine 73–77 coastal 87–92 deserts 5–9 estuaries 79–85 forests 43–48 rangelands 11–17 rivers 79–85 temperate eucalypt woodlands 19–24 temperate marine systems 59–64 tropical marine ecosystems 51–57 tropical rainforests 67–71 tropical savannas 27–33 urban settlements 37–41 wetlands 79–85 education, of natural resource managers 160 El Niño 79, 134, 137, 145 emergency management 193–199 emissions 28, 40–41, 68, 116, 133, 134, 137, 172, 181–182, 190, 202 emissions trading schemes 28–29, 139, 204 energy 8, 201–205 energy efficiency 116, 202–203 energy use 40–41, 202–203 ENSO 79, 134, 145 environmental champion 164 environmental changes and health 179–185 environmental levy 167 environmental management, 23, 29–33, 61, 69–70, 83–84, 109, 146, 197, 209 and fire 189, 190–191 environmental monitoring 7, 13, 32, 44–45, 116, 228–229 environmental planning 70, 139 environmental restoration 22, 157–158 environmental services 165 environmental taxes 171–173, 176 environmental water 151–152 erosion 75 estuaries 79–85 eucalypt woodlands 19–24 Exclusive Economic Zone 59, 60, 61, 63 extinction 53, 101, 135, 136, 156, 158, 166

feedlots 123 feral animals 8, 12, 22–23 fertiliser use efficiency 52–53 fire 69, 76, 187–191 fire management 8, 47, 69 fire mapping 188–189 fire regimes 12, 23, 190–191 fisheries 53–54, 56, 63–64, 97–103 floodplains 82 food production 39–40, 183 forest products 46–47 forests 43–48, 126 fossil fuel subsidies 203 foxes 23, 76 freshwater ecosystems 84–85

farm forestry 46 farming systems 22, 105–111, 122

Import Risk Assessment 100 Indian Ocean Diapole 145

gardens 39–40, 176 gill nets 53–54 global warming 73, 190, 202; also see climate change governance, of coastal areas 88–89, 90–91 of fisheries 100–101 of rangelands 15–16 of tropical savannas 30–31 of water resources 82–83, 152–153 government policy 38, 41, 90, 100–102, 165, 184, 194–195, 204, 215–221 grasses 30 grazing 12, 14, 15, 52, 119–124 Great Barrier Reef 52–53, 54, 56 Great Western Woodland 21 greenhouse gas emissions 28, 68, 116, 133, 134, 137, 172, 181–182, 190, 202 Gross Domestic Product 171, 174 ground cover 52 habitat connectivity 138 habitat fragmentation 68–69 hares 75 harvesting forests 45–47 health 179–185 housing 38, 171, 174 human systems 134–135, 145–146 human-environment relationship 146–147

Index

Indigenous employment 7, 8, 14 Indigenous estate 207–213 Indigenous knowledge 6, 29, 146, 211–212 Indigenous land and sea management 29, 207–213 Indigenous lands 6, 7, 27–29, 207–213 Indigenous property rights 212 Indigenous Protected Areas 7, 8, 14, 29, 136, 157, 207, 208, 210, 211 Indigenous settlements 6, 170 Indigenous well-being 7, 13, 182, 208, 212–213 infrastructure 39, 90, 152, 173, 174, 175 institutional reforms 215–221, 229 integrated management 61 Integrated Marine Observing System 63 Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia 137 international aid 174, 219 introduced species 55–65, 157, 158 investment, in biodiversity 156–157 philanthropic 8–9, 21, 166 private sector 165, 166 Jukurrpa 6, 7, 9 Lake Eyre Basin 12–13, 82 land assessment tools 110–111 land capability 121 land clearing 20–21, 28, 44, 137–138, 157 land conservation, private 126–127, 128, 138–139, 166 land management, 106–108, 109, 110–111, 164–165 Indigenous 29, 207–213 land ownership 164, 165 land use planning 30–31, 139 lands, Indigenous 6, 7, 27–29, 207–213 landscape fires 187–191 landscape literate 105–106 legislation 15, 137–138, 165, 194–195, 220–221 liability 195 livestock management 121, 122, 123–124 Living Murray restoration program 82 logging 44, 45–46, 47, 126, 187

Maintaining Australia’s Biodiversity Hotspots Programme 157 management, adaptive 56, 61, 91, 150, 160–161, 228–229 environmental 23, 29–33, 61, 69–70, 83–84, 109, 146, 189, 190–191, 197, 209 integrated 61 mangroves 53, 55 marine conservation 61–64, 99 marine ecosystems 51–57, 59–64 marine mammals 99 marine management, Indigenous 207–213 Marine Protected Areas 54, 62, 136 marine research 56–57, 62–63 market failure 164 market pricing 165 marsupials 22–23 meta-reserves 12 mine rehabilitation 114, 117 mining 7–8, 113–118 modelling 102, 144 monitoring programs 32, 44–45, 77, 84, 228–229 monofilament set nets 53–54 Murray-Darling Basin 80, 82, 83, 84 National Framework for Assessing River and Wetland Health 150 national parks, and tourism 127 National Reserve System 136, 158–159 National Water Initiative 84, 152 national water register 152 native fauna 75–76, 110 native flora 110 native title 6, 213 natural resource management 6, 7, 14, 156–157 natural resource managers 160 natural resource use rents 16 non-government reserves 138, 166 no-take zones 54 nutrient loss 52–53 nutrition 183 obesity 195–196 ocean acidification 56, 57

235

236

Ten Commitments

oil production 201 old growth forests 44, 126 ore grades 114 Outback Capital Trust 16 over-fishing 98, 138 pastoralism 29–30 pathogens 68–69, 76 peer review of policy proposals 99–101 perennial farming systems 22, 122 performance incentives 152–153 personal consumption 171–173 pests 69, 75 philanthropic investment 8–9, 21, 166 plantations 44, 47 policy, government 38, 41, 90, 100–102, 165, 184, 194–195, 204, 215–221 policy reforms 215–221 pollutants 77 population 68, 85, 169–177 population growth 171–173, 183–184, 198 Precautionary Principle 219 precision agriculture 121 predators 22–23, 54–55, 76 private land conservation 126–127, 128, 138–139, 166 private sector 163–167 Productivity Commission 165 protected areas 136–137 Protected Areas, Indigenous 7, 8, 14, 29, 136, 157, 207, 208, 210, 211 public housing 38 public realm 40 public spaces 40 public transport 39, 204 rabbit control 8 rainforests, tropical 67–71 Ramsar wetlands 82, 84 rangelands 11–17 recreation ecology 127–128 recreational fishing 64 Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 52 refuges, wildlife 8–9 Regional Forest Agreements 44, 45 regional infrastructure 175, 176 regional learning systems 15 regional water plans 152–153

remnant vegetation 12, 19–20, 138 renewable energy 40, 116, 117, 203 research 32–33, 48, 56–57, 62–63, 101–102, 110–111, 122–123, 144–146 reserve system, forest 45 reserves, non-government 138, 166 residential development 129–130 resilience 60, 69, 110, 146, 227 resource management, Indigenous 6, 7, 209, 211–213 restoration, environmental 22, 157–158 revegetation 21–22, 23, 46 riparian zones 52 risk management 189, 193–199 rivers 12–13, 79–85 rural communities 44, 105, 110, 123, 182 savannas, tropical 27–33 sea level rise 55, 60, 134 sea management, Indigenous 207–213 sediments 52 settlement strategy 38 settlements, urban 38–41 sharks 54–55 ski resorts 129 slow cities 174 snowpatch communities 75 society, civil 40 solar hot water 203 solid wastes 114, 116, 117 Southern Annular Mode 145 species decline 136 species management 99, 160 spinifex 8, 12 spiritual connection to land 120 stock routes 21 storms 55 Strategic Environmental Assessment 90, 218 subsidies 14–15, 108–109, 165, 203 support schemes 120–121 sustainability reporting 117–118 tailings 114 Tamar Valley Pulp Mill 46–47 taxation 14–15, 165, 166, 167, 171–173, 204 taxonomy 159 technology, role in mining 116

Index

telecommunications 175 teleconnections 145 temperate eucalypt woodlands 19–24 temperate marine systems 59–64 thaw 75–76 tipping elements 145 Total Economic Value 90 tourism 7, 13–14, 54, 125–130 translocation 135 transport 39, 125, 175, 183, 201, 204 travelling stock route 21 trawl fishing 53–54, 98 tropical marine ecosystems 51–57 tropical rainforests 67–71 tropical rivers, development 83 tropical savannas 27–33 urban agriculture 39–40 urban development and health 183 urban expansion 157–158, 174 urban greening 40 urban infrastructure 39 urban planning 41, 90, 175–176, 204

urban policy 38 urban portfolio 38 urban settlements 37–41 urban transport 39 wastes 114, 116, 117 water agencies 82–83 water allocation 150–151 water management 80, 82–83, 151–152 water market 151 water plans, regional 152–153 water resources 83, 149–153 water supplies, and fire 190 water use 114, 116, 150–153 water, costs 83 water, solar hot 203 water-remote areas 12 weeds 22, 76, 157 wetlands 53, 79–85 wildlife corridors 138 wildlife refuges 8–9 woodlands 19–24 Working on Country program 212

237