June 13, 2008

Shooting Roos to Save Rangelands? by Nichole Hoskin

There are claims that the presence of too many sheep, cattle and kangaroos are damaging Australia’s rangelands and that commercial shooting of kangaroos will reduce overall grazing pressure.

In an article published today at On Line Opinion entitled 'Kangaroo: Designed for our Times' by Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, John Kelly, he writes that commercial harvesting of roos delivers, “a direct environmental benefits in our fragile arid rangelands where kangaroos are harvested” and that “these are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals” and that “allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in these rangelands.”

Population numbers of red and grey kangaroos can fluctuate from 15 to 50 million. Under current government policy, 10-15 percent of this population is shot in any one year. So, commercial harvesting can potentially reduce grazing pressure particularly by limiting increases in wet years.

On the other hand, commercial shooting of kangaroos will not relieve grazing pressure if there is a corresponding increase in numbers of other grazing herbivores, such as sheep, cattle and ferals including horses, donkeys, camels, rabbits, buffalo and deer.

Gordon Grigg, an Australian expert on kangaroos, argues that, “Most of the grazing lands, unfortunately, show everywhere abundant signs of the foot and tooth pressure of the introduced hardfooted stock and there is simply no room for doubt that running sheep in the fragile arid inland has done a lot of damage. Graziers will argue that they obey the stocking rates recommended and many of them do, perhaps even most of them do. Maybe even all of them do, but the fact of the matter remains that the damage is everywhere evident.”

It remains unclear what proportion of grazing pressure directly results from kangaroos.

Posted by jennifer at 03:52 PM | Comments (50) | TrackBack

February 25, 2008

Carbon Trading Blocked until Farmers get Credits: Steve Truman

"It had been the previous [Australian] coalition governments intention and by default the Rudd governments plan to meet it’s commitments to limit the nation’s Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008-2012 to the Kyoto Target of an 8% increase above the levels achieved in 1990, by using these accumulated credits [from bans on landclearing] without paying farmers for them.

"The Federal Court in Sydney in December last year agreed that farmers have an arguable case against the Commonwealth over ownership of the 80 million Tonnes of carbon created from land clearing bans...

"Now the court has given Mr Spencer the Green light to file a “notice of motion” which is an injunction to stop the Commonwealth from entering into any carbon trading scheme, until the case is decided.

Read more here: http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/02/24/108-billion-payment-to-farmers-to-meet-kyoto-commitment/

Posted by jennifer at 08:28 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

December 28, 2007

Monaro Farmer Seeks Compensation for Carbon Sink

In the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Thursday 20th December 2007, the Court rejected the Commonwealth's application to strike out a Statement of Claim entered into the Court by Monaro District farmer Mr Peter Spencer.

Mr Spencer has claimed that Intergovernmental Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, along with the International Treaty the Kyoto Protocol that was signed in April 1998 that set Greenhouse Emissions Targets that Australia have to meet by 2012, bind both the Commonwealth and State together.

The Carbon Sink developed on his property by the State banning Land Clearing has expropriated Mr Spencers property and prohibited the lawful use of his land for Agricultural purpose and no payments for sequestration and storing Carbon has been negotiated, this acquisition was not on "Just Terms" as the Commonwealth Constitution provides for just compensation for the acquisition of property.

Counsel representing Mr Spencer in proceedings, Mr Peter E King said after the hearing, "This is the first occasion in Australia's legal history that it has been found there was an "arguable case" against the Commonwealth on behalf of farming interests that the Kyoto Protocol may give rise to Property Rights".

Mr Spencer said "I am delighted that my case will be heard and it vindicates my beliefs, farmers have as much right as coal - miners to recognition under the Climate Change Convention".

-----------------------
** This is the text of a media release from The Commonwealth Property Protection Association made on the 21 December 2007.

Posted by jennifer at 06:51 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

August 16, 2007

New Future for the Last Great Savanna: A Note from Luke Walker

A new report The Nature of Northern Australia** advocates responsible conservation and development of one of the world’s great ecological treasures – the northern Australian tropical savanna. This vast area represents some 25% of the world’s remaining tropical savanna woodlands and is still in good ecological condition, some 1.5 million km2 extending from Cairns and the Cape York Peninsula, through the Northern Territory to the Kimberley in north west Western Australia.

The Nature of Northern Australia is the result of almost three years of intensive research by authors Dr John Woinarski, Professor Brendan Mackey, Professor Henry Nix and Dr Barry Traill

Not only does the north have two thirds of Australia’s freshwater resources, it also contains abundant minerals, energy, unique iconic landscapes, including Kakadu and the Kimberley and unique aboriginal heritage.

Some of Australia's largest, most undisturbed rivers, an abundance of plant and animal species not found anywhere else in the country, and nationally important areas of rainforest, mangroves and tropical heath lands are also located in the north.

Recent pressures with water supply and drought in southern Australia have refocused national development attention again on the north with a joint government and industry taskforce reviewing options for the future.

"In other parts of the world, tropical savanna is in decline due to land clearing, unsustainable grazing regimes and over population, but this vast area of northern Australia is remarkably intact,” co-author Professor Brendan Mackey from The Australian National University said.

However, there are mounting concerns about the biodiversity assets of this region documented in surveys in the report. Ecological threats such as changing fire regimes, overgrazing, feral animals, exotic weeds and climate change remain unresolved issues.

Scientists have singled out cattle grazing, above climate change and mining, as the most threatening process to northern Australia.

In an ABC interview Professor Brendan Mackey said 70 per cent of northern Australia is held under pastoral lease and cattle stations should do more to protect the ecology of tropical savannas.

"So what pastoralists do or choose not to do will have enormous bearing on the environmental health of northern Australia and its wonderful globally significant natural assets," he said.

"What we are asking for is for what we call best management practice."

Despite the difficulties associated with pastoralism in the north the report documents exciting developments at Trafalgar, at Charters Towers.

Joe Landsberg is demonstrating the benefits of ecological grazing in a most difficult environment. He says “we reduced our stocking rate by 60%. Then by spelling at least 20% of the property every wet season, we were able to restore native pasture species to greater than 80% within a few years. These lessons have now led us to our current management regime, where spelling 20% of the property annually, strategic use of small areas of exotic pasture, conservative stocking rates and intensive herd management have increased our productivity (i.e. higher calving rates, earlier and heavier turn-off weights, better meat quality) and therefore profit. Monitoring sites on the property also confirmed the improvement in pasture quality, soil health and water quality. We also have an annual control program for exotic weeds. Current research in natural resource management also confirms these strategies lead to improved biodiversity and ecosystem health. “

Premonitions of intensive irrigated agriculture development in the north have brought back memories of insect plagues and high pesticide use in the sensitive tropical environment.

Professor Henry Nix, another of the authors behind the report with Professor Mackey, says critics of the cotton industry are not aware genetically modified cotton has overcome challenges faced over a decade ago.

He says genetically modified cotton has proved it is sustainable.

"Cotton is regarded as a monster, and it certainly was 10-15 years ago, because of the very large amounts of chemicals - 17, 18 sprays per crop," he said.

"Now that's down to as low as one spray. Eighty per cent of their cotton crop is now a GMO crop."

CSIRO has developed an entirely new 21st century agronomic package for cotton production in the Ord irrigation area using off-season production, transgenic cotton and beneficial insects

Another remarkable innovation for use of the savannas is a practical reduction in greenhouse emissions from a modified fire regime that reduces high intensity late season burning.

The SMH reports that Conoco, which operates a liquefied natural gas plant in Darwin, had entered into an agreement to offset some of the greenhouse gas emissions produced at its plant. In return for carbon credits, Conoco pays the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement partners more than $1 million a year. Some 100,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gas emissions can be saved by this approach which is verified by satellite monitoring.

---------------------------------------------------------
** The Nature of NorthernAustralia - Natural values, ecological processes and future prospects
By John Woinarski, Brendan Mackey, Henry Nix & Barry Traill
2007 ANU E Press Australian National University E Press
ISBN 9781921313301 (pbk.) ISBN 9781921313318 (online)
Read the e-book here: http://epress.anu.edu.au/nature_na/pdf/whole_book.pdf

Posted by jennifer at 08:36 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 22, 2007

Government Misrepresents Extent of Land Clearing: A Note from Ian Mott

The latest satellite (SLATS) data on Queensland clearing is now available and it provides an interesting insight into how data can be presented in a way that is quite remote from the truth on the ground. The report, Landcover Change in Queensland 2004-2005 can be seen at www.nrw.qld.gov.au/slats

The annual average area cleared in the period was 351,000ha of which 172,000ha (49%) was remnant vegetation with the remaining 179,000ha (51%) being non-remnant woody regrowth. When this was broken down into Carnahan vegetation classes some 193,000ha (55%) was of a type that would not be included within the meaning of forest under the National Forest Inventory. That is, it was "Tussocky or Tufted Grasses" and other vegetation types that have less than 10% foliage cover and are less than 2 metres tall. This presentation still does not allow us to determine what proportion of the 158,000ha (44.7%) cleared remnant vegetation was actually non-forest vegetation types that may actually benefit from tree removal to restore the grassland/shrub ecosystems.

The report has fine tuned a previous practice of breaking the data into relevant grid squares with a colour code to indicate the area of land cleared in each square. Previous reports have used 30' X 30' (Lat/Long) grid cells that covered an area of approximately 280,000 hectares with codes indicating cleared area from <100ha to >5000ha for each cell. This produced a map with numerous lurid dark tones but which told us very little, other than the fact that somewhere within a square measuring 53km by 53km was somewhere between 0.01km2 and 50km2 of clearing.

This has now been broken up into 7'30" X 7'30" (Lat/Long) grid cells that cover approximately 17,500 hectares but these still retain the same colour codes for the same cleared area categories and produce a map with lots of little coloured squares that give the appearance of widespread clearing activity. These can be seen at Figure 8 P18 of the current report.

But the most interesting aspect of this presentation is what it does not tell us about the clearing. The graphic below is an enlargement of a 700,000 hectare scene to the west of Charleville which is recorded as one of the hotbeds of clearing in 2004-2005.

The lower presentation is an enlargement of the SLATS Report while the upper presentation indicates the information that is readily available and could be incorporated into the presentation if the political masters were willing to provide a budget for the truth.

Each of the grid squares has been broken up into 700 smaller squares of 25 hectares each (25 across and 28 down) so we are able to show the actual area of pasture, remnant, and woody regrowth in each grid cell. This then enables one to show each years clearing activity in the respective proportions of regrowth and remnant clearing. More importantly, it allows the viewer to gain an understanding of the relevance of that clearing in relation to the local landscape. Obviously, a large amount of clearing in a cell with a low level of remnant (eg. at E2 below) is of more concern than a cleared fence line in a cell with 75% woody remnant vegetation cover.

When the actual clearing is presented in direct spatial proportion to the area of the grid cell and the area of woody vegetation, we get a much more honest appreciation of what is taking place.

Of the approximately 3,450 grid cells indicating clearing activity in the report, more than 3,300 of them were in the two least cleared categories, showing cleared areas from 0 <100ha and 100 <500ha in each cell. The remaining 147 cells were easier to count and, after allocating a modal value in each class, we were able to determine that approximately half of all clearing, some 175,000ha, was cleared from these few cells. After allowing for a modal value of 300ha in the second lowest category and a roughly estimated proportion of 9% (or 300) of the 3300 remaining cells being in the second lowest category this indicated that another 90,000ha of clearing took place in the second lowest category. And this left only about 86,000ha of clearing taking place on the remaining 3000 cells at an average area of only 28 hectares per cell.

When that 28ha of clearing is proportionately represented on our improved data presentation below it would occupy just one of the 700 small squares in the cell. And when viewed in proper proportion it then becomes clear that the overwhelming majority of the scenes where some clearing has taken place, that clearing is of extremely marginal ecological impact. Indeed, it is at a level that would be barely detectable with the naked eye.

But it is in the allocation of this clearing (or current absence of it) between remnant and non-remnant at the grid cell level that provides the real "smoking gun" of systematic institutional deception. This is because a 28ha clearing event on an inland property is more than likely to be either fodder harvesting for stock or clearing for a fence line etc. And we know that mulga pulling for stockfeed is done on a long term rotational basis of 15 to 25 years. And that interval is more than sufficient for past regrowth to return to remnant status, being more than 70% of "normal" height. This provides grounds for informed speculation as to what proportion of remnant clearing, the assumed worst impact, is actually concentrated in small events of minimal consequence while the major events are primarily of non-remnant woody weeds.

We won't actually know for sure unless we demand that this information, that is already at hand, be presented in a manner that properly informs the community. Anything less is serious misrepresentation by omission.

Ian Mott

Posted by jennifer at 03:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 21, 2007

Farmers in Court for Carbon Credit Compensation

"The Commonwealth [of Australia] has failed in an attempt to have a compensation claim by farmers fighting land clearing regulations dismissed.

"The group known as the Commonwealth Property Protection Association has filed a claim against the Commonwealth for compensation for lost carbon credits because of land clearing restrictions.

"The hearing will resume on July 19...

Read a bit more here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/21/1957942.htm

Posted by jennifer at 07:39 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

May 29, 2007

Queensland Scrub Sold for Carbon: A Note from Tom Marland

Hi Jennifer,

You may have read on the front page of Courier Mail on Saturday the article about Queensland’s First Carbon Farmer, Peter Allen.

Here is the link:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,21794589-952,00.html?from=public_rss

The project was the first avoided deforestation project of its kind in Australia and one of the biggest in the world.

The project secured 12,000 hectares of vegetation which was eligible to be cleared under the Stat Governments 500,000 hectare clearing ballot process.

It was estimated (both ground truthed and reconciled with the AGO) that the project prevented 1,200,000 tonnes of C02 emission being released into the atmosphere.

The cut off date for clearing permits to be acted upon was the 31 December 2006 which brought an end to broad scale land clearing of remnant vegetation in Queensland

It is amazing to read some of the responses in the article and also on the blog entries linked to the project.

Instead of being supportive of a project to protect vegetation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions many people were critical of the project.

One response was:

“I thought Peter Beattie past a law a couple of years ago that said no established forest of natural growth could be bulldozed. This farmer appears to have pulled a good one to me, He's turned a few baron and unusable acres of scrub into a million bucks”

Another response:

‘How come the farmer, was in a position to destroy all those trees in the first place? There's no moral here, merely a financial decision! Such thinking has created the problem in the first place and that by a shear a 'twist of circumstances' makes the farmer look ethical.’

Green groups have come on board to say the voluntary market is open to exploitation, with no controls on who can sell carbon and no checks on the work carried out.

However, to eligible under the scheme vegetation had to be approved by the Australian Greenhouse Office under the Greenhouse Friendly initiative.

To secure the carbon, landholders had to agree to enter into ‘carbon rights’ agreements.

Briefly, the ‘carbon rights’ agreement consists of:

- A 120 year agreement not to clear the vegetation which binds to title for future owners;
- On-going grazing and management is allowed to reduce bush fires, weed outbreaks and feral animal infestations;
- The agreement areas are surveyed and added to the survey plan.

To account for fire and carbon loss a 20% buffer was added to area eligible to be sold for credits.

In the future, there are further ‘avoided deforestation’ projects planned for eligible vegetation in Queensland and Northern New South Wales.

This eligible vegetation must meet the requirements set down under the Kyoto Protocol definition of forest and enforced by the Australian Greenhouse Office.

Landholders are already skeptical of the merits of reduced land clearing after the way in which Premier Beattie and the Queensland State Government have enacted and enforced the Vegetation Management Act.

Now the job will be even harder to convince eligible landholders to enter into the project because of the criticism that the project may attract.

The Allen’s (who were interviewed for the article) did not want the media attention but where interested in the diversification of income potential in selling the rights to carbon held in their vegetation on their own land and also the opportunity to contribute something back to the environment.

However, the attitude from many (mostly urban) is that it should be an ‘ethical’ decision rather than financial.

People want the benefits but no one wants to pay for it. We (the farmers) cant win.

For more information on the project go to www.carbonpool.com.au .

Cheers,
Tom Marland

Posted by jennifer at 06:25 PM | Comments (38) | TrackBack

March 02, 2007

Queensland Government Investigated Over Tree Clearing Case

I was pleased and surprised to read today at Farm Online that the actions of six Queensland Government employees is being investigated over the Ashley McKay saga.

I detailed the sorry story in a piece at this blog entitled 'Tree Clearing in Queensland: One Man's Battle Against Bureaucracy' posted in October 2005.

It began: "About six years ago Ashley McKay a softly spoken cattleman from south western Queensland was prosecuted by the Queensland Government for clearing cypress pine on his property. McKay had a permit to clear trees from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), but not a permit from the Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) Forestry Division. The second permit was apparently necessary to clear the pine trees scattered amongst the other trees.

It is now folklore in western Queensland that the decision by government bureacrats to prosecute the local hero was taken because McKay appeared on national television program Sixty Minutes speaking out against the government and then new Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Thousands of cattleman are being investigatged for illegal clearing under the legislation which many claim is unworkable.

The advice has been if you're prosecuted, plead guilty because government and the courts will show no mercy if you take a stand...

You can keep reading the blog post here : http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000971.html

Posted by jennifer at 09:52 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

January 19, 2007

Counting Trees in Australia for Greenhouse Accounting

The National Greenhouse Accounts and Land Clearing: Do the numbers stack up?
by Andrew Macintosh, at The Australia Institute,
published January 2007.

Australia’s capacity to meet its Kyoto target is contingent on a reduction in emissions from land clearing. Government projections indicate that if land use change emissions are at their 1990 levels in 2010, Australia’s total emissions will be 27 per cent above 1990 levels, meaning Australia will exceed its Kyoto target by 19 per cent.

The National Greenhouse Accounts suggest that between 1990 and 2004 there was a 59 per cent reduction in emissions from land use change, which has ensured that Australia’s total emissions have increased by only 2.3 per cent. Approximately 70 per cent of the decline in land use change emissions is attributed to a fall in the rate of
land clearing in Queensland. The Federal Government has relied on the decrease in land clearing to justify its claim that Australia ‘remains on track’ to meet its Kyoto target.

Data published by the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) in Queensland raise doubts about the accuracy of the estimates of land clearing in the National Greenhouse Accounts. For example, the total amount of land clearing in Queensland identified under SLATS between 1989/90 and 2000/01 is approximately 50 per cent
higher than the amount estimated by the Federal Government’s National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) between 1990 and 2001. There are also significant differences in the land clearing trends identified by SLATS and NCAS, with peaks in clearing shown in the SLATS data in the late 1990s and early 2000s not evident in
NCAS results...

Read the complete report here: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP93.pdf

Posted by jennifer at 05:34 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

December 15, 2006

Under Threat in Australia, Grassland Birds?

While groups like the Wilderness Society run advertisements suggesting that in western Queensland and New South Wales broadscale tree clearing is a major environmental threat, many local landholders argue the problem is quite different. They claim that trees are replacing once open grassland over vast areas and that these 'invasive woody weeds' are the real environmental issue.

Yesterday, On Line Opinion published an article by Gillian Hogendyk* entitled 'An Alternative Perspective on Tree Clearing' providing some support for the landholder's position.

Gillian writes:

"Early settlement caused massive changes to the ecology of the region. Grasslands were overgrazed, fires were put out, native shrubs and trees began to invade grasslands as early as 1870, rabbits invaded, drought struck, and wool prices collapsed.

By 1901 the Western Division of NSW was in an economic and ecological crisis, and a Royal Commission was called to try and formulate some solutions. Today landholders claim they are still battling the invading scrub, and that recently introduced native vegetation regulations are making their job almost impossible...

"So how is all this affecting the bird life of the region? In 2000 intensive biodiversity surveys were carried out by “West 2000” at a number of sites in the Cobar, Wanaaring, and Ivanhoe localities...

"Two examples of threatened species that were found to prefer less woody shrub cover were the Pink Cockatoo and Hooded Robin...

"Landholders of the Cobar Peneplain claim that 80 per cent of the threatened species of the region are dependent on grasslands and open woodland habitat. They claim that while many fauna species use the dense shrublands and trees for roosting and nesting, they are almost always seen feeding in the grasslands and croplands nearby. Their claims are supported by the known habitat requirements of the threatened birds recorded from the Cobar region. The majority of species listed rely on open woodlands and different types of grasslands as feeding habitat.

Of interest in this debate are the nationwide findings on woodland bird populations reported in The State of Australia’s Birds 2005: Woodlands and Birds, a Birds Australia publication. This document compared the reporting rates of the two nationwide atlases carried out by Birds Australia in 1977-81 and 1998-2002...

"Surprisingly, despite the “doom and gloom” text, the reporting rate of the majority of woodland-grassland birds had actually remained unchanged or increased over the 20- year period (for all woodland-grassland species: 48 per cent increased, 38 per cent did not change, and 13 per cent decreased). However the results were very different for grassland-dependent and ground-feeding woodland-grassland birds. These species showed much higher rates of decline over the 20-year period than the species that feed in the canopy layer."

Read the full article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5265

-----------------------

* Gillian is a Director and founding members of the Australian Environment Foundation and so am I.

Posted by jennifer at 10:40 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 10, 2006

How Many Trees Did Bob Carr Really Save? A Note from Cinders

Hi Jennifer,

The former Premier of NSW, Bob Carr, has made the following claim in a Daily Telegraph Editorial:

“ONE of my first acts as premier in 1995 was to introduce controls on the clearing of native vegetation. It was controversial and it involved me in endless arguments.

But stopping broadacre land clearing in NSW (Queensland followed) is the only thing that has enabled Prime Minister John Howard to boast that Australia can meet its Kyoto targets.”

I have compared this claim with information compiled by the Australian Greenhouse Office and it doesn't appear to stack up.



The table indicates that landuse change emissions have reduced dramatically from 1990 to now by about 70 percent. Much of this occurred prior to 1995, the date Mr. Carr claims that he acted. In fact the table shows an extremely small decrease from 1995 to 2003 for New South Wales. There was no significant change in Queensland from 1995 to 2002.

Mr Carr’s statement that stopping broad acre land clearing in NSW in 1995 is the only thing that allows Australia to meets its Kyoto targets is not supported by the available evidence.

In the same article Mr Carr claims:

“In 1800 much of North America, South America, Australia and Asia was covered by forest. But the explosion in the human population meant massive clearing. Australia lost an estimated two-thirds of its vegetation.”

These statements can be compared with the Department of Environment and Heritage Australian Native Vegetation Assessment 2001 that states:

“At a continental scale, approximately 13% of the total land has been cleared.”

This assessment estimates that about 50% of the continent was covered by forest and woodland. Indeed this was mostly woodland, with forest accounting for just over 44 million hectares or about 6% of the continent. In 2001 the Audit estimated that over 31 million hectares remained, that is 71% of the original extent. This is less than a third of the forest cleared not two thirds as claimed by Bob Carr.

Regards Cinders.

Posted by jennifer at 03:40 PM | Comments (53) | TrackBack

October 15, 2006

Biochar (Part 1)

Hello Jennifer,
I recently did a google search on 'biochar', this would be a useful way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and at the same time improve soils.
It could be used on woody weeds, crop residue or any other organic waste that was available.
Regards Bruce

Posted by jennifer at 10:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 26, 2006

Publish or Perish: A Note from Anthony Gibson

Nyngan farmer Anthony Gibson, spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, has warned government officials and the public to be aware of Dr Barry Traill’s limited scientific credentials on the ecology of woody weeds.

Following is the rest of the media release from the NSW Regional Community Survival Group:

“An exhaustive search of the world’s premier online scientific publication database, CAB Abstracts, has failed to unearth any examples of refereed published work by the Wilderness Society’s key spokesperson on woody weeds,” Mr Gibson said.

The Community Survival Group is made up of farmers from western NSW who are fed up with ‘green-inspired laws’ that prevent farmers from controlling woody weed infestations that are destroying up to 20 million hectares (an area three times the size of Tasmania) of western NSW.

Mr Gibson said that a comprehensive search of the CAB Abstracts database failed to uncover any trace of published work in refereed (peer-reviewed) international journals by Traill.

CAB Abstracts is the most comprehensive bibliographic, abstracting and indexing database in its field, covering references to journal articles, monographs, conferences, books and annual reports from more than 100 countries.

It covers environmental science and ecology, including soil science, water resources, organic farming, forestry and integrated crop management, environmental pollution and remediation. Issues relating to the conservation of land, forest, soil, biological and genetic resources, and nature conservation are also covered.

Ecological publications within CAB Abstracts searched for articles written by Traill included:

Conservation Biology; Ecological Applications; Ecological Monographs; Ecology; Evolution; Global Ecology and Biogeography; International Journal of Plant Sciences; Journal of Applied Ecology; Journal of Biogeography; Journal of Ecology; Journal of Tropical Ecology; Journal of Vegetation Science; Proceedings: Biological Sciences; Quarterly Review of Biology; and Science.

Mr Gibson said that a PhD alone does not make a scientist an expert – a scientist has to publish his/her work extensively in refereed international journals before they can be considered an authority on an issue; hence the maxim in the academic community of ‘publish or perish’.

“The only published material by Traill unearthed was a 2001 review titled ‘The Nature Conservation Review’, a publication produced by the green group The Victorian National Parks Association, and a couple of unrefereed conference papers.”

“Barry Traill is entitled to an opinion on how woody weed infestations should be managed in western NSW but government officials and the public should be warned not to consider him an authority on the issue.

“The NSW Government must start to listen to the local knowledge and experience of Aboriginal Elders, community leaders and farmers on how best to control the destructive affects of woody weeds – people who deal with the problem every day – not political activists like Traill,” ended Mr Gibson."

Posted by jennifer at 09:40 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

August 21, 2006

200 Farmers Block Government Officials From Entering Cobar Property

I have just received the following note:

"Over 200 farmers in western NSW today blockaded state government officials from entering the Cobar property of Kevin and Gwen Mitchell, who are the latest victims of a radical green campaign that will force farmers off their land.

“Farmers trying to rehabilitate land degraded by woody weeds are the innocent victims of a political game being played in Macquarie Street to gain green preference votes in Sydney,” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.

“The farming communities of Cobar and Nyngan are no longer prepared to stand by and let decent, hard-working families be sacrificed on the altar of green politics. Today we are preventing bureaucrats from entering a farm as a protest against a government that constantly appeases the demands of radical greens.”

Last Monday, the Mitchell’s farm was “buzzed” by a low flying plane registered to a Sydney pilot who farmers suspect was ferrying an activist from the radical green group The Wilderness Society.

Two farm workmen, who were legally clearing 250 hectares of land degraded by woody weed infestations, witnessed the plane circle and cross the area at least five times at low altitude.

Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) are native plants that have spread beyond their natural range and density, invading formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.

Mr Menzies said that the Mitchell family reported the pilot’s reckless behavior to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

“Immediately after the incident, a prized bull went missing from the paddock and was found five days later over five kilometres away, while three pregnant cows died during calving. Cows are extremely sensitive to stress in the latter stages of pregnancy and can’t handle being spooked by low flying planes.

“Things are pretty rotten in the state of NSW when farmers can’t go about their daily chores without being harassed in the paddock from the air,” Mr Menzies said.

“To rub salt into the wound, the next day a bureaucrat from the Department of Natural Resources rang Kevin Mitchell to report a complaint of illegal land clearing and wanting an inspection of the farm.

“The NSW Government is too quick to take the word of radical greens as gospel. What has happened to the Mitchell family is nothing short of government-sanctioned harassment,” said Mr Menzies.

On 22 July 1998, Kevin and Gwen Mitchell were granted consent by the Western Lands Commissioner for a term of 10 years to cultivate the 250 hectares of woody-weed infested land.

The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers and business people from western NSW who have had a gutful of the NSW Government pandering to the wishes of radical greens in a bid to win preference votes in marginal inner-Sydney seats."

Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the Wilderness Society Campaign and environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment, in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled 'The great land-clearing myth'.

Posted by jennifer at 03:16 PM | Comments (94) | TrackBack

August 19, 2006

WWF Activist Appointed by NSW Government to Review His Own Woody Weed Mess

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) spearheaded a campaign to end broadscale tree clearing in western NSW. The resulting legislation has proven difficult for government to administer and a nightmare for landholders wanting to clear woody weeds including species of acacia and pine.

In response, the NSW government appointed a committee to “independently” review the Invasive Native Species (INS) regulations that sit under the legislation.

The NSW government appointed a director of the WWF, Dr Denis Saunders, to head the committee.

Farmers have cried foul asking how the board member of a lobby group totally opposed to land clearing can head an independent review of the legislation.*

But it gets worst.

Dr Saunders is not only a director of WWF, he was a member of The Wentworth Group. This groups is described at the Australian Museum website as not only driving the media campaign against broadscale tree clearing in NSW, but also producing the “model for landscape conservation” that was subsequently adopted by the state government.

The Wentworth Group was funded by Robert Purves, a businessman and also President of WWF Australia, through a $1.5 million donation. The campaign was coordinated by Peter Cosier, a former senior environmental policy advisor to Senator Robert Hill.

So Denis Saunders was actively involved in the campaign which resulted in the new legislation. Furthermore he was part of the team that proposed the model for the legislation that was subsequently adopted by government. Incredibly government has now made him head of a committee to "independently" review the mess his team helped create.

So "Caesar is judging Caesar”!

Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the NSW legislation and the environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled 'The great land-clearing myth'.

-------------------------------
* Veg Review Compromised? By Lucy Skuthorp, The Land, pg. 11, 17th August 2006.

NSW Regional Community Survival Group has issued the following media release:

"Media Release Thursday, 17 August 2006 Farmers outraged over woody weed recommendations

Farmers have rejected the recommendations of a NSW Government review into the management of woody weeds, claiming a conflict of interest by the Chair of the review committee, Dr Denis Saunders, who is also a Board Member of Australia’s most powerful green group.

“How can farmers have any faith in the recommendations of the so-called Invasive Native Scrub Working Group when its Chair is on the Board of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of Australia, which campaigns against land clearing?” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.

The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers from western NSW who are fed up with bureaucratic, nonsensical laws that prevent farmers from controlling infestations of woody weeds that have invaded up to 20 million hectares (an area three times the size of Tasmania) of western NSW.

Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) invade native grasslands and pastures, leaving the landscape like a desert with no natural groundcover – making the countryside prone to massive wind and water erosion.

NSW Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Macdonald, gave Dr Saunders the task of ‘refining’ the rules and regulations associated with the management of woody weeds in March 2006.

“Given the WWF has an axe to grind on land clearing issues, how can farmers have any confidence in the integrity of the review recommendations? It is painfully obvious that Dr Saunders has a massive conflict of interest on this issue and I’m surprised that such a senior scientist would place himself in such a conflicted position,” Mr Menzies said.

The Regional Community Survival Group has called upon Premier Iemma to immediately remove Dr Saunders from any further direct involvement in the process of drafting new rules for controlling the spread of infestations of woody weeds in western NSW.

Mr Menzies said that not a single farmer was a member of the Working Group – a group made up of nine bureaucrats – and this was reflected in the absurdity of some of the final recommendations.

A key recommendation of the Working Group was for farmers to leave 20 per cent of the area of their farm infested with woody weeds. This leaves one-fifth of your farm being degraded by woody weeds that smother out native grasslands and pastures. Areas infested with woody weeds also harbour feral pigs and goats.

“Farmers are more than happy to preserve areas of native bushland, but leaving 20 per cent of a farm infested with woody weeds is like a surgeon only removing 80 per cent of a tumour.”

Mr Menzies said farmers who wish to rehabilitate their land are also prevented from clearing more than 20 per cent of the area of woody weeds on their property at any one time. If a farmer wants to clear woody weeds above 20 per cent, this can only be done in 20 per cent increments and only after each increment consists of more than 75 per cent of native grasses.

“Depending on weather conditions (e.g. drought), it could take years for a grassland to consist of more than 75 per cent of native species. Hence, this provision in the regulation is a ‘handbrake’ on land rehabilitation.”

“The review also recommends that farmers leave a certain number of weeds per hectare. For example, farmers have to retain some woody weed species that have a trunk diameter (at breast height) of less than 20cm.

“For western NSW alone, there are over 70 rules on retaining woody weed species at various trunk diameters, making the physical removal of weeds by tractor and chain totally impractical.”

Posted by jennifer at 09:50 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

August 13, 2006

Wilderness Society Should Acknowledge Woody Weed Problem: Doug Menzies

Last week on Channel 9’s Sunday Program, Reece Turner from The Wilderness Society stated: “We haven’t seen any scientific evidence to show that biodiversity is being impacted negatively by these woody weeds.”

Sunday reporter Ross Coulthart then asked Turner, “Do you accept that there are woody weed areas causing major environmental damage?” Turner’s response to the question was: “No. We don’t accept there are major environmental damages being caused by woody weeds.”

Mr Doug Menzies, in a media release from NSW Regional Community Survival Group, said that The Wilderness Society needs to drop its emotive rhetoric on land clearing in western NSW and urgently review the scientific literature on how infestations of woody weeds degrade the landscape.

The media release continued:

“The Channel 9 footage showing vast tracts of land degraded by woody weeds clearly showed how little understanding Reece Turner has on this issue. Turner needs to get off his bum and make the effort to review the scientific literature that details the negative environmental impacts of woody weeds,” Mr Menzies said.

Below are just some of the published scientific journals and reports that confirm the destructive impact of infestations of woody weeds on the environment:

Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Scrub and Timber Regrowth in the Cobar-Byrock district and other areas of the Western Division, NSW. February 1969.
“The density of timber and scrub regrowth on level loamy soils, which would normally run little water, is such that the small open spaces between clumps are completely bare and becoming wind sheeted and water sheeted. This class of country thus becomes a mosaic of bare, wind and water sheeted patches on which nothing can grow, interspersed with small clumps of thick scrub.”

Alchin, B.M., Proude, C.K., and Condon, R.W. (1979). Control of Woody Weeds in Western NSW. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Conference.
“Regrowth of woody weeds is a major problem over millions of hectares on the rangelands of western NSW. The regrowth reduces pasture growth, increases management costs and results in soil erosion.”

Control of Woody Weeds. Woody Weeds Taskforce. Information Sheet 5. September 1990.
“Woody weeds are native shrubs which have encroached formerly open lands of western NSW. The encroachment has lowered pastoral productivity, reduced botanical and faunal diversity, reduced land values and increased the risk of water and wind erosion. Much of the area has now changed and is dominated by a dense understorey of shrubs. It has been estimated that 20 million hectares of western NSW are either already encroached or highly susceptible to woody weed encroachment.”

Booth, C.A., King, G.W., and Sanchez-Bayo, F. (1996). Establishment of woody weeds in western NSW. 1. Seedling emergence and phenology. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 58-79.
“While the semi-arid range lands of Australia have historically been regarded as amongst the nation’s greatest assets, millions of hectares have unfortunately deteriorated considerably due to the spread of unpalatable native shrubs on open grazing lands. As a consequence of the reduced feed available on infested land, livestock and native animals graze more heavily on unaffected areas, which in turn become more susceptible to erosion and to further invasion by shrubs.”

Daly, R.L., and Hodgkinson, K.C. (1996). Relationships between grass, shrub and tree cover on four landforms of semi-arid eastern Australia, and prospects for change by burning. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 104-117.
“The range of grass, shrub and tree levels present in the Louth region of western NSW was determined in an area where woody weeds are considered to be rampant, and the prospects for change by burning were evaluated. The survey confirmed the perception of pastoralists, administrators and scientists that shrub cover is unacceptably high for pastoralism throughout much of the region. Additionally, the perennial grass cover was very low and this would increase the instability of forage supply to pastoral herbivores.”

CSIRO. Media Release – “No Half Measures to Deal with Woody Weeds.” May 15, 1998.
“Woody weeds have been a problem for more than a century. Since the first two decades of pastoral settlement, there has been a vast area affected by increasing density of the shrubs, largely as a result of declining fire frequency. Some 35 million hectares or 25 per cent of NSW is affected.” Dr Jim Noble, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.

Blueprint for a Living Continent. A Way Forward from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Nov 2002).
“Clear distinction needs to be made between the need to stop broadscale clearing of remnant native vegetation and the need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and arid pastoral areas of Australia. This part of Australia has been managed by indigenous Australians for 45,000 years, using fire. Since European settlement these fire management practices have changed which is causing environmental damage in some areas.”

Landholders in western NSW and Queensland may have felt some relief last Sunday with well known journalist Ross Coulthart acknowledging the very real problem of invasive woody weeds. But it appears the Wilderness Society is now going to ignore the event and the issues it raised. There has been no official response from the organisation; no media release attempting to justify their position. I guess this strategy makes it difficult for landholders to get any traction on the issue in the mainstream media? How do you have a debate when one side won't debate?

Posted by jennifer at 08:38 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

August 06, 2006

Journalist Ross Coulthart Legitimises Farmer Woody Weed Concerns

Not so many years ago Australian farmers where forced to clear their land of trees, it was a condition of many leases. Some areas were over-cleared particularly in Western Australia.

Over the last 10 years the pendulum has swung in completely the other direction, with legislation now essentially outlawing tree clearing on both leasehold and freehold land.

In Queensland and NSW the new legislation has been driven, at least in part, by relentless campaigning from the Wilderness Society. As their name suggests, this environment group believes in 'wilderness' and is against the active management of landscapes. Yet, to quote, Deborah Bird Rose :

“A definition of wilderness which excludes the active presence of humanity may suit contemporary people's longing for places of peace, natural beauty, and spiritual presence, uncontaminated by their own culture. But definitions which claim that these landscapes are 'natural' miss the whole point. Here on this continent, there is no place where the feet of Aboriginal humanity have not preceded those of the settler. Nor is there any place where the country was not once fashioned and kept productive by Aboriginal people's land management practices.”

The reality is that before white pastoralists moved into western NSW and Queensland the country was "kept productive" by aboriginals and their firesticks. They burnt the land which favoured some grasses and limited the establishment of what many pastoralists now refer to as "woody weeds" including species of native cypress pine and acacia.

Current land management practices compounded by government regulations, policies and expectations, have resulted in large areas of western Queensland and NSW being over run by invasive native scrub, also known as 'woody weeds', and this is having a negative economic and environmental impact in many areas.

While the rural press has run hard on the issue it has been ignored by the mainstream media. It has perhaps been assumed that farmers have exaggerated the 'woody weed' issue because they want to keep clearing trees until there are none left? Interestingly when I tried to get a piece published by the Courier Mail some years ago, I was told that my suggestion that there were more trees regrowing than being cleared in Queensland was offensive.

But, at last a respectable metropolitan journalist has discovered the issue. This morning Channel Nine's Sunday Program ran 'The Great Land-Clearing Myth' as their cover story. Ross Coulthart made the comment:

ROSS COULTHART: Another reason to be skeptical about the Wilderness Society's alarming land clearing figures — they don't include regrowth in their estimate of 100,000 hectares of clearing because no-one is measuring it.

WILDERNESS SOCIETY CAMPAIGNER: That figure doesn't include regrowth.

ROSS COULTHART: You say a lot of people say to us if you took the regrowth of native vegetation into account the amount of regrowth would far exceed the clearing.

WILDERNESS SOCIETY CAMPAINGER: Sure but the native bush can't regenerate at the moment as fast as it's being cleared.

In fact last time I looked native bush was regenerating faster than it was being cleared. That's not to say that there is not a need for some restrictions on broad scale tree clearing or that woody weed regrowth is equivalent to high value remnant scrub. But until this morning it seemed not a single respectable journalist would explore the issue - there was not honest discussion in the mainstream metropolitan media.

Earlier this year Ross Coulthart went further than anyone has ever gone in exposing the politics of salinity in Australia. This morning he legitimised many landholder's concerns about woody weed regrowth and perhaps opened the door to a discussion that needs to be had.

You can read the full transcript here: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2039.asp .

Posted by jennifer at 11:29 AM | Comments (30)

August 01, 2006

How Trees Can Be Bad: Ross Coulthart

You may remember that some weeks ago the Channel 9 Sunday Program featured a documentary on salinity title 'Australia's Salinity Crisis: What Crisis'. While researching the dryland salinity issue, reporter Ross Coulthart got interested in land clearing issues. This Sunday (6th August) the current affairs program will feature a documentary titled 'Woody Weeds: How Trees Can Be Bad'. I've just received the media release:

"This week SUNDAY travels to far western NSW to check out the claims being made by many Green groups and politicians of a looming ecological disaster being caused by land clearing.

What we find overturns many of the alarmist claims that many of Australia’s largely city dwelling environmentalists have taken as gospel.

SUNDAY reporter Ross Coulthart details the strong evidence to show that current Government policies restricting land clearing, pushed by a powerful environmental lobby, are in fact causing serious environmental damage.

As several eminent scientists reveal this week too many trees in that landscape can actually be bad for the environment.

As recently as six years ago, Australia’s peak science body, the CSIRO, was warning of the ecological threat posed by invasive native scrub – the farmers call them “woody weeds” – that has taken over what was once largely, sparsely-treed, open grasslands across far western NSW and southern Qld.

Even the Wentworth Group of Scientists, in their 2002 ‘Blueprint for a Living Continent’ warned that laudable restrictions on broad-scale land clearing needed to be clearly distinguished from the “need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and pastoral areas of Australia.”

As local Nyngan aboriginal elder Tommy Ryan explains, for 45,000 years these largely open grasslands were managed by indigenous Australians using fire. But since European settlement that lack of burning has caused a huge growth of invasive scrub that has taken over between 15-25% of NSW alone.

Now tens of millions of hectares of that once open grassland are effectively being locked-up by Native Vegetation laws that NSW farmers claim are excessively restricting their clearing of what they say is environmentally harmful woody weeds.

Farmers are commonly demonised as the villains responsible for broad-scale land clearing, and that’s what the farmers of Nyngan and Cobar are now accused by the Wilderness Society’s public campaign of doing.

But the farmers claim the plants and animals that evolved to depend on those open grasslands are under threat because of the very trees the Greenies are fighting to save.

And, as SUNDAY details, they have some heavy-weight scientific backing for their arguments. As former Western Lands Commissioner and soil scientist Dick Condon tells Coulthart:

“We don’t need forest. We need open space for the species that use that grassland.”

Mick Keogh, Executive Director of the Australian Farm Institute, says the evidence is there to show that the magnitude of vegetation loss across Australia has been grossly over-exaggerated. Yet the official estimates of 650,000ha being cleared a year in 1989-90 went on to become the cornerstone of Australia’s negotiating position at Kyoto, where limits on greenhouse gas emissions were negotiated. He believes that in order to ensure the reduction in land clearing occurred, the Federal Government made State funding dependent on the States banning land clearing. Keogh argues that a misguided effort to meet those inaccurate targets has led to the current highly restrictive Native Vegetation laws.

Also, current land clearing estimates don’t take into account the extent of regrowth and replanting of trees. When this is taken into account, reafforestation far exceeds even the official, exaggerated, estimates of land clearing."

Posted by jennifer at 10:08 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

July 24, 2006

Guilty Until Proven Innocent Says Auditor-General

"Last week the Auditor-General stated that farmers have escaped land clearing prosecutions because the State Government had ‘problems with meeting the evidence requirements’ under NSW native vegetation laws,” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.

A media release from the group issued earlier today began:

"Farming families are demanding an official apology from the NSW Auditor-General who last week implied that farmers should have been prosecuted for clearing 30,000 hectares of land in 2005.

... The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers from western NSW who are fed up with bureaucratic and nonsensical laws that are preventing farmers from controlling infestations of woody weeds that have invaded up to 20 million hectares (an area three times the size of Tasmania) in western NSW.

“The Auditor-General implies that farming families have carried out illegal land clearing yet in his own report he clearly states that no prosecutions in relation to land clearing were successful when contested in court between 1998 and 2005.

“I was led to believe that a foundation stone of the Australian legal system was the benefit of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by evidence presented in a court of law?

“By implying that farmers have escaped prosecution the Auditor-General has effectively branded farming families as having engaged in illegal land clearing activities – an outrageous suggestion,” said Mr Menzies.

The Regional Community Survival Group is concerned that the comments of the Auditor-General could prejudice land clearing cases currently before the NSW Land and Environment Court.

“We demand an apology from the Auditor-General and seek clarification from the NSW Attorney-General on how the comments of the Auditor-General could potentially prejudice land clearing cases currently before the courts.

“We also have serious concerns on how diligently the Auditor-General investigated the issue of land clearing in NSW.

“The Auditor-General obtained the vast majority of his information from government agencies that are pandering to Sydney-based green groups,” said Mr Menzies.

----------------------
Read the full report -- which does seem to ignore the concept of 'presumption of innocence' -- published by the NSW Auditor-General and titled 'Regulating the Clearing of Native Vegetation: Follow-up of 2002 Performance Audit' by clicking here.

Posted by jennifer at 01:04 PM | Comments (47) | TrackBack

June 16, 2006

Aboriginal Elder Remembers Grassland Not Forest

Another media release from the new Regional Community Survival Group in western New South Wales (Australia):

"Aboriginal Elder, Mr Keith (Tommy) Ryan, is demanding that the NSW Government change native vegetation laws so that Aboriginals in the Bogan Shire of western NSW can locate and access ancestral sites that have become overrun with infestations of scrub.

“Infestations of invasive scrub are so thick in places on the Western Plains that Aboriginals are finding it impossible to locate and access traditional sites,” said Mr Ryan.

Invasive scrub is the term used to describe native shrubs and woody weeds that have infested formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.

“It saddens me to see the landscape of my forefathers being destroyed by the unnatural growth of these weeds.

“I remember as a boy walking on the plains and seeing a mixture of open woodlands and grasslands not a landscape dominated by woody weeds. In those days, you could see kangaroos moving across the open country and you could easily find your way to rivers and creeks.

“The city-based green groups are wrong when they say that dense stands of woody weeds are a natural feature of the Western Plains, Mr Ryan said.

Mr Ryan said that woody weeds grow so thick and fast that they smother-out native grasslands making the country prone to erosion. They also rob the soil of limited nutrients and moisture.

“The old tribal elders used to control woody weed infestations by regularly putting a fire stick to the country.

“Today, the woody weeds have become so thick in places that native grasslands have been completely eradicated and there is not enough grass cover to carry a fire hot enough to suppress the weeds,” said Mr Ryan.

It has been estimated that up to 20 million hectares (an area the size of Nebraska) of western NSW is either already infested or highly susceptible to invasive scrub.

“Now that burning is ineffective in large areas of the Western Plains, the NSW Government needs to allow farmers to clear these woody weeds by a process clearing, cropping and finally rejuvenation of native grasses.

“Clearing and cropping removes and suppresses scrub regrowth and allows native grasses to take hold,” Mr Ryan said.

“If the NSW Government acts quickly to change the existing regulations, local communities in western NSW can start the long process of rehabilitating the landscape.

“Local communities of western NSW are committed to restoring the environment and it’s about time that the Government started to heed our advice,” concluded Mr Ryan."

Posted by jennifer at 03:30 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

June 15, 2006

Farmers Challenge Minister to Explain Tree Laws

A new group has formed in western New South Wales (Australia) out of frustration with the states vegetation management regulations. Vegetation management is code for restrictions on tree clearing, and trees tend to include what that the locals refer to as "invasive scrub". Following is the groups second ever media release:

"Farming families and business people from western NSW are challenging the Minister for Natural Resources and Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, to explain the laws that govern the control of invasive scrub.

“The regulations for controlling invasive scrub are a bureaucratic nightmare that will result in more country being invaded and destroyed by weeds and farmers being forced off the land,” said a spokesman for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.

The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers and local business people from western NSW who are fed up with bureaucratic red tape that is preventing farmers from rehabilitating land infested with invasive scrub.

Invasive scrub is the term used to describe native shrubs and woody weeds that have infested formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW. Infestations of woody weeds are smothering out native grasslands leaving a desert-like landscape devoid of natural grass cover.

“If the Minister can make any practical sense of his own regulations I would be bloody surprised. Farming communities of western NSW are demanding that the Minister answer the following simple questions about the regulations,” Mr Menzies said:

1. Why aren’t farmers allowed to rehabilitate 100 per cent of an area that has been degraded by infestations of woody weeds? In environmental terms, what’s the rationale in leaving 20 per cent of an area that is being degraded by woody weeds?

Under the regulations, land rehabilitation is ‘capped’ at 80 per cent of the degraded area. This is analogous to a surgeon only removing 80 per cent of a tumour!

2. How can farmers practically clear a paddock with large machinery if they are forced to leave woody weeds of varying stem/trunk diameters?

Ridiculously, for western NSW alone, there are over 70 ‘rules’ that govern the retention of scrub species at various stem/trunk diameters. For example, in the Western Catchment Management Authority area farmers have to retain: 6 Wilga plants per hectare that have a trunk diameter (at breast height) of between 0 to 5cm, 7 Wilga plants per hectare that have a trunk diameter of between 5 to 10cm, and 7 Wilga plants per hectare that have a trunk diameter of between 10 and 20cm. Finally, Wilga plants with a trunk diameter of over 20cm must be retained.

3. It is estimated that 20 million hectares (an area the size of Nebraska) of western NSW is either already infested or highly susceptible to woody weeds. How does the Minister envisage the measurement of millions of woody weeds over this area? Will he redeploy accountants from NSW Treasury to do the job?

4. How does the Minister expect farmers to clear woody weeds and control future regrowth when the regulations are so complex and prescriptive that cultivation and short-term cropping becomes impractical and uneconomical?

5. If a farmer wants to clear woody weeds, then this can only be done 20 per cent at a time (and only up to a maximum of 80 per cent of the degraded area!). To make matters worse, you can’t start the next 20 per cent until the cleared area is ¾ covered in native grasses. This could take years to achieve. Cultivation and short-term cropping are crucial steps in restoring native grasslands to a degraded landscape because these activities suppress woody weed regrowth. Does the Minister understand that cultivation and cropping play a vital role in the rehabilitation process?

“This is bureaucracy running rampant in an area that they know nothing about; that is, farming.

“Rural communities of western NSW look forward to the Minister’s answers to these simple questions,” concluded Mr Menzies."

A similiar group formed in Queensland a few years ago also out of frustration with restrictions on tree clearing. This group called Property Rights Australia has championed the cause of Ashley McKay a softly spoken cattleman who has refused to plead guilty to illegally clearing cypress pine. I've written about Ashley at this blog, you can find a copy of the post here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000971.html .

Posted by jennifer at 12:55 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

June 11, 2006

More Grass for Less Salt

About 75 percent of the landmass of Australia could be classified as 'rangeland' and about 60 percent of this area is under pastoral lease. Many pastoral leases are not well managed and campaigning by the Wilderness Society and others tends to miss the point.

Contrary to popular perception created by misleading environmental campaigns there is no general shortage of trees across Australia's rangelands, but there are soil health issues that need to be addressed.

I've previously quoted from Christine Jones and her important document titled 'Recognise, Relate and Innovate" and I'm going to quote from it again.

This might be the first of a series of blog posts on soil health, as I've received a few emails on this issue since Channel Nine's Sunday Program titled 'Australia's Salinity Crisis, What Crisis?'.

On page 8 of 'Recoginse, Relate and Innovate', Jones writes:

"Areas currently experiencing salinisation in south-eastern, southern and south-western Australia were mostly grasslands and grassy woodlands at the time of European settlement, as recorded in explorers journals, settlers diaries and original survey reports from the early to mid 1800s. It is intriguing therefore, that tree clearing in the early 1900s, or later, continues to be cited as the ‘cause’ of dryland salinity.

There is no doubt that the removal of any kind of perennial vegetation will have an effect on water balance. However, to insist that dryland salinity is the result of tree clearing is a misrepresentation of the facts, particularly when twisted in the current form "if we put the trees back, we can solve the problem." Some parts of Australia did not have any trees at the time of settlement. In some regions trees and shrubs have become woody weeds, in
others the environment would be healthier today with more trees. However, these issues have very little to do with dryland salinity.

We need to address the lack or perenniality across the entire landscape, not just in parts of it, and not just with one type of vegetation. Woody vegetation, or crops such as lucerne, can pump accumulated groundwater. This represents a biological form of an engineering solution and treats symptoms not causes. In order to move forward and find some real solutions to the salinity crisis, it is important to view the ‘transient tree phase’ in perspective. It is the overlooked understorey, or more particularly, the groundcover and soils, which have undergone the most dramatic changes since settlement."

Graham Finlayson recently emailed me with the comment that:

"You are too quick to dismiss native perennial [grasses]* and miss two vital points. They don't have to be expensively "planted" as they just need to be allowed to grow, and the amount of land needed is not an issue.

Most of the worlds rangelands are performing far below their capacity, and the vast majority of agricultural land is taken up by growing crops that are used to fatten cattle in feedlots.

This is expensive, unnecessary and with huge detrimental health costs to us all.

...Typically, we in Australia are just jumping onto the feedlotting bandwagon while in the US there is a big premium for cattle that are bred smaller with finishing ability on grass!

Anyway, my point would be that if we get our land systems "healthy" then there is no limit to the amount of way we can profit from it."

Graham recommended the following two websites for information on soil health, grasslands and grazing:

http://managingwholes.com/--environmental-restoration.htm

http://www.stockmangrassfarmer.com .
-----------------------------

* Not sure that I've been too dismissive of native perennial grasses, but there hasn't been much at this blog about rangeland management and soil health perhaps because I've been distracted with other issues.

Posted by jennifer at 06:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 15, 2005

New Bans on Tree Clearing in NSW: How Many Trees Saved for How Many Dollars?

Yesterday NSW Natural Resources Minister Ian Macdonald unveiled the new regulations for the state's Native Vegetation Act 2003. The regulations will come into effect on December 1.

The story goes that the NSW Farmers Association 'capitulated' on the Act on the promise that the regulations would be more reasonable.

Now it looks like the regulations transfer responsibilities to local 'Catchment Management Authorities' with farmers developing and getting their 'Property Vegetation Plans' endorsed by these boards that I understand include local 'wise men', greens and bureacrats.

According to yesterday's press release there will be no more broadscale tree clearing, there are offset provisions (farmers can cut down trees in one area if it is absolutely necessary, if they agree to plant more somewhere else), and it all comes with $436 million for those disadvantaged, download file with media release and 'details of package'.

The 'compensation packages' could be seen as very generous. At least relative to Quensland where landholders have got not much more than a 'poke in the eye' by way of 'compensation' for the latest round of restrictions.

Landholders' Institute Secretary Ian Mott puts the legislative agenda in a 'so how many trees will really be saved for how many dollars' context with a piece he wrote today titled, NSW Virtual Vegetation Policy, download file .

Mott makes some good points including that:

Sparks & wildfires lost 770,000ha to hot (habitat destroying) fires in 2003 while State Forests NSW only lost 70,000ha. ...

But what has this got to do with clearing controls? Well, it is all about character, scale and intensity of impacts and the capacity of wildlife to recover from those impacts.

Landsat tells us that over the past two decades, total clearing in NSW has only been about 16,000ha of which about half is regrowth clearing that will still take place. Another 25% is clearing for power lines, roads and infrastructure so this leaves a net 4000ha of annual 'habitat destruction' that will be covered by the new legislation. Note that no attempt has been made to quantify forest expansion to derive a net figure.

Dr John Benson, of the Botanic Gardens, has provided most of the key factoids on which the NSW policy process has relied on from SEPP 46 to the more recent changes. It was he who provided the notorious 150,000ha annual clearing estimate to the NSW Vegetation Forum. He used data from the Moree Plain and extrapolated for the entire State. It was he who, in "Setting the Scene", his backgrounder for the 2003 legislation, advised the government that there had been 35 million ha of clearing prior to the mid 1930's. But he then failed to include a total on a table showing cleared area in each bioregion. This missing total of 28 million hectares would have made it clear that there had been an increase in forested area, net of clearing, of 7 million hectares over the past 7 decades. That is, 1 million hectares of expansion per decade or 100,000ha of extra forest a year.

In my own district (Byron Shire) the aerial photos confirm that private forest has trebled in area (net of clearing) since 1954 and the annual clearing rate is less than 2% of the average annual expansion rate for the past half century.

But "don't you worry about that", the new legislation comes with a $460 million budget over 5 years (essentially a reallocation of the old DLWC budget) and this works out to about $23,000 per hectare of 'saved' private forest.

And if $23,000/ha is an appropriate, cost effective and responsible public outlay for protecting habitat then what is the Premier, the Minister and the policy doing about the 700,000 hectares lost to government exacerbated wildfires? At those costings it came to $16.1 billion in damage to publicly owned habitat?

Posted by jennifer at 11:33 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

October 31, 2005

Tree Clearing in Queensland: One Man's Battle Against Bureaucracy

About six years ago Ashley McKay a softly spoken cattleman from south western Queensland was prosecuted by the Queensland Government for clearing cypress pine on his property. McKay had a permit to clear trees from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), but not a permit from the Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) Forestry Division. The second permit was apparently necessary to clear the pine trees scattered amongst the other trees.

It is now folklore in western Queensland that the decision by government bureacrats to prosecute the local hero was taken because McKay appeared on national television program Sixty Minutes speaking out against the government and then new Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Thousands of cattleman are being investigatged for illegal clearing under the legislation which many claim is unworkable.

The advice has been if your prosecuted, plead guilty because government and the courts will show no mercy if you take a stand.

Ashley McKay was proof of that. He has fought six court cases over the original charge of illegally clearing cypress pine. A central issue, continually disputed, is whether or not the original tree clearing permit permitted the clearing of the cypress pine trees.

I waded through the 77 page Decision handed down in August last year following 'round five'. It seemed to me that McKay had lost big time as he was found guilty and fined $270,000 and by the Chief Magistrate.

Some weeks later Property Rights Australia, an organisation founded in part to help McKay fight government, announced he would appeal the decision.

Last Friday the District Court in Queensland upheld the Appeal and reduced the charge from $270,000 to $10,000. I was amazed.

The Queensland Government could yet appeal this decision.

While Ashley fights on. The odd Constitutional law expert is starting to take an interest in the Vegetation Mangement Act 1999 and consider whether indeed it is constitutional, click here for a review by Prof Suri Ratnapala.
..................

Campaigns by the Wilderness Society have given the impression that western Queensland has been turned into wasteland as a consequence of tree clearing. But according to the State Government report Land Cover Change in Queensland 1999-2001 (Department of Natural Resources and Mines, published January 2003) even during the height of clearing, the annual clearing rate was 0.71 per cent of the 81 million hectares of woodland, forest and shrub cover across Queensland. According to page 14 of the same report, there has been a 5 million hectares increase in the area classified as woody vegetation over the period 1992 to 2001.

In other words, while large areas have been cleared, larger areas have regrowth.

Official statistics from the Queensland Herbarium (a part of the government's Environment Protection Agency) show 81 percent of Queensland is covered in remnant vegetation - a figure that has remained constant over the last decade.

The dictionary definition of 'remnant' is 'little or few that remains, a fragment or scrap'. Interestingly in Queensland 'remnant' is the dominant vegetation classification. Use of the word 'remnant' is deceptive as it suggests only a small amount of natural vegetation remains when in reality over 80 per cent remains.

The current legislative definition of 'remnant' is vegetation with 50 percent of its original cover and 70 per cent of its original height. Trees re-grow, so the relatively high level of remnant vegetation cover in Queensland is at least in part achieved by 're-growth' turning into 'remnant' over a period of time.
.....................

I've written about how hard it can be to understand the ABS tree clearing statistics here, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2098

Posted by jennifer at 10:18 PM | Comments (3)

August 31, 2005

To Burn or Graze

There has been a bit written at this site about the importance of burning landscapes including comment from David Ward in WA that:

"I have recently developed geometric evidence that frequent burning is the only (repeat only), way to maintain a reasonably fine grained fire mosaic, with small, mild, and controllable fires; a rich diversity of habitat for plants and animals; and protection of small fire refuges for that minority of plants and animals which are not adapted to frequent fire. Aborigines clearly knew, and still, in some parts, know this. Anyone who does not understand should go and talk to an Aboriginal Elder.

"It can be demonstrated, with geometric certainty, that any deliberate long fire exclusion over large areas, such as a National Park, will lead inevitably (repeat inevitably) to large fierce fires, and a coarser mosaic, with little diversity of food and shelter for animals. Small refuges, important for some rare plants and animals, will be destroyed by the ferocity of the fires."

I have just discovered Christine Jones' website at http://www.amazingcarbon.com/ courtesy of Graham Finlayson.

Jones suggests that regular burning is extremely detrimental to soft forms of native ground cover and encourages a dominance of relatively unpalatable grasses, removes surface litter leaving the soil unprotected, reduces potential for nutrient cycling, reduce water-holding capacity and degrade soil structure. ... concluding that "fire is a tool which should be used cautiously and infrequently".

Jones suggests that the recruitment of productive native legumes and grasses is favoured by mulching which is destroyed by regular burning.

Jones promotes grazing on the basis that "The open, park-like appearance of many areas at the time of European settlement has often been attributed to indigenous burning regimes. More recent evidence suggests that the healthy grasslands and friable soils described by the first settlers were more likely to have reflected the high abundance of small native mammals, such as bettongs and potoroos most of which are now locally extinct ... with the loss of the regenerative effects of small native mammals in Australia since European settlement, managed grazing is now arguably the only natural means by which grasslands can be 'improved' in a holitistic way."

The above is my summary of page 7 and 8 of http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/general_doc/46_sti1%20final%20report.pdf, titled 'Recognise, Relate, Innovate' by Jones - at the same website.

Are Jones and Ward talking about different landscapes?

Posted by jennifer at 11:12 AM | Comments (4)

August 12, 2005

ABC TV Got it Half Right on Rangeland Management

ABC Television program Catalyst ran a story last night featuring the work of botanist Rod Fensham. Fensham has done some great research work on Queensland's rangelands. But the program, by putting a popularist spin on it all, did our rangelands and Fensham no favours.

Catalyst started off by suggesting most of Queensland's old growth forest had been cleared by graziers and then went on to explain how vegetation thickening is real. An overriding theme was that the bans on broad scale tree clearing are good and that current thickening is natural and a consequence of higher rainfall over the second half of the last century. Furthermore drought, not land clearing or fire, should be left to maintain the balance of nature.

I was left wondering what they meant by old growth forest, and how the old growth forest had survived the terrible drought to be destroyed by graziers. And wasn't it generally acknowledged that these areas have been a fire mediated sub-climax ecosystem as in South Africa and the southern USA?

The following comment as part of the voice over was interesting:

But seeing the timbers dying in all districts of western Queensland it would seem not unreasonable to conclude that drought was the cause of thousands of miles of country in the never never to be denuded of scrub. ...So there it was, proof that the climate had caused tree death and thinning.

The full transcript can be read at
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1435595.htm .

I used to have a beer with Fensham and other Brisbane-based botanists and entomologists on a Friday afternoon at the St Lucia golf links in the early to mid 1990s.

The Catalyst program suggested that Fensham was against the use of fire, as well as broad scale tree clearing. It didn't ring true to me.

A link to a piece by him at the bottom of the Catalyst webpage also suggests otherwise.

In this piece titled 'Trial by fire' Fensham makes the following points:

1. The role of climate in shaping vegetation patterns should not be ignored in a land of notorious climatic extremes.

2. The structure and density of eucalypt woodlands in the Queensland pastoral zone is influenced by management (fire), land use (grazing) and climate (especially drought).

3. Appropriate burning regimes may offer Queensland pastoralists a management option that maintains productivity and is less devastating for biodiversity than tree clearing.

Read the complete article here
http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/publications_pdf/PN040707_trial_by_fire.pdf .

Earlier in the week I was sent this link
http://www.amonline.net.au/eureka/environmental_research/2005_winner.htm .

It came with the note, "An interesting rewrite of history - a negative reality inversion."

The link is to an announcement titled 'Research that shaped new bush clearing laws' and is about how Fensham has won the Eureka prize for Environmental research and includes the following text:

The recent debate on land clearing in Queensland was fierce, with the arguments often unsupported by clear scientific evidence. Dr Rod Fensham and Russell Fairfax changed that. Over ten years, these two scientists from the Queensland Herbarium have methodically developed a scientific foundation to measure and understand the fate of Queensland's native rangelands. Their research, and their science advocacy, gave the Queensland Government the information it needed to create stronger laws on land clearing. Their work now earns them the $10,000 Sherman Eureka Prize for Environmental Research.

I observed at close range the politics that drove the bans on broad scale tree clearing in Queensland including as a member of the Ministerial Advisory Council - Vegetation Management (MAC-VM). Fensham's work didn't enter this policy debate which was driven almost exclusively by very dumb (but effective) campaigning by a coalition of environment groups spearheaded by the Wilderness Society and Queensland Conservation Council and supported by a Queensland University Professor.

Had Fensham's work been influential, the clearing laws may have turned out at least half reasonable.
...............

Update 2pm

Following discussions with Rod I have the following additional comment, and I hope Rod might do a guest post for me/us:

The Eureka Award was in recognition of Rod's contribution to our understanding of regional ecosystems and how they can be mapped. This mapping work occurred independently of the campaigning by the Wilderness Society and the mapping is critical to the current legislation and important if the current legislation is to ever deliver reasonable rangeland protection and management.

I have also updated the title for this post from 'ABC TV and Eureka Awards Got it Wrong on Fensham' to 'ABC TV Got it Half Right on Rangeland Management'.

Posted by jennifer at 11:30 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 29, 2005

On Pious Hope & Queensland's Rangelands

The following note on rangeland management is from a reader of this blog who lives in western Queensland. The note was followed by the the comment that, "a major problem of rangeland management is that politicians and bureaucrats have undying faith in the efficacy of pious hope and regulation to rectify problems now largely caused by previous doses of pious hope and regulation".

He writes,

"Among the myths of rangeland management are:-

1. that rangelands are fragile

Wrong on either meaning of "fragile". In the sense of Wedgewood china, wrong because the organisms involved have had some millions of years of the vaguries of semi-arid and arid regions and are basically as tough as old boots.

In the ecological sense of "fragile" (having frequent changes in species composition), wrong because "resilience" is the ticket in these regions, not "stability"

2. that things happen slowly in the rangelands

Wrong - more that nothing much happens, then things can happen very rapidly and then nothing much happens - (but you don't get to see this if your rangelands watching is by intermittent visits). Contrast "state and transition" vs "Clementsian succession".

3. that one size fits all (the shifting spanner of management)

Lower George Street (in Brisbane) has a bad case of this at the moment.

So fire or not depends on what we have to manage. Pretty well documented that lack of fire got us to the current woody vegetation increase problem. And New England and Southern Africa experience says fire for managing some pasture species. Unusual to need fire every year for such management.

And (for rangeland) one of the Charleville Pastoral Laboratory results is that out here we are looking at about 90 percent of the dry matter by about the end of March, and we shouldn't be aiming to use more than about 30 percent of that via grazing animals over the next 12 months - so there is the rest for roos etc and insects and mulch. And on the economics side, at least 90 percent of the net income will come from around 70-75 percent of the stocking rate.

I'm afraid we didn't doo too well on this score for the last 4-5 years. But there is hope - a warm winter so far and 119mm in May and 72mm so far in June, and the pasture species are finally responding (even buffel seedlings in June), so we may be able to