EIANZ Ecology

Working Draft, Ecological Assessment Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:41:00 +0000

The final working draft EcIA (Ecological Impact Assessment) Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand are now available for download on the EIANZ Wiki (http://wiki.eianz.org/index.php/EIANZ_Ecology).

This is the first attempt in Australasia, to combine modern principles of EcIA into one document. The document relies heavily on existing international and overseas best practice information on the science of ecology in practice. It particularly uses the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM's) guidelines as a framework, introducing other biodiversity elements and modern principles of offset management.

All ecologists, whether or not they work in EIA, should have an understanding of EcIA if they work in any professional capacity.

These guidelines will be launched at the forthcoming EIANZ conference in New Zealand, after which, a process for receiving comments and review will be developed. Watch this space or follow us on Twitter for further information.

Australia's National Vegetation Framework up for comment

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:45:00 +0000

This draft is a strategic national policy framework, aimed at guiding management decisions that affect native vegetation in all jurisdictions and all sectors of the community. When finalised, this framework will replace the 1999 National Framework for Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation.

Download Australia's Native Vegetation Framework - consultation draft (PDF - 1.2 MB) | (Word - 1.0 MB)
Download the submission cover sheet (PDF - 37 KB) | (Word - 55 KB)
Note: you must complete the cover sheet and include it with your submission. The cover sheet indicates whether you wish your submission to remain confidential or not.
Download the submission template (PDF - 56 KB) | (Word - 78 KB)
Note: the submission template is provided for your guidance - you are not required to use it.

VIC Wildlife Research Symposium, Deakin University 5 Feb

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:01:00 +0000

WILDLIFE RESEARCH AT DEAKIN A CELEBRATION

5TH FEB 2010 - DEAKIN UNIVERSITY-BURWOOD CAMPUS

You're invited to a special one-day symposium to celebrate the
contribution of research students to understanding and conserving
Australia's wildlife. This symposium recognises the outstanding
support of the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment towards post-
graduate research.

Join us for a stimulating day of sharing new information on threatened
species, ecosystems and wildlife conservation. Topics include:
Keynote: Wildlife conservation in human-dominated landscapes: ecology
of the threatened Squirrel Glider (Rodney van der Ree)

- Conservation ecology of the endangered Mallee Emu-wren
- Large forest owls and small mammal decline
- Widespread but not immune: the Bush Rat in a fragmented landscape
- Bird conservation in agricultural environments: role of landscape pattern
- Where exactly do ground-foraging woodland birds forage?
- Apiarists reveal long-term ecological trends
- Post-fire succession of small mammals in the Anglesea region
- A blue outlook for estuarine copepods and larval fish
- DNA fingerprinting of the Powerful Owl
- Foraging behaviour in female Australian Fur Seals
- Trophic relationships of Bass Strait seabirds

Date: 9:00-16:30, Friday 5th February 2010.
Location: Deakin University, Burwood. (Lecture Theatre 12)
Lunch, morning & afternoon tea free. Onsite parking available (c $5)

Registration essential: RSVP Robyn Cook Robyn.Cook@deakin.edu.au
by 1st February 2010
Further info: Mike Weston (Mike.Weston@deakin.edu.au)
Andrew Bennett (Andrew.Bennett@deakin.edu.au)

International Year of Biodiversity: Farmers Say that Conserving Biodiversity is a Shared Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:09:00 +0000

Today marks the launch of the International Year of Biodiversity under the theme Biodiversity is Life – Biodiversity is Our Life. It is a theme of critical interest to farmers since biodiversity and agriculture are interdependent; both are also key elements to address climate change and food security. Conserving biodiversity is a shared responsibility of stakeholders worldwide, and farmers are willing to do their part.

The International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) will be highlighting, throughout this year, the crucial role played by farmers to conserve ecosystems. IFAP will also be challenging national governments and the international community to put in place programs to help secure the planet’s biodiversity, while at the same time, ensuring that farmers have the necessary tools to increase food production by 70 percent by 2050 to feed a growing world population.

‘’The main issue for farmers is gaining recognition for the multiple roles that agriculture is expected to fulfil and identifying appropriate mechanisms in order to achieve them. We need to help and encourage farmers to improve their current practices, while ensuring they can sustain their families and remain competitive in the markets. These efforts all need be undertaken simultaneously, otherwise you will have food security problems or a compromised ecosystem,’’ said Ajay Vashee, IFAP President.

Farmers understand the need to protect and conserve biodiversity, and their role in doing so. At the same time, it is crucial that they maintain the economic viability of their agricultural activities. In 2010, IFAP will strive to find genuine and long-lasting approaches to better conserve and enhance biological diversity that can be implemented by farmers, and will advocate positive and constructive policy approaches to governments and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Through such practices as land set asides for wildlife and native species, conservation farming, organic farming, reforestation practices, pastoralism, rotational grazing and rehabilitation of degraded lands, farmers are contributing to the conservation and protection of biodiversity. However, this is a shared responsibility with the rest of society. All stakeholders need to participate. If these efforts are to be expanded on a global scale to reduce biodiversity degradation, appropriate funding, positive incentives for farmers such as payment for ecosystem services, training and policy implementation will be needed to achieve results,’’ concluded Vashee.

To move forward on conserving biodiversity, the world farmers’ organization advocates the following actions:

Government policies for secure land tenure systems and adequate infrastructure that allows farmers to invest in long-term farming strategies related to biodiversity enhancement.
Economic partnerships between developing and developed countries aimed at transferring and adapting stewardship programs, such as credit systems and extension services.
Recognition of farmers’ indigenous knowledge of local resource management and conservation.
Increased funding for the scientific research that underpins the development and sound understanding of how agricultural management interacts with biodiversity. Scientific knowledge and findings should be disseminated, scaled-down and be specific to the dynamics of a particular region.
Strengthened farmers’ participation in the formulation and the implementation of research projects and rural development strategies to enhance biodiversity.
Improved policy coordination and planning of environmental legislation affecting agricultural production. Often different government departments deal with these issues in isolation. There is also a need to increase capacity to enforce legislation in a coordinated way.
Mainstreaming of the Agricultural Biodiversity program of work of the CBD (UN Convention on Biodiversity) with the programs of work of the other Multilateral Environment Agreements, such as the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and the UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), as well as with food security and rural development programs.

IFAP will be placing biodiversity as a policy priority in 2010. “Sustainable solutions can be found and many are already available”, said the IFAP President, “but responsibility must be shared among all stakeholders”.

-----

IFAP is the farmers' voice at the world level, representing 600 million family farmers grouped in 112 national organizations in 87 countries. It has been advocating farmers’ interests at the international level since 1946. IFAP’s mission is to develop farmers’ capacities to influence decisions that affect them at both the domestic and international levels. www.ifap.org

EIA, Planning and a Protected Dragonfly in Victoria

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:02:00 +0000

Invertebrates rarely get a mention in the context of EcIA because so few are actually protected. Ancient Greenling Hemiphlebia mirabilis is protected in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, making it a material consideration for planning. The species is not only protected but also taxonomically and globally unique, being the only taxon in the family Hemiphlebiidae.

The species' has long suffered a decline in distribution due to drainage and decreasing water quality of lowland freshwater wetlands. In December 2008 it was discovered in far west Victoria, a range extension of about 400km. Now it has been found in South Australia as well.

Originally known in the area around the Goulburn Valley, about 200 km north of Melbourne, the species was soon under threat – by 1940, only 3 per cent of native-vegetation cover remained; by 1980 there were concerns that the species was extinct. Drought was only part of the problem. Thirst for irrigation led to a raised watertable, salinity and soil acidification. Billabongs were degraded through agricultural nutrient run-off and livestock damage. (Extract from Australian Geographic Magazine article).

There is still a possibility that this species could be found at any lowland freshwater wetland in the state. The implications for planning and EIA is that surveys and assessment should be done for this species in any coastal environment with freshwater.

More information on Ancient Greenling.

Contact: Simon Mustoe, CEnvP, MEIANZ, MIEEM, Director, AES Applied Ecology Solutions PL.
simonmustoe@ecology-solutions.com.au

EPBC Act Review Report Published

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:53:00 +0000

Dear colleagues

On 30 October 2009, Dr Allan Hawke presented his Final Report for the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) – ‘The Australian Environment Act: Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999’ – to the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts.

Following our email earlier today, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts presented the Final Report for the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) — The Australian Environment Act: Report of the Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – to Parliament today, as required by section 522A of the Act.

The aim of the Report is to review the performance of the Act and, consistent with the objective of protecting the environment and biological diversity and maintain ecological processes, to recommend reforms that:

promote the sustainability of Australia's economic development;
reduce and simplify the regulatory burden;
ensure activities under the Act represent the most efficient and effective ways of achieving desired environmental outcomes; and
are based on an effective federal arrangement.

The Report proposes an integrated reform plan revolving around the following nine core elements:

redraft the Act to better reflect the Australian Government’s role, streamline its arrangements and rename it the Australian Environment Act;
establish an independent Environment Commission to advise the government on project approvals, strategic assessments, bioregional plans and other statutory decisions;
invest in the building blocks of a better regulatory system such as national environmental accounts, skills development, policy guidance, and acquisition of critical spatial information;
streamline approvals through earlier engagement in planning processes and provide for more effective use and greater reliance on strategic assessments, bioregional planning and approvals bilateral agreements;
set up an Environment Reparation Fund and national ‘biobanking’ scheme;
provide for environmental performance audits and inquiries;
create a new matter of national environmental significance for ‘ecosystems of national importance’ and introduce an interim greenhouse trigger;
improve transparency in decision-making and provide greater access to the courts for public interest litigation; and
mandate the development of foresight reports to help government manage emerging environmental threats.

The Report’s 71 recommendations are aimed at implementing this plan. The Australian Government is now giving consideration to its response.

The Report addresses a broad range of issues across the entirety of the EPBC Act’s operation, and is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/review/index.html. Dr Hawke has also prepared a series of fact sheets outlining key recommendations and reforms. These are also available on the Review’s website.

The Minister’s media release is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/index.html.

Thank you for your interest in the Review.

Kind regards,
EPBC Act Review Secretariat

Assessment of Australia's Terrestrial Biodiversity 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:26:00 +0000

Assessment of Australia's Terrestrial Biodiversity 2008 (PDF - 4.8 MB)

The key findings

Many of Australia's biological assets are still in decline, and threats are ongoing and compounded by climate change.
Progress has been made in the collaboration between national, and state and territory jurisdictions in improving Australia's biodiversity information.
Despite this progress, there are insufficient data to report on national trends in important aspects of Australia's biodiversity.
A range of useful monitoring systems exist at regional and state levels.
Landscape-scale approaches are pivotal to long term biodiversity conservation successes, but there is a lack of effective and systematic monitoring systems at this scale that can be used for evaluation.
The strengthening and consolidation of the regional delivery model for natural resource management (NRM) has assisted delivery of biodiversity outcomes.

Implications for future biodiversity assessments

This Assessment has highlighted the lack of many nationally consistent datasets to assess the status and trends of biodiversity in Australia, while showing that there are many instances of good datasets at a state and regional level.

To assist in national reporting of trends in biodiversity, all jurisdictions could:

support strategic long-term monitoring of selected species and communities following agreed protocols
support strategic research to establish empirical relationships between biodiversity and important surrogates, including native vegetation and wetlands
support adaptive learning from major biodiversity management and conservation programs (including the reserves system, recovery actions, and threat abatement actions)
support research into the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and its interactions with existing stressors, and
support programs that build resilience in ecosystems, communities and species to threats to biodiversity.

Some dangers for ecology on the way to becoming a profession

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:17:00 +0000

The ecological profession should furnish members with standard minimum qualifications, codes of ethical conduct and discipline procedures for those breaking the code.

Such were the findings of an article published in the Australian Journal of Ecology in 1984 (Abstract). Yet a quarter of a century later, our profession is still unregulated. Poised on the edge of one of human-kind's worst ever catastrophes, climate change, can we any longer afford to be complacent?

In the recent EIANZ Annual Conference in Canberra, Bill Haylock (President, EIANZ) referred to meetings with the Commonwealth Environment Minister's advisors, forwarding concerns from the EPBC Act review process about poor standards in the profession. To what extent are we to blame for not encouraging good standards in each other? This is why EIANZ Ecology has started the process of developing certification standards for ecologists. We are aiming for the first round of recruitment to CEnvP in ecology by June next year.

Being part of this process is essential to the integrity of the ecological profession and for the future of the environment. We urge you to take a moment to visit Certification of Ecologists.

Here you will find the first round of results from a consultation on what skills and knowledge characterise an ecologist. This is an open Wiki so you may go in and edit / amend or add material. This process will be open until November 20th. After that, we begin the task of identifying assessment criteria.

Environment NOT Recommended for the Australian Bill of Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:39:00 +0000

The National Human Rights Consultation Committee has released recommendations on human rights protection in Australia.

The committee received 35,000 submissions
245 submissions specifically recommended protection of environmental rights
95% of people surveyed thought the right to a clean and healthy environment was important or very important.

The Committee did not recommend the inclusion of environmental rights in Australian human rights protection.

Public interest for the inclusion of environment in human rights is recognition of the role that biodiversity plays in supporting human ecosystem services, on which the Australian economy depends. It is implicit in key Guiding Principles of Biodiversity in Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2005):

Equitable Sharing - ensuring traditional rights and uses of biodiversity are recognised and the benefits from commercial use of biodiversity are shared fairly. Consider the needs of future as well as current generations (inter-generational needs): seek alternatives that do not trade in biodiversity “capital” to meet short term needs, where this could jeopardise the ability of future generations to meet their needs

The committee has recommended the inclusion of "second generation rights" such as protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights but has not recommended inclusion of "new and emerging rights" such as "the right to a clean and healthy environment". Does this mean that the right to environmental protection could give way to economic gain in future?

For more information on the human rights consultation, download the committee report. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and Environment Defenders Office (EDO) have published a Bill of Rights Fact Sheet.

A comparison of Australian biodiversity offset policies and their application

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:06:00 +0000

Poster presented to the EIANZ Annual Conference, Canberra 20-21 October 2009

Download Poster

Authors: Martin Juniper, Dr Tatia Zubrinich, Dr Martin Predavec, Parsons Brinckerhoff. Contact 457 St Kilda Road, Melbourne; Telephone: (03) 9861 1119; email: mjuniper@pb.com.au

Offsets for the removal and disturbance of native vegetation are applied through both formal and informal regulatory mechanisms throughout Australia. We compare of the offset policies across three eastern states (Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland) and at the national level, providing an insight into their practical application.Examples of offset frameworks/policies within the three states and at the Commonwealth level include:

Victoria - the Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action.
New South Wales - the Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme (BioBanking) established under the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Act 2006.
Queensland - the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) and the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets.
Commonwealth – the Draft Policy Statement: Use of environmental offsets under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (2007).

While there are similarities in the various offsets programs, there are significant differences particularly in relation to consistency and ease of application; security; and biodiversity outcomes. We contend that a clearly defined process that is applied consistently, but allowing
flexibility, is likely to result in the effective application of offset programs and achieve the protection and enhancement of biodiversity values, while facilitating and providing certainty for sustainable developments.

INTECOL EcIA Guidelines Workshop

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:07:00 +0000

The Workshop "Towards Development of Guidelines on Ecological Impact Assessment" happened at INTECOL on 15th August in Brisbane. It was well-attended with nearly 30 people representing a cross-section of skills and from private developer, academic, local government and consultancy sectors.

WHO NEEDS EcIA GUIDELINES?

Anyone who is a practising ecologist should be up to date with contemporary best practice for ecological impact assessment. This includes people whose work is used to:

Influence policy development or decision-making about development (including consultants, private company environmental managers, academic research scientists and government decision-makers); or
Makes decisions that affect the integrity of the landscape, even if these are done with the purpose of environmental enhancement (land / park managers, conservation groups etc);
A working knowledge of EcIA is recommended for anyone else who places themselves in a position of any authority to comment on the work of others involved in practice.

Ecological impact assessment is a science and a method designed to protect the integrity, independent objectivity and scientific credibility of an EIA (or any other decision that affects the environment outside EIA).

AIM

To introduce a consistent and agreeable framework for ecological work in practice, particularly where this is done in conjunction with statutory EIA and the principles of sustainable development (and therefore, biodiversity conservation). This should benefit those who work in ecological practice, those who commission such work and those that depend on its outcomes to maintain a healthy functioning ecosystem.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a professional reference document that facilitates the design, implementation and ongoing development of Ecological Impact Assessment best practice.

To set out the latest and internationally-recognised scientific methods available to ecological practitioners, for creating biodiversity outcomes in their work.

***

General
Guidelines (if properly implemented) can help remove some of the uncertainty for developers and provide consultants with a foundation on which to establish reliable impact assessment without costing the client more...in most cases, it is likely to cost less if it is done properly. Guidelines apply to anyone and everyone involved in ecological work relating to sustainable development. This includes government, academia, consultants and land managers.

There is a very significant lack of biodiversity evaluation criteria published by government (e.g. the lack of Biodiversity Action Plans). This seriously undermines the EIA process. Values need to be determined up front in an EIA and in order to limit uncertainty, need to be simple to understand.
Too many generalised statements of impacts are made in reports with little evidence or logic leading up to this. Lack of referencing and evidence.
Actual size of consultant reports is often too large. The need to produce a publicly consumable document is lost in the pursuit of a 'scientific' document. Scientific integrity is important but so also is the manner in which it is presented.
More emphasis needs to be placed on the integration of ecology with social and economic issues (triple-bottom-lining). All too often ecological investigations are isolated when they should be integrated.
Information gathered by consultants is a wasted resource as it is not collected and used as evidence for other EIAs. Information is not made freely available. Monitoring is rarely done and when it is, it may not be done to evaluate changes against goals and management requirements.
Confidence in assessment of impacts is not adequately presented.
Health and safety aspects controlling outdoor work often limits the ability to do the work.
Control by Animal Ethics regulations hampers implementation of work. Often inappropriate to field ecology and the objectives of EIA.

Certification

Certification is extremely important and relevant to the profession. However, it must not only be perceived to control standards but demonstrate a real commitment to controlling the behaviour of its members.

Certification needs to guarantee a level of audit and review of members, and respond to concerns about members.
Certification processes ought to be implemented by the profession and, if necessary, endorsed by Government.

Scope of EIAs
EISs are often too big, to the detriment of developers but also causing limitations on appropriate scientific investigation of impacts. A much greater emphasis must be placed on limiting the bounds of EIAs to what is relevant. This means more involvement of consultant expertise in the development of project scopes, in particular Terms of Reference.

Little emphasis is given to considering the relevance of content up front. This results in an array of unnecessary investigation, coupled with a lack of emphasis on truly necessary work.
Terms of Reference are often broad in nature, so leave a lot of room for investigation but the problem is that this fails to appropriately limit scope.
Terms of Reference are very often interpreted in such a way as to force consultants from a position of 'best practice' to minimum defensible methods.
EISs are full of enormous amounts of background information on existing conditions but relatively little skill and time is spent on the actual process of impact assessment - This is one of the most important points. The process of actual impact assessment (in the context of effects on the environment) is all but lost.

Lack of Training and Development
Despite the growing sophistication of ecological methods, basic skills such as field natural history and taxonomy are not being taught. There are also a range of other interpersonal skills that are absent from the training of ecologists as 'scientists', which can greatly limit their career potential.

There is an overall lack of training and funding in field ecology and taxonomy.
Limited training and funding in taxonomy.
There was a suggestion that internships may help.

Government and Legisation
Property developers were particularly concerned about the lack of expertise in government. Lack of symmetry in skills between the consultants and decision-makers may threaten the implementation of appropriate best practice and result in poor outcomes.

There is too much trade-off between professional judgement and prescriptive requirements. This very often limits the ability to creatively engineer best policy outcomes tailored to a situation.
There is too much tension between consultants and government.
Government are too easily influenced by changing political situations. Particularly in the absence of well thought-out terms of reference (see above) approaches can change regularly, leading to gross uncertainty in the process.
Legislation does not provide the full scope of an EIA.
Policy often leaps to the implementation of mitigation without first ascertaining the level of impact.
A couple of examples were raised where clients were punished by government rather than commended. This possibly reflects a lack of foresight about how EcIA works and how to achieve objectives.
Policy misintervention can lead to serious shortfalls. For example, both biobanking and habitat hectare schemes are vulnerable to failure. Independent guidelines are needed to ensure that critical assumptions of the methods are addressed and should apply as much to policy-makers and decision-makers as consultants.

Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:43:00 +0000

On 31 October 2008 the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts commissioned an independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. Section 522A of the EPBC Act requires it to be reviewed every 10 years from its commencement.

This is the first review of the EPBC Act since its commencement on 16 July 2000. The review will assess the operation of the EPBC Act and the extent to which its objects have been achieved.

Community participation in the review is encouraged. There will be opportunities for public input over the course of the review. The first stage of this public input process was through written submissions. The period for making written submissions closed on 19 December 2008.

The second stage of the public consultation process was a series of face-to-face consultations with stakeholders in each Australian capital city. An Interim Report on the review has now been released and is open for public comment. This report highlights the key issues that have been raised throughout the public consultation process and seeks to provide focus for the way forward in the review.

Download the Interim Report
View EIANZ's submission

Human Rights and Environmental Protection

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:08:00 +0000

"There is considerable recognition at the international level and in numerous countries around the world of the importance of protecting and promoting environmental rights within the human rights context" ... yet ... "Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have comprehensive legal protection of human rights"

These are extracts from the Environment Defenders Office (EDO) Discussion Paper Protection of Human Rights and Environmental Rights in Australia (PDF 230kB). EDO have also completed a thorough submission to the National Human Rights Consultation (submissions closed 15 June 2009) (Download here, PDF 430kB).

Protestors againt Gunns Pulp Mill, including the Green Party's Senator Bob Brown (centre). According to the International Association for Impact Assessment, public participation is a core principle of EIA. During the Gunns Pulp Mill process 20 environmental activists, green organisations (as well as theirindividual staff members), and members of the Greens party were sued for $6.4 million damages.

EDO's submission on human rights considers the need for direct or indirect protection of environmental rights. Amongst other things, this could help to:

moderate the actions of decisions made in spite of, and at the expense of, valid and serious concerns about environmental and social impacts;
protect the right to freedom of expression and public participation, particularly in light of a rise in litigation cases against public campaigners in some states;
limit opportunity for ‘special legislation’ enacted deliberately to avoid the application of existing environmental protection laws; and
better ensure climate change considerations are acknowledged;

Protection of human rights for environmental protection is another tool for biodiversity management that is notably absent in Australia's strategy for sustainable development. There will no doubt be opportunities to engage further on this important topic in due course.

VIC - Minister Over-rules Inquiry

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:15:00 +0000

Image:Bastion Point, Mallacoota. Source - Cfitzart

The Minister's report on the controversial Bastion Point boat ramp proposal in Mallacoota has rejected a key recommendation by the independent expert panel.

In a recent survey of EIANZ members the issue that "Ministerial powers too easily over-ride statutory objectives" was fifth on a list of concerns about EPBC Act failure to protect biodiversity and threatened species. As equivalent powers exist in all states, this would indicate a general concern amongst practitioners that Ministerial powers may be over-used in some circumstances.

In the case of the Bastion Point boat ramp, the Minister has argued his inquiry failed to account for the health and safety concerns of Marine Safety Victoria and Gippsland Ports, saying: "...it is disappointing to note that a comprehensive safety audit of both the current ramp and future operations was not effectively undertaken". The Minister's rejection was based on his opinion about the seriousness of "practical operating safety", implying that protection of swimmers and surfers out-weighed other considerations. The Minister's report appears to contain no detailed analysis of the benefits of moving the boat ramp against any other social and environmental costs.

Article from EDO Victoria Bulletin http://www.edo.org.au/edovic/about.html

Bastion Point Ocean Access Boat Ramp EES

The development of the Environment Effects Statement commenced in 2000 and culminated in an independent Panel Hearing over a number of weeks last year. After hearing from a large number of experts and hundreds of submitters, the Panel unequivocally rejected all of the options recommended by East Gippsland Shire Council and recommended a low-impact upgrade of the existing structure. Despite this exhaustive process and the Panel’s comprehensive recommendations, the Minister recommended that one of the rejected options proceed. The Minister's assessment and the recommendations of the Panel are available on the DPCD website.

Ecological Impact Assessment - Towards the development of EcIA Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:57:00 +0000

EIANZ Ecology has produced a discussion document "Ecological Impact Assessment - Towards the development of EcIA Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand" with forewords by Professor Mark Burgman and Dr Chris McGrath (Download PDF, 680kB) Alternative download.

Abstract

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is not in the common or legislative vocabulary of Australia and New Zealand. Whether knowingly or otherwise, ecological practitioners implement EcIA every day and it is not confined to environmental impact assessment (EIA). EcIA is a prominent tool of sustainable development and the profession should align itself with an agreeable, consistent and contemporary approach to EcIA, to facilitate better decision-making. Ultimately, EIANZ Ecology aims to create Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand, to support implementation of best practice methods for creating biodiversity outcomes. This requirement has been identified in a number of consultation exercises by EIANZ Ecology and we are now ready to discuss how this should be done. By describing EcIA practice, this document provides a focus for that discussion.

Comment on this document draft

To stay informed about results, please sign up to our mailing list by emailing eianzecology-subscribe@googlegroups.com.

INTECOL Conference, EIANZ SEQ

EcIA and the production of guidelines will be discussed with EIANZ SEQ at the INTECOL conference in Brisbane on Saturday 15th August. Spaces are limited. Bookings are being taken by EIANZ SEQ. Download the brochure.

We will hear about existing international best practice for EcIA and what key issues for EcIA in practice guidelines could hope to solve. Towards the end of the day, we will discuss the design of EcIA Guidelines, including:

Whether guidelines should be generic, legislation-specific (or both);
The size/format of such documentation e.g. whether they should be published, or utilise web technology for production;
Whether a system can be developed that works for land, freshwater and marine ecosystems; and
How we can make this a living, useful document with standing in more than one country and jurisdiction.

The results of INTECOL will be taken forward for the EIANZ conference in Canberra from 20-21st October 2009.

Further reading - copies of references used in production of the above document.
ANZECC (1998) Guidelines for Establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. ANZECC Taskforce on Marine Protected Areas. December 1998.
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (2009) Principles on Biodiversity Offsets.Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. The Relationship between Biodiversity Offsets and Impact Assessment: A BBOP Resource Paper. BBOP, Washington, D.C.
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2009. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. BBOP, Washington, D.C.
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.
International Association for Impact Assessment (1999) Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice.
International Association for Impact Assessment (2005) Biodiversity in Impact Assessment.
Oxford, M (2001) Developing Naturally. A handbook for incorporating the natural environment into planning and development. Association of Local Government Ecologists.
Treweek, J (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

EcIA FAQs

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:13:00 +0000

This is a work in progress. As questions arise on the subject of EcIA Guidelines, the responses will be provided here.

Q. We already have fauna and flora survey guidelines and other requirements by law. Why do we need guidelines at all?

A. The production of guidelines compliments existing processes. Guidelines would describe how one goes about doing an assessment because rarely (if ever) is there comprehensive statutory definition of the day-to-day methods. However, EcIA also depends entirely on other tools, such as lists of 'standard' survey methods and predetermined evaluation criteria e.g. biodiversity action plans. In short, EcIA Guidelines can only go so far. Decisions depend on good on the ground advice about what is important. Nevertheless, if the appropriate tools do not exist, there is advice in the guidelines on how to bridge the gap. The other thing to do, is read our recent submission to the Commonwealth on biodiversity, which can be downloaded here. It shows the relationship between EcIA guidelines and other things. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a guidelines document would tell the story about how EcIA should be done. It doesn't specify detail and for that, you are right, existing processes should be incorporated.

Q. Regarding EcIA Guidelines, will you involve local government practitioners on the tools they currently use and their effectiveness (or otherwise)?

A. We won't be concentrating on this immediately but it is likely to be something that could come out of the process, once such guidelines start to be applied. The problem seems to be that there does not yet exist a benchmark set of objectives or overall philosophy about what we're trying to achieve in biodiversity conservation and how we think it should be done. With local government help through biodiversity planning at the grass roots, EcIA can help go some of the way to doing this. If it is successful and starts to be applied, it might then start to reveal strengths and weaknesses in different approaches, prompting constructive feedback.

Q. Is it wise to divide ecological impact assessment from environmental impact assessment? The terms are not mutually exclusive and we should not encourage any one discipline to assume it has the big picture.

A. Ecological impact assessment could easily just be called "ecological assessment". For example, EIA tends to be a formal process but as described in the EcIA document, EcIA can apply more broadly. Nevertheless, EcIA is more often than not, used as a component for EIA. However, this does not stand it apart from that process, as EIA also incorporates other disciplines. Social and cultural impact assessment have their own approaches again. One of the benefits of having guidance on EcIA is to ensure that it is compatible with the other elements of EIA. This should make it less isolated and divisive than it is at present. Throughout the EIANZ Ecology document, the importance of rigorous integration with social and cultural issues, as well as EIA, is constantly repeated.

EIANZ SEQ Breaking the Barriers: Engineering Solutions to Ecological Problems Symposium

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:08:00 +0000

Between 6-8 May 2009, EIANZ SEQ ran a workshop in Brisbane on linear infrastructure and mitigation of impacts on wildlife. The symposium attracted speakers from the US, Netherlands and throughout Australia. The results of that conference are available here, including:

Videos of all the presentations;
Presentation PDFs (Note, these will be uploaded as they become available); and
Download the symposium handbook, which includes papers and other supporting literature.

Abstract

The prominence of issues such as road-kill and habitat fragmentation within community and political environments confront the reality that engineers and consultants, are increasingly challenged to mitigate the ecological impacts of roads and other forms of linear infrastructure. Although efforts have been long-applied in places like Europe and North America, differences in local conditions and legislation mean approaches cannot always be copied for use in Australia. Nonetheless, extraordinary advances have been made using new designs and approaches, whilst critical lessons have been learned from mistakes. The demand for effective environmental standards was the context for the "Breaking the Barriers: Engineering Solutions to Ecological Problems Symposium". Read more by downloading the Symposium Handbook.

Day 1 - Wednesday 6 May

Welcome Ian Reeves, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
Wildlife crossing structures: The road to success Dr Edgar van der Grift, Wageningen University, Netherlands: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 / Part 5 / Part 6 / Part 7.
Why do we need mitigation measures? Dr Rodney van der Ree, Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3
The law and planning: What currently dictates mitigation measures? Dr Darryl Low Choy, Griffith University: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3.
The law and planning: What currently dictates mitigation measures? Sylvana Maas, Approvals and Wildlife Division, DEWHA:PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2
Developing the framework (international speaker) Professor John A. Bissonette
Utah State University, US: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4
Wildlife mitigation measures: Concept planning Kevin Roberts NSW Roads and Traffic Authorit: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3.
Current best practice techniques for designing barrier mitigation Dr Sarah Robinson-Wolrath Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2.
RTA Upgrading Road Infrastructure: Feedback from the ground Greg Collins NSW Roads and Traffic Authority: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 .
Mountain Pygmy Possum: 20 years of research. Dr Ian Mansergh Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3.
Wildlife extinctions and impacts on the regional population: Lessons from the Koala Coast Dr Harriet Preece, Koala Conservation Unit, Qld Dept of Environment and Resource Management: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2.
What can be learnt from case studies? Dr Rodney van der Ree: PDF | Presentation Videos - Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4.

Day 2 - Thursday 7 May (coming shortly).

The Case for Biodiversity Offsets

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:32:00 +0000

Summary by Simon Mustoe, EIANZ Ecology. Presentation by Kerry ten Kate, Director of Forest Trends' Business and Biodiversity Offset Program, to EIANZ ACT Division, 26 March 2009 at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

The Business Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) currently engages about 40 organisations, including large multi-national companies such as Shell and Rio Tinto; about 16 governments including Australia, Mexico, South Africa, Uganda and the Netherlands; several of the large conservation NGOs; and coordinates a learning network of nearly 1,000 people world-wide. Increasingly, a number of banks and financiers are also looking to BBOP, particularly in relation to their commitment to the Equator Principles.

Biodiversity is about the structure and function of the landscape. This satellite image of the Sundarbans in Bangladesh shows it surrounded to the north by a landscape of agricultural lands, which appear lighter green, towns, which appear tan, and streams, which are blue. Biodiversity is a landscape-scale driver of the human economy, as water quality is under stress from environmental disturbance thousands of kilometers away, caused by deforestation in the Himalayas far to the north.

Biodiversity offsets are inherently multidisciplinary so they need to satisfy not just conservationists but indigenous people, local governments, developers and financiers. They also need to be practical, measurable, verifiable and defensible.

Offsets are not a process. Offsets are the measurable outcomes designed to compensate for residual impacts (after appropriate prevention and mitigation) (see Principles in Biodiversity Offsets). The goal is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain on the ground. That is, there must be in situ, measurable conservation outcomes. This is fundamentally different from research, capacity building and training. All these things can support the successful implementation of an offset, but are not the offset itself (unless they result in measurable in situ outcomes).

For four years, BBOP has worked closely with a 'brains trust' of about 80 individuals who have been actively involved in offsets, some for as long as 30-40 years. Although the concept could be debated for decades, the proof of offsets is in real outcomes, so one of BBOP’s objectives has been to set up pilot projects, with the aim of demonstrating "no net loss" of biodiversity.

These projects are as diverse as:

An 18 billion dollar gas to liquid project with Shell, which incorporates marine as well as coastal and terrestrial biodiversity;
A gold mine in Ghana;
A platinum mine in South Africa;
A mine in Madagascar, which presents the particularly unique challenge of working in a less-developed country with very high levels of endemism;
A residential construction project near Seattle in the US;
A community project with the Maasai in Kenya – yet to get underway; and
A coal mining project with Solid Energy in New Zealand.

A second objective of BBOP was to develop a 'tool kit' to facilitate development of offsets by providing advice on matters such as, how to measure biodiversity, how to define conservation significance, and how to integrate important social and cultural functions. This tool kit will shortly be ready and provide an initial cradle-to-grave manual of how to go about designing and implementing offsets. Finally, BBOP’s third objective in its first phase was to influence policy and nurture the adoption of offset policies world-wide. BBOP is already engaging with the United Nations and a number of governments around the world. In addition, Kerry ten Kate and others, in their personal capacity, are part of teams advising the UK government and the European Union on offset policy development (see for example, http://www.treweek.co.uk/proj/defra-offsets.html).

Many countries are now exploring or revising their law and policy on biodiversity offsets. For instance, Brazil is modifying its biodiversity offset laws and it is clear that, at the international level, there is a strong trend towards more involvement in biodiversity offsets and towards the development of international standards. However, the BBOP partners believe that further work and empirical experience is needed before any 'standards' could be developed. One of the objectives of the next phase of BBOP's work is thus to focus on auditing and verifying outcomes of pilot projects and try to increase the number of such projects world-wide, perhaps by collaborating with particular governments.

THE CASE FOR OFFSETS, AND THE ROLE OF EIA

Regulatory requirements can create the incentive for a developer to undertake a biodiversity offset, but it may not be mandatory and, with or without regulation, there are often compelling reasons for companies to undertake offsets voluntarily.

The principal argument from companies, as to the business case for voluntary offsets, is to build license to operate: good working relationships with government and local community members that can save companies substantial sums through speedy permit approval and efficient operations thereafter. Also, companies prefer to avoid the costs and liabilities associated with poor environmental practice . Biodiversity constraints are increasingly being applied by global financiers, to the point that banks like HSBC and CitiBank and some 50 others have adopted the Equator Principles and will not loan more than 10 million unless environmental and social equity can be demonstrated.

Unsustainable human development can have severe economic repercussions for communities and governments a long way downstream. There is no better Australian example than the decline of the once mighty Murray River. This dredge vessel in the Coorong exists to remove silt from the river's mouth. The cumulative impact of deforestation and the modification of substantial ecosystem processes such as fresh water flows, happens more quickly than even our economy can adjust. This creates considerable cost-burdens and social upheaval at a local level. A rigorous ecological assessment process and appropriate offsets can conceivably head off similar catastrophes in future. Photo D.M. Vernon, 2006, modified by SuperManu.

No net loss of biodiversity can be a condition of a bank loan, in some circumstances. Rio Tinto has a board-level commitment to a net positive impact on biodiversity. With a trend towards development in wilderness or frontier regions, including the marine environment, the pressure to demonstrate no net loss or a net gain of biodiversity through offsets, will grow.

Where offsets are part of existing legislation, this is of great value as it introduces an unambiguous requirement that affects all developers similarly. Several of Australia's states have sophisticated frameworks for biodiversity offsets (e.g. NSW). It is worth pointing out that the implementation of offsets through Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is not a large step. Already, a well developed EIA (i.e. incorporating a rigorous EcIA process) can cover 90% of the data gathering needed to plan a quality offset. This does however depend on the quality of the assessment and one of the major failings that can be typical in EIAs is the failure to understand biodiversity loss at the landscape scale and instead to limit EIAs to the immediate development footprint and its periphery.

It is also particularly important to consider socio-economic values of biodiversity, including cultural and spiritual values. There are ways this can be done quantitatively and it is essential to the integrity of an EIA and the offset outcomes, that indigenous and other local interests are adequately reflected. Once we understand that loss is part of a landscape-scale system, we can start to address cumulative impacts adequately at a strategic level. Strategic Environmental Assessment, along with rigrous project-specific assessment and management, are tools available to do this.

NZ Biodiversity Offsetting Workshop, Canterbury University, Christchurch, April 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:25:00 +0000

Biodiversity offsetting is in early stages of development in New Zealand and there are no agreed frameworks, methods, or standards for evaluating sites, habitats, ecosystems and offset areas. This creates problems for developers, ecologists, consent authorities and commissioners or Judges in planning hearings.

This workshop was organized by Associate Professor David Norton (University of Canterbury) assisted by Mark Pizey (Environmental Manager, Solid Energy NZ), Mark Christensen (lawyer, Anderson Lloyd Caudwell) and Dr Judith Roper-Lindsay (ecologist, Boffa Miskell Ltd and EIANZ Chapter member). David is involved in developing a framework and principles for offsetting in New Zealand (see Solid Energy New Zealand and the Business Biodiversity Offsets Program), while providing offset advice for specific projects; Solid Energy is engaged in one of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) pilot projects, while Mark Christensen has acted in a number of planning cases on projects where offsets are proposed.

We were able to time the workshop to coincide with the visit of Kerry ten Kate. She provided a valuable overview of offsetting and the BBOP in particular – especially highlighting the uncertainty around it. A range of invited speakers covered industry, ecological, legal/social/market and perspectives and there was about 90 minutes of strong discussion at the end of the day.

Key points to come from the talks and discussion:

Biodiversity offsetting is beset with uncertainty – ecological, legal, and financial
Accepted principles are being developed both globally (through BBOP) and locally (through case law)
Ecological uncertainty relates to: finding comparable habitats and places; long term ecological outcomes of proposed offsets; thresholds for determining losses that are not offsettable; establishing an agreed system for measuring habitat quality and quantity (in New Zealand); and lack of certainty about current trends in NZ ecosystems.
Industry concerns relate to: clarity around offsetting requirements under the NZ Resource Management Act; possible need to gain control over proposed offset land; and long term nature of ecological aspects of offsetting proposals.
Policy/ legal uncertainty relates to: systems to protect and ensure that offsetting proposals are seen through to completion or achievement of objectives; long-term funding of proposals; lack of a nationally agreed system, framework, or set of principles; and new market opportunities.

A representative of the Ministry for the Environment said that while Minister recognizes that the topic is important, it is not in their immediate work programme. However, it might be taken up as part of any work on a National Policy Statement on Biodiversity.

Presentations Powerpoints available as PDF

Biodiversity Offsets and Public Conservation Lands, Dean van Mierlo
Political science predictions for Biodiversity offsets policy in New Zealand, Ann Brower
Can offsets deliver better biodiversity outcomes in New Zealand, Bill Lee
Use of Biodiversity Offsets - Enhancement in Renewable Energy Approval Process, Chris Evans
The market perspective - TZ1 Registry, Joanna Silver
From Beautification to Offsetting: Twenty years of Industry Investment in Biodiversity, Greg Slaughter
Ecological attributes and Biodiversity Offsets: Assessing significance and offsetting loss of aquatic habitat, Ian Boothroyd
Biodiversity Markets - Alternatives to Ad Hoc Offsets, Suzie Greenhalgh
Kerry ten Kate - The Case for Biodiversity Offsets (download PDF presentation)
Biodiversity Offsets - Where 2 minus 1 can equal or even more, Kevin Hackwell
The Project River Recovery experience - Lessons for biodiversity offsetting, Mark Sanders

Biodiversity and Revegetation in Farm Landscapes

noreply@blogger.com (eianz-pubs) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:59:00 +0000

Does revegetation provide new opportunities for wildlife? Will restoration in cleared landscapes 'bring back' woodland dependent species in greatest decline, such as Sugar Gliders and Eastern Yellow Robins? These will be the key indicators of success or failure to manage biodiversity loss in future.

Deakin University researchers surveyed birds, mammals, frogs and butterflies at forty-three 800ha landscapes in Western Victoria. Birds were the focus because avian communities are a conspicuous and abundant component of biodiversity, whose ecology is well known and are better represented throughout the ecosystem than the other groups. The research shows that wooded vegetation is particularly important in the landscape and that although revegetation increases species richness, "for the same overall amount of vegetation, landscapes with remnant vegetation or a mix of remnant and revegetation have more species than a landscape revegetation alone"

Why is this the case? It comes down to a difference in the initial "biodiversity" value of different sites. Remnant vegetation has an altogether more complex structure and composition than revegetation. It has more extensive canopy cover, taller trees, more old hollow-bearing trees, higher cover of native grasses, fallen timber and less small to medium-sized trees and shrubs. Although as the vegetation matures, the gap between remnant and revegetation structure narrows, this can take a hundred years or more. In short, investing in areas where there is some existing value greatly improves the chance of short-term benefits for wildlife.

The cumulative number of woodland bird species increases with increasing number of survey sites. Accumulation curves represent species counts in remnant (red), revegetated (green), scattered tree (beige) and paddock (purple).

These results have important implications for the rural landscape but also the future of biodiversity management generally. Biodiversity is the most important factor in sustainable development and drives decision-making both in the farming and urban landscape where modifications to the environment are made daily. If we fail to create a net-gain, or even a no-net-loss outcome through our decisions and action, then we will not meet important international obligations. Maximising outcomes through appropriate choice of revegetation site and best management practice is one simple way to ensure maximum success.

Biobanking in NSW offset loss through a value-system based on structure, function and composition. The idea is that real and measurable biodiversity outcomes based not only on species, but also structure and function, allow biodiversity performance to be better assessed and therefore value-added. As discussed by the UNEP Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP)

"Biodiversity offsets should be designed and implemented in a landscape context to achieve the best measurable conservation outcomes, taking into account available information on the full range of biological, social and cultural values of biodiversity and supporting an ecosystem approach".

Elsewhere, offsets have often come under criticism for having immeasurable benefit. Problems can arise particularly when there is over-emphasis on "like-for-like" e.g. the intent to recreate as close as possible, what was lost. "Proving" that the job has been done rigorously falls to the only measurable and therefore legally-defensible short-term criteria, that is benchmarking species composition. As described in research by Deakin University, the real "like-for-like" may not be achieved for a hundred or more years...(see also, presentation by Dr Phil Gibbons) it may perhaps never be achieved, due to irreversible shifts in the ecology of the system, such as inherent breakdown of soil structure or climate change.

This common misconception that biodiversity can be measured just in terms of numbers of plants or other species, has constrained attempts to address biodiversity loss for years. Examples of where offset money is being used to fund management in "postage-stamp" sized reserves, or in ill-conceived revegetation of isolated farmland may not be the most appropriate use of funds. Instead, as concluded by the Deakin University research,

"Landscape restoration requires a long-term perspective. The composition and structure of planted vegetation changes through time, with a lengthy time-lag before the full benefits of revegetation are realised".

This is all the more reason to assume that remnant vegetation needs to be protected but it also means we need to rethink our approach to revegetation. Offsets are now recognised as a driver for sustainable development. If we pour well needed funds from offset into sites without maximum biodiversity benefit, then we may fail to address biodiversity loss in the long-term.

Download the report: Revegetation in Farm Landscapes; Are Their Benefits for Wildlife? (0.5 MB)

Biodiversity Offsets or the Tail Wagging the Dog?

noreply@blogger.com (eianz-pubs) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:41:00 +0000

Summary by Simon Mustoe, EIANZ Ecology. Presentation by Dr Phil Gibbons, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, to EIANZ ACT Division, 26 March 2009 at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Watch Phil Gibbon's presentation on the EIANZ Ecology YouTube Channel.

Biodiversity loss has already led to catastrophic impacts on critical ecosystem services - the natural capital on which the human economy depends. Diamond in his book "Collapse" (video presentation), links land-clearing to the collapse of society in western cultures. Australia is in the top "G8" land-clearing nations of the world. Biodiversity offsetting is one tool available to help control and potentially reverse this. Land-clearing already exceeds afforestation by a ratio of 2:1 and is a hazard to important ecosystem services such as rainfall propagation (McAlpine et al. 2008).

Even though the cost to reverse habitat loss - one of the more tangible externalities of land-clearing - exceeds the value gained from deforestation (PMSEIC Report, 2002), the rate of loss is simply coupled to economic demand and the drivers for this are still increasing. Biodiversity loss is not a problem that is going away, it is set to get worse as Australia's population doubles in the next 60 years, and agricultural output doubles in 30 years. As a philosophy, offsetting in some form or another, appears to be the only alternative to the current situation.

The principle of biodiversity offsets is that habitat loss can be evaluated and 'offset' within an area (usually larger area) of equivalent value. There are a number of potential pitfalls which were the subject of a recent paper in Ecological Management and Restoration. This sought to consider whether offsets could be done in practice, despite common and quite valid criticisms, summarised into four categories:

Insufficient gain - the amount of land apportioned for offset is simply insufficient.
Equivalence - what is like for like? Can it ever be achieved to replace what has been lost?
Time lag - the offset might not mature and provide resources for centuries, by which time it could be too late.
Compliance - we have a very poor record of compliance in Australia. There is evidence of poor compliance with offset schemes overseas.

INSUFFICIENT GAIN is a concern if offsets are established on sites with limited capacity for gain or under no threat of loss. Simply setting aside an area that already exists has been a traditional model for mitigation but this is not an offset, it is a loss. Similarly, gain cannot be sourced from protection of already well protected high value habitat, as this is part of the existing condition. Offsets need to be new areas where there is a real potential of replacement and added value.

EQUIVALENCE is a problem if the planted vegetation offset is very different to native vegetation. Planted or restored vegetation is never as biodiversity-rich as natural vegetation (see study by Deakin University). In a paper for the online journal, Ecology and Society, scientists further argued that you can't shoehorn restoration into a desired trajectory as there are inherent uncertainties in environmental management outcomes. We know that there are ecological barriers to restoration when habitat has been denuded to a very great degree. For offsets to work, requires a fungible metric and management adaptation, where the environment controls some of the direction of ecological succession. We also need to accept some substitution between impacts and offsets. Whether we like it or not, "like for like" is rarely, if ever, achievable and is perhaps inappropriate terminology. The desired outcome is a balance between the area being removed and the ability of offset habitat to support representative communities of species, even if it is 'modified'.

TIME LAGS are a problem if offsets are only short term. Many ecosystem features can only be restored over long time-frames e.g. tree hollows only begin to form in Eucalypts 120-220 years old. In most offset policies to date, clearing can begin before tree hollows start to develop.

COMPLIANCE is an ongoing problem and does not just mean enforcement of approvals, although one study in Canada found only a 14% compliance rate. Management is also constrained by a lack of overall biodiversity monitoring. For example, in New South Wales in 2004, 220,00 ha of clearing was formally recorded and approved but there was about 700,000 clearing in total.

Despite the pitfalls, this did not stop the Wentworth Group in 2003, under "A New Model for Landscape Conservation in NSW", recommending some type of offset mechanism for NSW. Since then, research and development of the current policy for offsets in NSW has shown that it can work but only under a strict set of circumstances, which are:

The values lost from clearing can be feasibly restored elsewhere. i.e the lost site is already quite simple.
Vegetation proposed for clearing is unlikely to persist in situ e.g. small paddock trees among cultivation or 'postage-stamp' areas of habitat.
Offsets must be in place for long enough to allow habitat to recover, restoring key ecosystem processes (not just species composition).
Management MUST deal with inherent risk and uncertainty about the values of restoration. Creation of offsets is not a process, it is an outcome. To create an outcome in the face of uncertainty, management must be adaptive; offsets must be guaranteed in perpetuity; and there must be adequate compliance on all offsets sites.

If the principles of offsets are applied rigorously, the process can work. Offsets should not be used to justify clearing, or it is simply a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Further Reading:
Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2007). Offsets for land clearing: no net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Environmental Management and Restoration, 8, 26-31.
McAlpine CA et al (2007) Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia's regional climate Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 34
Google Scholar search - impact of land cover on climate
PMSEIC Report "Setting Biodiversity Priorities"

Biodiversity, Landscapes and the Future of Australia's Tourism

noreply@blogger.com (eianz-pubs) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:14:00 +0000

As if we need to be reminded, there is a strong association between Australia's biodiversity, its landscape and ecosystem services such as tourism. It's ironic then, that whilst biodiversity is lost through land-clearing, Tourism Australia has identified "Nature" as the key to reversing a rapidly declining tourism market worth 81 billion dollars per year.

Growth in global tourism (light blue) and decline in Australian tourism (dark green).

The Australian National Landscapes program is a national strategic approach, aimed at addressing a "stagnant Australian brand" that, despite being the top country brand in the world for three years running, fails to attract its market share of tourists. To date, the program has identified nine "superlative experiences", aimed at a type of global traveler called the global experience seeker. Experience seekers are well-educated, well-off, informed travelers who seek out real experiences that are unique, generally beneficial and socially engaging. They comprise at least 39% of 38.8 million outbound travelers from the top five countries of the world (Germany, UK, Japan, China and the US). At present, Australia gets less than 1% of this market.

The link with biodiversity comes from Tourism Australia's own studies that recognise "nature" as one of the "product truths" behind Brand Australia. It is the one area that sets us aside from our competitors and gives us an edge. Approximately 68% of all inbound tourists to Australia in 2007 (3.5 million) were "nature-based" visitors. Almost half of these participated in three or more nature-based activities during their stay, contributing $27 billion out of the total of $81 billion from the tourism sector as a whole. Tourism Australia believes it can raise these figures by obtaining more than 1% of the global market share.

However, if Australia's tourism industry is showing a lack of commitment to nature, would it come as any surprise if we, the general population, had done the same? If we are grossly under-valuing biodiversity in grass-roots tourism, are we making the same mistake when we plan developments? Are we mistaking our own opinion about the value of loss of nature, for the real cost of that loss?

For example, the Kimberley is under consideration as one of Australia's National Landscape areas whilst at the same time, the Premier of Western Australia has announced an intention to place a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) hub on the Dampier Peninsula. Tourism does not prohibit development but one may ask, are the inherent economic, social and cultural values being properly reflected in cost-benefit equations if the local tourism sector is stagnating through a lack of brand-recognition through nature?

As ecologists involved in environmental assessment and planning, we need to become much more sophisticated in our ability to work with social scientists and really understand the role of biodiversity (and nature) as an ecosystem service. As discussed in a recent presentation on biodiversity offsets for EIANZ in Canberra, creating a no-net-loss system for development is truly multidisciplinary and must involve a proper quantitative evaluation of social and cultural issues, as a part of biodiversity management.

The Australian National Landscapes program is just one, albeit pertinent example, of a study that has valued nature on a national scale. These types of study are fundamental to the role of the environmental profession. Either out of choice or necessity, consultants tend to be isolated from these root issues, whcih threatens to undermine the viability of EIA and Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA).

Perhaps one of the best things that the Commonwealth government could do to help attract more domestic support for sustainable development is to promote biodiversity value to the Australian public, as much as Tourism Australia is promoting biodiversity value to tourism agencies and overseas visitors.

Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Judd) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 presents a new approach to addressing biodiversity conservation in a rapidly changing world. The strategy is a call to action. It sets a national direction for biodiversity conservation over the next decade and it asks all Australians to contribute.

From the Draft Strategy:

Biodiversity, or biological diversity, is the variety of all life forms on earth: it is the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, their genes, and the terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems of which they are a part. Biodiversity is essential for our existence and is intrinsically valuable in its own right Biodiversity contributes to the healthy environments, clean air and water that support human life.

The Strategy, has been developed through a Review Task Group that reports to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). The Task Group is made up of representatives from the Australian Government, all state and territory governments, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology. The sections of the strategy relating to Indigenous peoples have been jointly drafted with Indigenous community representatives.

The Draft Strategy, released on Monday 23 March for public comment sets out six priorities for change:

building ecosystem resilience
mainstreaming biodiversity
knowledge for all
getting results
involving Indigenous peoples
measuring success.

The draft strategy is an important national policy document that will guide how governments, the community, industry and scientists manage and protect Australia’s plants, animals and ecosystems over the next ten years. The NRMMC is inviting public comments on the draft strategy.

How to make your submission:

Read the draft strategy and related documents
Public submissions closed 29 May 2009.

Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Judd) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:24:00 +0000

Please note that any scientist or organisation seeking to formally appear before the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission must lodge a written notice by 4.00pm, Thursday 9 April 2009.

There are increasingly strong calls from the environment movement and the general public in Victoria for as many scientific experts as possible to formally appear before the commission. This will ensure that the commission can make informed policy decisions. As readers of this site are probably aware, there are likely to be a number of new land management policies that eventuate from this investigation.

The notice should comprise a brief outline of no more than three pages identifying the term or terms of reference in which the person or organisation claims an interest, explaining the nature of that interest and giving reasons why they should be given leave to appear before the Royal Commission.

These notices should be lodged either via email to: enquiries@royalcommission.vic.gov.au

or via post to:
Leave to Appear
2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission
GPO Box 4358
Melbourne VIC 3001

For more information the commissions website is located here:
http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/

The Equator Principles - Self-Regulation Affects Professional Standards

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Mustoe) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:45:00 +0000

Increasingly, the work of environmental practitioners is scrutinised by powerful external lobbies that can make or break a commercial project. Although we may believe that our minimum work standards are dictated by statutory requirements (or lack thereof), this is not the whole truth. Industry self-regulation significantly effects the traditional focus for ecological assessment, especially when it is at the demand of a third-party lender. Our standards in practice are already being used to indemnify institutional arrangements beyond domestic legislation.

In 2003, Westpac was one of a handful of banks to adopt international voluntary guidelines to assess social and environmental issues before lending more than $50 million to development projects. Today, the Equator Principles, developed by members of the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) are used by over 40 banks, world-wide, to decide whether or not to finance particular ventures. The latest set of principles was published in July 2006.

Australian and New Zealand banks that have adopted the Equator Principles to date, include:

Notably, ANZ Bank issued an official response to the Gunns Pulp Mill (Tas) proposals, stating that the Equator Principles would be used to decide whether or not to fund the development. Although ANZ refused funding there are a number of reasons, including the above, that would have been given consideration. It was the opinion of some high profile conservation organisations, such as the Wilderness Society, that the decision not to finance the project was done for environmental reasons (ABC News, May 2008).

What are the Equator Principles?

Principle 1: Review and Categorisation
When a project is proposed for financing, the Equator Principles Financial Institutions will, as part of its internal social and environmental review and due diligence, categorise such
project based on the magnitude of its potential impacts and risks in accordance with the environmental and social screening criteria of the International Finance Corporation (IFC)
(Exhibit I).

Principle 2: Social and Environmental Assessment For each project assessed as being either Category A or Category B, the borrower has conducted a Social and Environmental Assessment (“Assessment”) process to address, as appropriate and to the EPFI’s satisfaction, the relevant social and environmental impacts and risks of the proposed project.

Principle 3: Applicable Social and Environmental Standards The Assessment will establish to a participating EPFI’s satisfaction the project’s overall compliance with, or justified deviation from, the respective Performance Standards and EHS
Guidelines. The Assessment process should address compliance with relevant host country laws, regulations and permits that pertain to social and environmental matters.

Principle 4: Action Plan and Management System
For all Category A and Category B projects the borrower must prepare an Action Plan (AP) which addresses the relevant findings, and draws on the conclusions of the Assessment. The AP will describe and prioritise the actions needed to implement mitigation measures, corrective actions and monitoring measures necessary to manage the impacts and risks identified in the
Assessment.

Principle 5: Consultation and Disclosure For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B projects the government, borrower or third party expert must consult with project-affected communities in a structured and culturally
appropriate manner. The Assessment documentation and AP, or non-technical summaries thereof, will be made available to the public by the borrower for a reasonable minimum period in the relevant local language and in a culturally appropriate manner.

Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B projects to ensure that consultation, disclosure and community engagement continues throughout construction and operation of the project, the borrower will, scaled to the risks and adverse impacts of the project, establish a grievance mechanism as part of the management system. This will allow the borrower to receive
and facilitate resolution of concerns and grievances about the project’s social and environmental performance raised by individuals or groups from among project-affected communities.

Principle 7: Independent Review For all Category A projects and, as appropriate, for Category B projects, an independent social or environmental expert not directly associated with the borrower will review the Assessment,
AP and consultation process documentation in order to assist EPFI’s due diligence, and assess Equator Principles compliance.

Principle 8: Covenants An important strength of the Principles is the incorporation of covenants linked to compliance. Where a borrower is not in compliance with its social and environmental covenants, EPFIs
will work with the borrower to bring it back into compliance to the extent feasible, and if the borrower fails to re-establish compliance within an agreed grace period, EPFIs reserve the
right to exercise remedies, as they consider appropriate.

Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting To ensure ongoing monitoring and reporting over the life of the loan, EPFIs will, for all Category A projects, and as appropriate, for Category B projects, require appointment of an
independent environmental and/or social expert, or require that the borrower retain qualified and experienced external experts to verify its monitoring information which would be shared with EPFIs.

Principle 10: EPFI Reporting
Each EPFI adopting the Equator Principles commits to report publicly at least annually about its Equator Principles implementation processes and experience, taking into account appropriate confidentiality considerations.