EIANZ Ecology

Working Draft, Ecological Assessment Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand

2010-09-06T17:41:00.002+10:00

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

2010-02-19T09:45:00.001+11:00

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

2010-02-02T15:01:00.001+11:00

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

2010-01-13T19:09:00.003+11:00

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

2010-01-06T09:02:00.005+11:00

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

2009-12-21T16:53:00.001+11:00

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

2009-11-05T12:26:00.003+11:00

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

2009-11-04T09:17:00.004+11:00

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

2009-10-27T20:39:00.002+11:00

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

2009-10-24T20:06:00.006+11:00

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

2009-08-24T08:07:00.008+10:00

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

2009-07-03T08:43:00.003+10:00

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

2009-06-21T16:08:00.004+10:00

"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

2009-06-21T11:15:00.003+10:00

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

2009-06-09T14:57:00.025+10:00

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

2009-06-09T10:13:00.002+10:00

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

2009-05-29T08:08:00.013+10:00

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

2009-04-20T13:32:00.006+10:00

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

2009-04-19T08:25:00.001+10:00

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

2009-04-06T13:59:00.005+10:00

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?

2009-04-06T13:41:00.006+10:00

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

2009-04-06T12:14:00.011+10:00

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

2009-03-31T12:12:00.002+11:00

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

2009-03-28T18:24:00.004+11:00

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

2009-03-28T14:45:00.007+11:00

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.

Creating a Global Ecological Currency

2009-03-22T10:25:00.002+11:00

An article about ecological currency by Mathis Wackernagel of the Global Footprint Network appeared in the latest WME Magazine. He discusses the concept that 80% of the world's population lives in countries that use more resources than their own countries can supply (ecological debtors). Australia is an ecological creditor and supplies to other countries as it has a relatively small population and vast resources. Though despite dependence on export of ecological credit overseas, it does this at the expense of its own biodiversity and ecological integrity. Wackernagel argues that the incentive for countries like Australia to manage their economy sustainably is to protect this critical part of the economy for future generations.

You can read more in WME Magazine, which is currently available as part of the subscription to EIANZ.

Also watch the following 5 minute interview with Mathis Wackernagel...

ACT - EIANZ Professional Development Workshop - Biodiversity Offsets

2009-03-18T10:16:00.005+11:00

Professional Development Workshop
Biodiversity Offsets

Thursday 26 March 2009
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, ACT

Biodiversity offsets is a relatively new policy arena that is being applied by most Australian
jurisdictions in various forms. This workshop explores whether offsets work in favour of
biodiversity conservation. You will also find out how offsetting is applied throughout Australia
and discuss its potential application to the ACT.

Program

Dr Phil Gibbons Biodiversity Offsets or the Tail Wagging the Dog? Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU
Brendan Allen Commonwealth Biodiversity Offsets Policy Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
Dr Sue Briggs NSW Biobanking and Biodiversity Offsets NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change
Kerry ten Kate, The Case for Biodiversity Offsets Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, Forest Trends
Michael Mulvaney Biodiversity Offsets in the ACT Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water

Principles in Biodiversity Offsets

2009-03-17T07:59:00.005+11:00

Following an detailed and exhaustive consultation effort with governments, private sector and NGO representatives around the world, the Business Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) has published its Principles on Biodiversity Offsets. These are supported by the Advisory Committee, which includes the State Government of Victoria.

In the absence of any alternative, suitable approach for biodiversity offset (e.g. NSW Biobanking), the BBOP Framework can be used by developers. Professional ecologists would be encouraged to use this framework to design ways of meeting Australia and New Zealand's commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity, particularly the need to reverse biodiversity loss by 2010 (see EIANZ'S submission to the EPBC Senate Inquiry and the Biodiversity Management Discussion Paper).

Principles on Biodiversity Offsets
Supported by the BBOP Advisory Committee

No net loss: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented to achieve in situ,measurable conservation outcomes that can reasonably be expected to result in no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity.
Additional conservation outcomes: A biodiversity offset should achieve conservation outcomes above and beyond results that would have occurred if the offset had not taken place. Offset design and implementation should avoid displacing activities harmful to biodiversity to other locations.
Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy: A biodiversity offset is a commitment to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts on biodiversity identified after appropriate avoidance, minimization and on-site rehabilitation measures have been taken according to the mitigation hierarchy.
Limits to what can be offset: There are situations where residual impacts cannot be fully compensated for by a biodiversity offset because of the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the biodiversity affected.
Landscape Context: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in a landscape context to achieve the expected 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.
Stakeholder participation: In areas affected by the project and by the biodiversity offset, the effective participation of stakeholders should be ensured in decision-making about biodiversity offsets, including their evaluation, selection, design, implementation and monitoring.
Equity: A biodiversity offset should be designed and implemented in an equitable manner, which means the sharing among stakeholders of the rights and responsibilities, risks and rewards associated with a project and offset in a fair and balanced way, respecting legal and customary arrangements. Special consideration should be given to respecting both internationally and nationally recognized rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Long-term outcomes: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be based on an adaptive management approach, incorporating monitoring and evaluation, with the objective of securing outcomes that last at least as long as the project’s impacts and preferably in perpetuity.
Transparency: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset, and communication of its results to the public, should be undertaken in a transparent and timely manner.
Science and traditional knowledge: The design and implementation of a biodiversity offset should be a documented process informed by sound science, including an appropriate consideration of traditional knowledge.

The principles will soon be accompanied by a set of support documentation which comprise:

an overview of biodiversity offsets and BBOP;
three handbooks on the design and implementation of biodiversity offsets that the Advisory Committee is offering as a source of interim guidance;
resource papers on the relationship between biodiversity offsets, impact assessment and biodiversity offsets and stakeholder participation; and
case studies of the BBOP pilot projects and some other experiences.

VIC - Ecological processes in Victoria: Policy priorities for sustaining biodiversity

2009-03-16T14:27:00.002+11:00

As noted in the EIANZ Ecology Discussion Paper on Biodiversity, "the benefits of biodiversity need to be specified in terms of its importance to sustainable development, resource and ecosystem services management". It is fitting therefore, that the Victoria Naturally Alliance has just commissioned an important discussion paper, warning that conservation measures in Victoria are likely to fail without management of essential ecosystem services. This is what they have to say...

The essential “ecosystem services” that ecological processes provide include: the pollination of our crops, pest and disease control, clean air and water, soil formation and the mitigation of environmental hazards such as erosion and flooding. However, despite their importance to the health of both humans and the natural environment we rarely place a value on ecological processes, often taking them for granted until they break down.

‘Ecological processes in Victoria: Policy priorities for sustaining biodiversity’ (2.7MB, PDF) is a discussion paper that attempts to shine a light on ecological processes, looking at what they are, why they are important, and how we can incorporate their management into conservation strategies.

Oil Spill Risk and Ecological Impact Assessment

2009-03-16T12:43:00.009+11:00

Simon Mustoe, BSc (Hons), CEnvP, MEIANZ, MIEEM

Incidents like the Pacific Adventurer oil spill off Queensland's Sunshine Coast could raise questions about ecological assessment methods relating to these high risk, low likelihood scenarios, where consequence is difficult or impossible to quantify.

Location of Queensland's recent oil spill

Any precautionary assessment of likely ecological impacts from substantial oil and chemical spills should always find them to be low likelihood, severe consequence scenarios. In conventional risk matrices, this means a 'high risk'. Although the overall risk can be crudely modelled and response measures prepared, there is no saying exactly when or where any impact will occur, and therefore how ecologically significant it may be. The consequence of oil and chemical spills varies from negligible or generally severe in the case of large spills, to negligible or locally severe in the case of small spills.

The ecological "significance" of an impact is unpredictable because spill size and geographic area are only confounding variables - it is more a matter of whether specific environmental factors at the time, (weather, tides, sea state etc) cause the spill to move into areas where there are valuable ecological / social assets. There are many cases of large spills that have missed important assets but other small spills that have had significant effect. For example, in December 1999 the Erika spilt 12-15,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil into the bay of Biscay and because it happened in winter, it was likely to have killed 5% of Europe's breeding Northern Guillemots. The Amoco Cadiz in March 1978 spilt twenty times more oil but only a tenth of the number of birds were affected, compared to the Erika (Mustoe, 1999).

The AMOCO CADIZ ran aground off the coast of Brittany, France on March 16, 1978, spilling 68.7 million gallons of oil. It is currently number 6 on the list of the largest oil spills of all time but had a relatively small impact on seabirds.

Because we cannot precisely predict or pre-empt the true 'consequence' of any spill, we have to accept to some extent, that it may be severe and depend on managing after-effects. As shown in the recent Queensland spill, a well resourced and prepared authority can do this quite quickly and successfully. But should the emphasis be placed so heavily on the tax payer and those who administrate policies like Australia and New Zealand's National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plans? ("The National Plans", AMSA, 2005 & MNZ, 2008). Are we, as professionals, under-selling the need for information and risk management at the EIA stage?

The fact is that EIAs cannot easily recommend significant investment in environmental management when the probability of a serious spill event is very low and each operator is part of a large network of vessels with overall cumulative risk. Consequently, rigorous assessment of oil and chemical spill risk tends to take a back seat in the EIA process. It is rarely considered beyond the intent to follow existing and established rules, especially those of the International Maritime Organisation and National Plans. However, these plans depend on specific ecological information in order to be effective.

An example of a vulnerability map for marine fauna in Port Phillip Bay in winter. Areas are broadly defined as high, medium or low, depending on the density of species with different sensitivity to surface pollutants. This information, along with a host of other data, helps managers make swift decisions about how to react to spills.

Following environmental assessment for the Channel Deepening Project in Melbourne, the Victorian Government's Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute were first able to integrate at-sea abundance and distribution data for seabirds and marine mammals into the National Oil Spill Response Atlas, part of the National Plan. Before this, the only biodiversity knowledge they had was of the coast. Since the most substantial impacts of oil on seabirds, cetaceans and marine reptiles happens whilst they are at sea, this extra information is critical. Standard approaches to estimating risk combine information about distribution, abundance and behaviour, especially how much time animals spend at or on the surface (Williams et al., 1995). Similar approaches have been used in the Falkland Islands (White et al., 1999) and parts of the Atlantic (Skov et al., 2002).

On the edge of the Southern Ocean, Australia and New Zealand have significant colonies of internationally important seabirds and the offshore environment is as notable as what is onshore. Baseline knowledge about the behaviour and distribution of seabirds at sea however, is not routinely collected, even by the oil industry. This is despite the fact that observers are regularly placed on marine seismic vessels for oil and gas exploration. They collect little more than sporadic whale and dolphin sightings, which is of little consequence for spatial GIS mapping of biodiversity and risk. The many hours between sightings could be spent investing in future management of oil spill risk. There are also fisheries observers, ecotourism operations, bird-watching groups (for 25 years, birders off New Zealand and Australia have chartered vessels to remote marine areas), all of whom collect data that can be readily analysed and used in biodiversity mapping and spatial planning.

If a network of at-sea information was established, it would enable consultants to recommend some investment of time and resources at the EIA stage and contribute to Oil Spill Response Atlases.

Because our economy depends on transportation of oil and chemicals overseas, we have to take some responsibility for spills occurring and this is why the onus cannot be placed entirely on vessel operators. Substantial legal concessions are offered to companies that cause spills but cooperate fully with the authorities. Pre-emptive contribution of data to contingency plans is just another way that corporate cooperation could be demonstrated but it can also reduce the likelihood of an incident. As indicated above, knowledge about the seasonal distribution and abundance of marine fauna, particularly seabirds, can help predict the likelihood of a major incident, potentially leading to avoidance of high risk areas at high risk times, and helping authorities make quick decisions during spills - such as where to focus containment equipment or dispersants.

Placing more expectation on the operator at the EIA stage means more substantial binding conditions and better corporate awareness of the need to manage their environmental performance and that of their contracted vessels at sea. If the recent incident had occurred in December, the beach-nesting habitat of Loggerhead Turtles could have been seriously affected.

A Loggerhead Turtle at sea off the Australian coast

Only a few hundred Loggerheads remain the east coast and they protected as Marine, Migratory and Endangered species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act"). Little or no mention has been made of the possibility that a significant proportion of animals could have died at sea. Perhaps effort is needed to determine if this is the case? Ironically, the EPBC Act controls impacts out to 200Nm or further but the authorities mostly concerned with clean-up are constrained by data from above the high water mark or at the most, within a few kilometres of the coast. The oil spill risk map for the Great Barrier Reef is notably coastal. It does not include much of the offshore areas of the southern reef, such as the Swaines, even though there are a number of shipping routes.

If this spill had moved offshore and not hit the Sunshine Coast beaches, would we have been less concerned? Would our lack of concern have reflected an actual reduction in impact? The truth is we would not know. So the question remains whether there is a way to facilitate the collection and dissemination of at-sea biodiversity data so we can make better decisions about marine environmental management? If this can be done, it could help lead to a reduction in the likelihood and consequence of oil spills and reduce the risk to corporations that undertake these risky operations on our behalf.

Simon Mustoe is a Certified Environmental Practitioner, Director of AES Applied Ecology Solutions and specialises in marine biodiversity assessment, especially on marine vertebrates including cetaceans, seabirds and marine turtles.

References

AMSA (2005) National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan: Australiaʼs “National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances”. Australian Marine Safety Authority, Canberra. Available online at http://www.amsa.gov.au/marine_environment_protection/National_Plan/Contingency_Plans_and_Management/Oil_Spill_Contingency_Plan.asp
MNZ (2008) National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan, Maritime New Zealand. Available on line at http://www.mnz.govt.nz/publications/pollution_response/NationalPlan.pdf
Mustoe, S. (1999) The Erika Oil Spill. In Cresswell, G and Walker, D. (eds) A Report on the Whales, Dolphins and Seabirds of the Bay of Biscay and English Channel. Orca No 1. Pp 96-100.
Skov, H., Upton, A.J., Reid, J.B., Webb, A., Samuel, J.T., & Durinck, J. (2002). Dispersion and vulnerability of marine birds and cetaceans in Faroese waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
White, R.W., Reid, J.B., Black, A.D. & Gillon, K.W. (1999). Seabird and marine mammal dispersion in the waters around the Falkland Islands 1998-1999. In. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen.
Williams, J.M., Tasker, M.L., Carter, I.C., & Webb, A. (1995) A method of assessing seabird vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis, 137

Putting the good into environmental practice

2009-03-11T07:54:00.000+11:00

WME Magazine, 2008

The certified environmental practitioner scheme has taken some key steps, including approval from the ACCC, reports Nigel Murphy.

Many forces are shaping the environment profession, particularly the increasing focus on climate change and energy efficiency. This dynamic of rapid change in the profession creates a strong need for ongoing training and skill development...read more

Biodiversity: The Role of Ecological Impact Assessment

2009-03-11T07:44:00.003+11:00

Mandelik, Y., Dayan,T. & Feitelson, E. (2009) Conservation Biology 9(4) 1254 - 1261

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the process of identifying potential environmental effects of proposed development and the required mitigation measures.It is one of the most widely used planning tools today, but its ability to promote biodiversity conservation is largely unexplored.

We studied the ecological component of the Israeli EIA system by reviewing a representative sample of 52 environmental impact statements (EISs) produced since 1995 and their corresponding guidelines issued by the Ministry of the Environment. Quality of both EISs and guidelines was determined using a simple scoring approach. Lack of quantitative data, meaningful analyses, and ecosystem perspective was apparent throughout.

"Guideline quality scores were the most important factor determining the quality of EISs; second was the involvement of an ecological consultant in preparing the EIS".

Many EISs failed to perform field surveys and their qualitative nature hampered meaningful impact prediction. Most EISs concentrated on aesthetic mitigation measures and did not assess their feasibility and likely success. Most of these flaws reflect poor standards rather than true scientific limitations. Guideline quality scores were the most important factor determining the quality of EISs; second was the involvement of an ecological consultant in preparing the EIS.

We found a decreasing trend of EIS quality scores over time. Improvements in EIA procedures, particularly in ecological guidelines and the incorporation of ecological consultation, are important for upgrading ecological impact assessment so that the potential of EIA to advance biodiversity conservation can be realized.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118701219/abstract

NSW Garrett vs Freeman- local councillor fined for poor decision

2009-03-09T07:50:00.005+11:00

A unique and defining court case in NSW sees heavy fines imposed on a local Councillor for breaching of environmental legislation requirements.

Freeman, the Director of Infrastructure at Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has just been fined $57,000 and ordered to pay over $150,000 costs for two offences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Council was fined almost a quarter of a million dollars.

Despite a plea by Freeman that he had not been trained in environmental impact assessment, Justice Lloyd found that, more likely than not, he was aware of the offence, which caused damage to the habitat of three threatened species. It has been maintained that there are a number of "trip wires" that would trigger EIA along the way and that "these new procedures ensure that a person who plans to undertake an activity is accountable within the council’s management systems".

The seriousness of the offence is reflected in the Court's statement that "There is ... a need for general deterrence in this case to ensure that other local government authorities are not tempted to circumvent the requirement to obtain a permit prior to carrying out works which have the potential to significantly affect the biodiversity of fish and aquatic vegetation".

In a separate matter, EIANZ is calling for better government recognition of the CEnvP process, and the strict adherence to nominal codes of ethics for those who make decisions or provide advice in relation to environmental matters (read "Should I be Certified"). Although this landmark case reveals the need for better standards of training, unless this is done in accordance with the guidance from a professional institution such as EIANZ this may not be enough to guarantee accordance with both the requirements and the principles of independent environmental best practice.

Thanks to members of the Ecological Association of New South Wales for bringing this article to light.
Read the full case notes here.

QLD: Ecological Symposium

2009-03-05T15:39:00.005+11:00

EIANZ South East Queensland's symposium "Breaking the Barriers" was attended by speakers from all over the world, including Professor John Bisonette of the US Geological Survey in Utah, and Dr. Edgar van der Grift of Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

The syposium results can be found online here: http://eianzecology.blogspot.com/2009/05/eianz-seq-breaking-barriers-engineering.html

Should I be certified?

2009-03-01T09:00:00.010+11:00

EIANZ feels very strongly about the need for a recognised industry standard for experience and qualifications, to underpin all professional work. As such, EIANZ established the CEnvP (Certified Environmental Practitioner) program in 2004.

EIANZ believes that this should extend to every private sector, academic and public sector advisor or decision maker where there are obligations to maintain a high standard of professional ethics, scientific rigour and independence. This might include commenting on the work of others, making recommendations, appearing as experts and, as an expert, engaging in debate about planning issues.

If you support this view and you are appropriately qualified, please consider becoming certified.

We need certified ecologists to help us shape the profession. The more we get, the more expectation there will be for others to aspire to the same standards.

Are you qualified? Do you have...

an environment-related degree;
five years of relevant environmental experience over the past ten years; and
three referees prepared to vouch for your skills, performance and professional conduct?

Do you have strong views about professional work ethics and standards? Are you prepared to...

sign a statement of ethical conduct;
commit to a minimum over two years of 50 hours of continued professional development; and
allow two colleagues to vouch for you in detailed referee reports?

For more information about how to become certified, please visit the CEnvP website (http://www.cenvp.org) or contact registrar@cenvp.org.

False Cape Update

2008-11-18T11:42:00.004+11:00

Photo by Steven Nowakowski (www.stevennowakowski.com)
Principle article source : EDO Queensland Bulletin http://www.edo.org.au/edoqld/

In September 2008 Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett suspended EPBC Act approach for 12 months for a proposed resort at False Cape, , due to concerns about erosion and sediment control devices and the damage being caused to the adjacent Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and Marine Park, adding:

'There will discussions between the developer and the authorities as to what the most appropriate next step is. There is 12 months and within that 12 months period if there is a decision and an application to come forward to me to reconsider what those activities are, once we’ve actually stabilised and secured the site, then I will consider it' (Federal Government - Doorstop: Reef Rescue; False Cape development; luxury car tax; Cairns Yacht Club).

Read previous article and watch community video showing the scale and extent of erosion

Cairns Regional Council (CRC) resolved on 16 October 2008 to "perform and undertake remediation works to erosion and sediment control measures... ...on behalf of the owner" at a cost of up to $150,000, which will be a debt owed to CRC and secured by a registered charge over the proposed development site. So far, CRC and the Queensland EPA have not exercised further legal powers.

Using expert judgement and uncertainty analysis for biodiversity management

2008-11-17T09:35:00.007+11:00

The following summary of the presentation given by Professor Mark Burgman, Director of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis (ACERA) for the EIANZ Conference on 31 October 2008 was produced by Simon Mustoe. Download the presentation powerpoint as a PDF (1.9MB).

Decisions based only on quantitative methods such as Monte Carlo do not deal with sources of non-statistical uncertainty. Examples include absolute lack of knowledge, or linguistic uncertainties, where what we say can be construed in many different ways (vagueness, ambiguity, generality or failure to express a context for what is said). Altogether, it creates an illusion of false precision.

Nevertheless, biodiversity management is inherently uncertain, so how do we deal with the problem of expert opinion, in the face of uncertainty?

First, the nature of uncertainty is well understood, if not always well presented. There is an existing 'taxonomy' of uncertainty and a better understanding of it will help us make better decisions. We should not be afraid of uncertainty as it is always going to be there. The following example shows how the right approach can reveal more certainty than expected, despite some lack of knowledge or variation in data.

Sindh Ibex [read full article online at Google Books]

Population Viability Modelling (PVA) was used to evaluate the risks faced by Sindh Ibex in a remote region of Pakistan. One of the questions the authorities wished to explore was whether removing 30 animals per year for trophy shooting could be sustained in the long term.

Image: Sindh Wildlife Department

The information about the ecology of the species to inform a model was scarce but basic biology and a dialogue with locals revealed estimates for key parameters that were sufficient to make plausible estimates. In this case, the experts were people living within the community who had, for many years, observed the animals in the wild.

Conventional modelling, for example using Monte Carlo, might depend on choosing one distribution e.g. the mean and variance of a normal distribution. In this case, PVA modelled a broad range of alternative assumptions about the species biology and its interactions with the environment. The result revealed that, despite a very broad range of uncertainty, the likelihood of the population reaching 1,000 animals (the threshold for "vulnerable" under IUCN threat catagories) would remain extremely low (P<0.002 style="font-weight: bold;">

The Problem With Expert Evidence

Irrespective of the situation, the type of expert and the information gathered, human nature is to be overly-confident about one’s own opinion. Ecologists have the same tendencies in this regard as experts in other fields such as engineering and medicine. Ecologists tend to over-estimate confidence based on small samples.

Image: Experts decide how many quadrats are needed to adequately survey forest in Australia (Baran 2000)

In one study, engineers were asked to estimate the height to failure of an earth embankment within 90% confidence. Comparison of results showed that none of the experts' estimates overlapped with the true value (Hynes and Vanmarche 1977). Baran (2000) asked experts at a national Australian meeting to estimate the number of 0.1ha quadrats required to be 90% certain of encountering 95% of woody plants in a 40Ha area. Most experts estimated the number to be 7 or less, far below the correct value of 58 quadrats.

Similarly Regan et al (2005) gave numerous experts the same information for a set of species and, according to the criteria used by the IUCN to determine conservation status, asked them to assign values from Least Concern to Critically Endangered. For almost half of the species, the estimates spanned two or more categories. Reasons for the range of results included an unwillingness to draw inferences (some experts feel bound by the terms of the criteria, even if they feel the species should be differently ranked); parameter estimates spanning thresholds (some parameter estimates vary naturally or due to stochastic uncertainty); and variation in language interpretation (literally, the words of the criteria are interpreted differently by different people).

Conclusion

The essential message from all these studies is that expert evidence is vital but we need to rethink our approach to find ways to better understand inherent problems, so we can make better decisions for the environment.

Overconfidence describes a situation in which the expert’s own confidence in their judgment or estimate does not correspond to the accuracy of that estimate. One question is, how do we as 'experts' to close this gap between our own opinion and reality.

Modelling is one particularly useful tool. The benefit is that they can be used to develop simplified abstractions that capture the essential elements of a system. However, we do not always use them properly. We may rely on only one type of model when we should be using many; we may fail to capture variation in data and rely on only the "mean" estimate; or we may over-emphasise the uncertainty that cannot be measured statistically.

Particularly when applied to risk assessments, our estimates of uncertainty are very important and integral to producing a defensible and in a very real sense, meaningful decision.

Solid Energy New Zealand and the Business Biodiversity Offsets Program

2008-11-13T10:28:00.000+11:00

The following summary of the presentation given by Mark Pizey of Solid Energy New Zealand for the EIANZ Conference on 31 October 2008 was produced by Gabrielle Roy. Download the presentation powerpoint as a PDF (1.9MB).

Revegetation, as at the Greystone coal mine in South Island, New Zealand, is one of many options available to offset biodiversity effects from industry. Solid Energy New Zealand are working with the Business Biodiversity Offsets Program to look at ways of measuring biodiversity outcomes, with the aim of achieving overall no net-loss.

Through partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts, Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) offers an opportunity to identity methods of offsetting damages to biodiversity, defined as species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem services, caused by development. This is achieved through voluntary projects which trial methods of biodiversity offsetting. One such project is offsetting the impacts of coal mining at Greymouth Coalfields, New Zealand, managed by Solid Energy New Zealand.

Solid Energy New Zealand is a state owned energy company which is a leading producer of high quality coal at a national and international scale. The aim of their environmental policy is for their activities to result in a net positive impact on New Zealand's environment by undertaking “non-mining projects that have significant net positive benefits for the New Zealand environment.”

Greymouth Coalfields are situated on the west coast of South Island, approximately 11 km north-east of Greymouth. The mining complex comprises a number of mines, including Strongman mine, the location of the BBOP pilot project. Mining activities, occurring between 1939 and 2005, resulted in significant habitat degradation, which was further exacerbated by underground fires. In 2004, the site was managed to commence rehabilitation with the aim of achieving the objectives set out by Solid Energy's environmental policy. Biodiversity offsetting is not a substitution for mitigation measures. Instead, the aim is to implement it at the end of the mitigation hierarchy, as demonstrated below (Hollands and Bishop, http://www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/offsets.php):

Avoid
Reduce, moderate, minimize
Rescue (relacation, translocation),
Repair, reinstate, restore
Compensate / offset

Offsetting strategies include:

Averting loss by protecting biodiversity which is not legally protected
Pest / predator control methods to minimise threats to indigenous biodiversity
Trading up schemes which use credits to protect threatened biodiversity
Biobanking which allow for investment into a market-driven scheme for biodiversity

Through a process of consultation, which included modeling the outcomes using these different techniques and consulting stakeholders, it was decided that the most efficient method of achieving Solid Energy's environmental aims was by averting biodiversity loss through increased protection. Prior to implementing the scheme baseline data was collected through ecological surveys, obtaining historical data, identifying key biodiversity markers and developing a monitoring program to measure the efficiency of the scheme and adapt the management prescriptions where needed. This preparatory process also allowed for the selection of the Strongman mine as a suitable location to launch the scheme.

Strongman mine site supports approximately 5000 ha of continuous unprotected native vegetation, within a landscape of fragmented and relatively small patches of protected and unprotected native vegetation. Over time, it is assumed that unprotected biodiversity is lost at a given rate and impacts, such as mining, result in an increase loss. In this case, the loss is defined as the difference between the original rate and that caused by the impact. Where additional protection is provided for biodiversity, the loss rate after impact and offset is minimised, thereby resulting in biodiversity gains. The Net Present Value (NVP) is therefore calculated for the impact and combination by taking into account future gains and losses, discounted by time and risk.

Therefore, NVP is calculated as:

Impact x discount rate / Loss rate

For the Strongman mine project, averting biodiversity loss was calculated as below and resulted in the protection of 2685 ha of native habitat within an offset reserve. The Business Biodiversity Offset Program is an opportunity for businesses to voluntarily offset their impact on biodiversity through the implementation of tried and tested schemes. The example of the Strongman mine has demonstrated that protecting biodiversity not legally protected is an efficient method of achieving a net positive environmental impact through development.

Biodiversity – A Framework for Understanding

2008-11-13T10:18:00.006+11:00

Image: Heaphy River, West Coast South Island, copyright Judith Roper-Lindsay

The following framework for understanding biodiversity was developed by EIANZ Ecology as a means of understanding a term that is often ill-defined and most commonly confused with species richness. It is included in the final version of the paper on Biodiversity Management.

Biodiversity management depends on a series of principles. These are:
- That biodiversity is conserved, in situ, across all levels and scales - structure, function
and composition are conserved at site, regional, state and national scales;
- that examples of all ecological communities are adequately managed for conservation;
and
Biodiversity values are an integral part of triple-bottom-line decision-making, whatever the scale, nature and location of a project.
Irrespective of species loss, the true economic impact of biodiversity loss needs to be conveyed to the public.
The benefits of biodiversity need to be specified in terms of its importance to sustainable development, resource and ecosystem services management.
Better understanding of the link between our environment and our social and economic well-being, will mean more acceptance by the community for positive management.
There are no activities where it is not possible to take account of biodiversity. It is fundamentally critical to the maintenance of our systems.
Biodiversity management is key to economic and social welfare benefits, both now and in the future, enabling our countries to remain globally and sustainably competitive.
Biodiversity management is not just about protecting particular species of flora and fauna (e.g. threatened species). It is about maintaining functioning systems.
Loss of biodiversity has limited the planet’s ability to sequester carbon we consume and provide enough water to support a growing population. If we only invest in technology (at the continuing expense of natural capital) to address water and climate change problems, this will not bring us back to that point of equilibrium. Biodiversity loss needs to be reversed in addition to these measures.
In EIA, biodiversity should always be considered early, leading to more robust development outcomes and mitigation, less conflict at the tail-end of EIAs and less inconsistent decision-making.
Biodiversity performance outcomes cannot necessarily be measured via single quantitative measures. Some of these measures may have to be made indirectly, or using sophisticated and or long-term methods.
There will always be insufficient information where biodiversity is concerned. Risk and uncertainty are inherent in all decision-making for biodiversity. This reality needs to be accepted so it can be managed.
In the context of land management, ecology is the key to understanding biodiversity.
Biodiversity is everywhere – not just in reserve systems. Even heavily modified areas may require attention.

Biobanking and Biodiversity Management

2008-11-06T09:12:00.005+11:00

Sue Briggs, NSW DECC - Summary of Presentation to EIANZ Conference.
For a PDF copy of the presentation, please email sue.briggs@csiro.au

New South Wales has just introduced a voluntary Biobanking scheme through parliament. The legislation allows developers who meet avoid-minimise-offset requirements to compensate unavoidable residual impacts through investment in a market-driven credit scheme for biodiversity.

The scheme, which mirrors similar programs in Victoria (Australia) and also South Africa, the US and increasingly worldwide, augments a more traditional form of biodiversity management based largely on qualitative measures of habitat importance and threatened species. As with many such schemes, it was open to costly legal challenge and offered little certainty for developers. The outcomes were often inconsistent and resulted in legal debate and court cases. For instance, in one example, a developer was required to sieve tonnes of soil to establish whether the seeds of a threatened plant were present. In another case, just one tree was enough to prove the presence of a threatened community (read the full article by Judith Rawlings). There are countless examples in the media.

"MELBOURNE might have the race that stops a nation but Sydney has the frog that stops almost everything" 8 July 2008 Daily Telegraph

Arguably, money could be better spent invested in real biodiversity outcomes in habitat that is substantial enough to maintain viable populations.

Biobanking is an alternative approach that "improves or maintains " biodiversity and recognises the principles of biodiversity that now underpin regulatory instruments in New South Wales.

The principles are:

Biodiversity encompasses structure, function and composition of ecological communities at site, regional, state and national scales.
Examples of all ecological communities are managed for biodiversity conservation. Assess sites relative to priorities at broader scales.
Enhance long term viability of ecological communities. Assess sites according to their viability.
(For more on biodiversity, see EIANZ ecology Position Statement on Biodiversity).

Biodiversity values, as defined in the Threatened Sp ecies Conservation Act 1995 - Biobanking Amendment 2006 "includes the composition, structure and function of ecosystems, and includes (but not limited to) threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats."

Biobanking better guarantees the protection of rare remnants and ensures that investment in offset / compensation is used to create measurable outcomes in areas where the effort will not be wasted. The measurement of biodiversity is based on the Biometric system.

Because biodiversity is defined in holistic terms, rather than just threatened species, the focus is on the landscape and focuses on ecosystem integrity. The method has been structured to have maximum benefit for the range of species and measurement parameters include such things as site condition, connectivity, regional, state and national conservation priorities and threatened species, populations and communities .

The scheme works thus:

With limited exceptions , high biodiversity value communities cannot be developed if viable (red flag).
Elsewhere, unavoidable losses in biodiversity from development can be offset.

Trading in biodiversity credits is according to strict rules, in order to ensure that benefits are locked into the future. Management actions on biodiversity investment sites include managing grazing, weeds, fire and human disturbance; retaining regrowth, dead timber and rocks; replanting / supplementary planting; control of feral species, nutrients and erosion. All this is done to increase the area, condition and connectivity of threatened species habitat and other biodiversity values .

In conclusion, Biobanking is a model for how the world is moving towards meeting its biodiversity management obligations and has considerable benefits over more traditional and quite subjective methods of assigning 'value' to the environment. Most importantly:

it assesses biodiversity at the landscape scale
it re-emphasises and supports active and purposeful management
it improves the viability of ecological communities
it improves certainty in the planning process and redirects resources towards biodiversity rather than to expensive court cases

Further Reading
Biobanking in New South Wales
EIANZ Ecology Biodiversity Management Discussion Paper
EIANZ Ecology Biodiversity Bibliography
Biodiversity Offsets Guidelines South Africa
Business Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP)

When a Single Tree Can Constitute and Endangered Ecological Community

2008-11-06T07:37:00.002+11:00

Important questions have been raised with a number of Sydney councils concerning Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) and other plant communities listed as Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs). Very conservative interpretations of the Final Determinations of the NSW Scientific Committee by some individuals has created ethical issues for ecological consultants, and presents a myriad of practical problems.

Image: Sydney Blue Gum Eucalyptus saligna by Margaret Morgan

To further complicate matters, a recent Land & Environment Court decision to recognize a heritage-listed house and garden on Sydney’s North Shore as a BGHF community and to support DECC in requiring its return to ‘bushland’ on the basis that some native canopy trees had been retained in the 19thC arboretum, raises alarm bells for anyone who has retained native trees on their property, or those who have followed the trend to planting local native species. For the BGHF and other EECs, the fundamental problem appears to be a very narrow, and in my opinion ill-considered, interpretation of some elements of the Final Determinations.

For the ‘critically endangered’ BGHF in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, problems centre largely on Item 9, which reads (in part) “Highly modified relics of the community also persist as small clumps of trees without a native understorey”; and Item 11, which reads (in part) “A number of stands of Blue Gum Forests have highly modified understories, in which the native woody component has been largely replaced by woody exotic species or by increased abundance of native and exotic grasses”.

These extracts from the Final Determination have been interpreted by some Council officers, supported by consultants employed to support their stance, to mean that a single tree growing in a garden setting, in a lawn, or even a tree retained in a paved parking lot for shade, represents the critically endangered BGHF community – with all the inherent issues and problems that this entails. In fact, in some cases, it has been considered that the presence of any tree species listed under a FD indicates the presence of that EEC – notwithstanding that many of these species occur in a number of different vegetation communities and are not in any sense ‘diagnostic’ solely of the subject EEC. Some consultants go further, and where commonly occurring species as Oplismenus, Dichondra, Pratia, or Acacia are observed growing in introduced lawns, garden beds or on disused land, declare the site to be ‘actively regenerating’ to the said EEC – describing such species as ‘characteristic’; in one singular case, of regenerating BGHF. Such sites are said to represent ‘potential bushland’.

Similarly, some of the older Determinations such as Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF, 10/98) or Sydney Turpentine/Ironbark Forest (STIF, 11/98) present problems as they describe the EECs as persisting mainly as “fragmented stands” or individual trees”, or even as “seed in the soil seed bank”, with “many species being absent from the above-ground biomass”. This has given rise to situations whereby a cleared horse paddock in Kellyville was subject to a Species Impact Statement; and where a landowner in central Castle Hill whose small suburban Lot retained 5 native trees has been instructed to carry out a full flora and fauna survey and 7-part test in order to submit a DA to demolish the 70 year old house and build a new one on the same footprint.

Such interpretations and leaps of fancy obviously impact most heavily on properties which are fully developed, and may have been so for many years. Plans to rebuild an old house, add an extra room or a swimming pool, or even realign the driveway now requires detailed ecological assessment, often including an SIS, and if the area formerly supported an EEC, the chances of getting permission are pretty slim. More and more cases are being referred to the L&E Court, while DECC continue to persist in the belief that such properties can and should be ‘returned to bushland’, regardless of land tenure and existing land use. Of course, ‘Greenfield sites’ are another matter; and development applications for such sites rightly should have to undergo thorough ecological assessment. In initiating this discussion the author is not referring to projects proposed by big developers who are seeking a maximum return on their investments, but to the small property owner with limited resources; but currently the law makes no obvious distinction between such individuals and a real ‘developer’.

Any involvement in controversial projects puts the ecological consultant at a distinct disadvantage. Go along with the ultra-conservative viewpoint and one risks being considered irrational and a ‘radical greenie’ – and your potential client base narrows. Take issue, and you risk being seen as a troublemaker or labelled ‘pro-development’; in extreme cases even ‘blacklisted’. Appeals to common sense usually fall on deaf ears; and attempts to approach the problem in a measured scientific manner, or to provide a practical workable approach to management serves only to risk the wrath of the conservation lobby and (not infrequently), of agency middle level management - which has to be said - has largely been captured by the extreme end of the bush regeneration movement.

While not in any way opposing the fundamental conservation ethic or the urgent need to protect remnant native bushland, I would suggest that this narrow interpretation of the legislation and the often impractical and (at times) impossible demands imposed by local control authorities are counter-productive, and serve only to alienate the wider community. As an ecological consultant with over 20 years of on-ground bushland management experience, I would urge other consultants; council and agency personnel alike to consider the implications of their decisions and recommendations, and to routinely ask themselves “are my conditions reasonable, and ultimately achievable?” “Could I comply with these conditions if I had a reasonable level of resources and there are no external constraints?” If the answer to any of these is ‘no’, then reconsider.

The author and other colleagues have approached the Scientific Committee requesting clarification of some of their more problematic statements, but these have not been forthcoming. However, although some of the individuals involved have said privately that although the original intent of the Committee was not necessarily in keeping with current interpretations (as described here), there are apparently no plans to issue guidelines – which rather leaves the legislation open to interpretation – and misuse.

So…. for landowners, whether big or small: what next? If and when this new approach gains currency, will we see trees on residential blocks being routinely cut down to avoid future problems (yes, you can do it, despite tree preservation laws if you are really determined), and will people stop planting local native trees just in case they are ‘creating’ a future EEC? It seems a likely scenario; and one which is diametrically opposed to the fundamental aims of the environmental legislation. A dilemma indeed!

Judith Rawling BA,DipEd,DipEnvStud,MEnvStud
Managing Director
UBM Ecological Consultants, UBM Projects

Independent Review of EPBC Act announced

2008-11-03T08:32:00.004+11:00

At his address to the EIANZ Conference Gala Dinner on Friday night, Environment Minister, the Honourable Peter Garrett, announced the government's independent review of the EPBC Act. He also acknowledged EIANZ's recent submission to the Senate Inquiry, which readers of this forum were instrumental in producing. EIANZ Ecology will be assisting EIANZ again in producing submissions to assist this new process.

The Department of Environment, Heritage, Water and the Art's website says:

This will be the first review of the Act since it commenced on 16 July 2000. Dr Allan Hawke will lead the review with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts providing secretariat support.

The review will assess the operation of the Act and the extent to which it has achieved its objectives. The review's final report will be provided to the Minister by the end of October 2009.

A discussion paper will shortly be released and public submissions invited and interested parties are invited to register their interest to receive notification of events and publications.

Reviews in Environmental Science and Management

2008-10-20T15:22:00.001+11:00

Peer-reviewed scientific journals are considered to be the main medium for for scientists to communicate their findings to each other and to the interested public. However vast amounts of money are spent every year on scientific investigations that are never published in peer-reviewed science journals. The questions posed by environmental managers and consultants often stretch current science and require the development of unusual tools and approaches, which deserve greater recognition and application. The scope of the research can be broad, and require the collaboration of scientists from a range of disciplines. The threat of litigation and legal scrutiny also means that the work is commonly carried out to a high standard, and often involves peer review by leading international researchers.

There are a number of reasons why this work is not published in scientific journals, but commercial sensitivity, time and budget constraints are frequent issues. Also, the relatively broad “systems-level” focus of this work may not fit well with the discipline orientated, and concise publication requirements of many science journals. Consequently, much of this work remains confined to the grey literature (EIA's, EES's, consultants reports etc.)

Reviews in Environmental Science and Management is a new serial publication from Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia. Titles will include multi-authored reviews of areas of environmental science or management as well as monograph-length works with a more restricted authorship.
The goals of the series are:

to provide a channel of publication for high-quality material that does not fit the remit of the academic journals or have a sufficient market for traditional commercial publication.
to meet the increasing need for published material that helps to bridge the gap between science and management, enabling managers and scientists alike to understand what the others are saying.

The publisher states:

The series aims to publish material of the highest quality: all manuscripts are reviewed by four or more practitioners in a field and are thus subject to stringent peer review. The series meets all the existing criteria of the Australian Government for defining scholarly publications. Titles will initially be published at roughly yearly intervals.

The first issue of this new journal has just been released.

Reviews in environmental science and management. Predictions for use in resource management: the concept of the composite model with estuary case studies. By Malcolm O. Green and Chris Hatton. Published in 2007 by Southern Cross University Press, P.O. Box 157, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia (http://scupress.scu.edu.au). 146 p.; softcover. ISBN: 1-875855-66-1.

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

2008-10-14T08:04:00.009+11:00

EIANZ Ecology has set up a Working Group to develop Guidelines for Ecological impact Assessment (EcIA). We are developing a first draft set of Generic Guidelines that can be applied in a wide range of places and circumstances and guide the development of best practice in both the profession and regulation. They describe the principles and processes behind a robust EcIA.

A second Tier will then be developed that take the jurisdictional legal / regulatory frameworks so that the Guidelines begin to focus on the consenting or permitting requirements in different contexts.

Image: NW Tasmania old-growth logging. {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} Source - T Taylor

A final tier of information will include a list of relevant statutory documents and a reference list for survey and monitoring, the latter essential to supporting high standards of field work. Both the latter and the second tier documentation will be provided as moderated Wiki pages, so they can evolve with changes in regulation and published studies.

1 What is EcIA?

Further reading - What is EcIA? | Treweek (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment

2 Why do we need guidelines?

improved biodiversity management.
consistency (amongst ecologists and across EIAs).
transparency in the decision making process.
accuracy and rigour - in science and its use in decision-making.
excellence - to raise the standards of ecological practice.
comparability (between projects and assessments).
facilitate communication and co-operation between ecologists.
explain ecology to decision-makers.

3 Why should EIANZ lead the development of Guidelines?

largest organisation of Australian, New Zealand and Pasifika ecologists.
focus on environmental management - "applied ecology".
networks of professional ecologists within wider environmental professionals.

4 What sort of things will they cover?

See IEEM Guidelines ( http://www.ieem.net/ecia/) Note, the IEEM Guidelines were drafted by experts in EcIA who have also gone on to develop documentation on Biodiversity Offsets, which we are also including in the process. IEEM have kindly given permission to use text from their guidelines verbatim, where this can be generically applied.

5 How will they be developed?

Generic Guidelines development:

Discuss at EIANZ October 2008 conference.
Working group develop draft Generic Guidelines in liaison with Ecological Societies (Australia and New Zealand), Planning Institutes, Academic Experts, Associations for Impact Assessment, EIANZ SIS on Impact Assessment and others....
Discuss draft within EIANZ and at EIANZ Council.
Final Generic Guidelines draft.
Workshop at the INTECOL conference in Brisbane in August 2009.
Finalisation of consultation draft. Discussion at EIANZ Conference in Canberra.
Continual improvement, feedback and redevelopment through applied use.
Endorsement by state / federal agencies?

Jurisdictional regulatory frameworks layer:

Develop drafts in liaison with local planning institutes, environmental law groups etc - tailor the generic to national, state, provincial, local legislation requirements. (For example, in NZ this means the RMA, Conservation Act, Local Government Act, Reserves Act and Assessment of Environmental Effects requirements).
Put these out for wider local consultation /discussion via Wiki page.
Recruit moderators for specific pages.
Finalise, release and promote!

Statutory documents and survey standards.

Release Wiki pages.
Invite input from profession.
Small steering committee to moderate changed content.

If you have any comments now, or would like to be involved in this project please contact Judith Roper-Lindsay (judithrl@boffamiskell.co.nz)

Biodiversity Management - Discussion Paper

2008-10-08T17:12:00.002+11:00

EIANZ Ecology has spent the last three months preparing the following paper for discussion at the forthcoming conference. Biodiversity management is at the very heart of all our work, yet is a poorly understood concept, both within and outside the environmental profession.

You are invited to provide comments or an endorsement of the following paper (please provide your name and position). The results of any discussion on this topic will be used to finalise a draft Position Statement, and have this formally endorsed by EIANZ Council.

For EIANZ Ecology, a policy on biodiversity is extremely important
Please, help us get this circulated as widely as possible.

This policy is the first major step in the establishment of EIANZ Ecology. We need to ensure that we build on this understanding to meet the professional and environmental needs of our practice in the 21st century.

Biodiversity Management - Discussion Paper PDF (202kb)

Revision of ANZECC water quality guidelines - request for comment

2008-10-01T13:58:00.001+10:00

Australian and New Zealand environment officials recently agreed that the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000) - commonly referred to as the 'ANZECC Guidelines' - need to be revised.

A process for scoping the extent of revision required is now underway. This will form the basis for the Terms of Reference for the revision. Rick van Dam, an ecotoxicologist with the Australian Government, is heading the scoping project. Amanda Hunt at MfE is the NZ representative on the subgroup scoping the Terms of Reference.

To assist with ensuring that the scope is sufficient to capture the necessary matters, key stakeholders are being contacted and asked to identify items they consider should be included in the revision. These can either be existing items in the Guidelines, or new items that you consider need to be included.

Comments close on Friday 7 November 2008.

EIANZ members are likely to be users of the guidelines, and/or professionals with expertise in water quality, ecology or ecotoxicology. As such you are encouraged to make known any thoughts you may have on aspects of the guidelines that you consider need revising.

Detailed technical comment is not required. Instead, please identify general areas that you think need revision, or which should be added to the guidelines. However, if you have detailed information on a particular subject, please note this in your comments, so you can be contacted at a later date.

Note that part of the scoping will include recommendations from a recent workshop on the Guidelines by the Australasian Society of Ecotoxicologists.

If you have any colleagues in your organisation whom you consider may also have an interest in the subject, please feel free to forward this message to them.

Note for regional council staff: freshwater science staff in regional councils have been advised of the revision separately, through the surface water information workspace.

Electronic communication is preferred, as it will make collation of comments easier. Please forward all comments, and any questions, to Amanda Hunt at the Ministry for the Environment:

amanda.hunt@mfe.govt.nz

NSW - Biobanking Assessors Training Accreditation Required

2008-09-16T08:19:00.003+10:00

New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change is running a 4-day Assessors Course for the new Biobanking scheme. Anyone who wishes to apply the assessment methodology will be required to attend the course.

See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/assessorscourse.htm

The course fee is $1850 (ex-GST) including accreditation or $1500 (ex-GST) without accreditation per person. There will be a maximum of twelve places at each training course.

Note, there is a minimum standard for accreditation. To gain accreditation, course participants will need documentation to prove they have:

relevant tertiary qualifications in natural sciences (or equivalent);
a minimum of three years experience in flora and/or fauna survey; or
five years experience if the applicant has no tertiary qualifications in natural sciences (or equivalent); and
two written statements from referees who can vouch for the applicants skills, experience and professional conduct.

DECC will determine if the applicant meets the criteria for accreditation, and if so, issue an accreditation certificate to the applicant (including Assessor Accreditation Number).

Expressions of interest for the course can be made by completing this form.

The Gaia Hypothesis and Climate Change

2008-09-15T22:03:00.005+10:00

It was 1979 when James Lovelock publicly hypothesised in his book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth that the whole earth was a complex, self-regulating living system. Ironically, the Gaia Hypothesis was inspired by his climate research, even though it stemmed from investigations of life on Mars.

Lovelock's hypothesis was often dismissed as fantasy. Rooted in deep ecological thought it supported strong ecocentric philosophy during a period of immense technological revolution, which is still going. As Lovelock himself explains (see video below, from 10:45-12:00 min) the mistake made by both physical scientists and biologists was to treat processes as separate. In more recent years, climate scientists have considered how to integrate biodiversity processes into climate models, to provide more realistic predictions of how Earth systems operate.

Far from being a deep-ecologist, Lovelock was unique as an atmospheric scientist with the foresight to understand systems that climatologists are only just now beginning to take for granted. In his recent book Gaia: the Revenge Lovelock paints a very pessimistic picture of the future. Other scientists are more optimistic and whether Lovelock will again be right, remains to be seen.

In the mean time, Lovelock's wisdom still reinforces the principal that loss of biodiversity is a key driver of climate change, and not just a consequence of it. Whatever the outcome of climate change, whether it is reversible or not, this has profound implications for the ecological profession and the robust implementation of biodiversity planning law and policy.

Gaia and accelerating climate change - ABC Science Show

The following video is a recent presentation to the Royal Society in London.

Why is it hard for research to influence policy?

2008-09-11T12:46:00.000+10:00

By David Pannell, University of Western Australia

Article based on Pannell, D.J. and Roberts, A.M. (2008). Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: an Australian case study, INFFER Working Paper 0803, University of Western Australia, Perth (submitted to Environmental Science and Policy). (Link to pre-publication version).

There is a fair bit of commentary in the research literature about the difficulties that researchers have in influencing policy. A broad range of reasons for poor uptake of research results by policy makers have been identified, including the following.

Non-scientific considerations matter. Sometimes scientific information may be known to policy makers, but the decision reached may still appear to be inconsistent with the science. This may or may not be a concern. It may simply reflect that policy makers and managers consider additional factors, such as legal mandates, societal desires, economic benefits and costs, rights, distributional equity and procedural fairness.

Hidden agendas. There may be political or bureaucratic objectives unrelated to the public interest, so that research that seeks to advance the public interest is not wanted.

Policy fashions and crises. Policy attention tends to be directed to certain issues with high currency, often issues where there is a perceived crisis (e.g. see PD#123), and this may leave little scope for research (or any other input) to influence policy in a policy area that is not currently high on the agenda. We observed this occurring in Australia around 2000 with land and water degradation due to salinity. Now salinity is no longer perceived as a crisis, and policy attention has shifted to another area of perceived crisis: climate change. The fall of salinity as a policy issue is remarkable. At one point it dominated all discussions about the environment in Australia, and now it seems to be hardly mentioned outside Western Australia. Even when an issue is perceived to be in crisis, it doesn't necessarily follow that research results will be noticed and acted on. For example, research that challenges preconceptions will tend to be dismissed, especially when there is a lot of momentum behind a particular view of the issue.

Timing issues. “Information must be timely to be useful” (Jacobs, 2002, p.9). “Policy generally moves faster than science, and the capacity of science to provide information may require more time than policy makers are willing to accept, especially for politically hot issues” (Clark et al., 1998, p.9).

Difficulty getting access. Policy makers often rely primarily on locally based and trusted experts with whom they are familiar. This is understandable, given the flood of information that policy makers can face on some issues, but it does not ensure that the most appropriate information is used, and it can make it very hard for new researchers or outside researchers to be heard.

Distrust. There may be suspicion about motivations of scientists, so that they are treated as just another interest or lobby group. The growth of public advocacy by some high-profile scientists feeds these suspicions. Even without overt advocacy, some environmental scientists tend to intertwine facts and values, and this affects the perceived independence of their scientific advice.

Incentives facing researchers. It may be that scientists are not conducting research that is relevant to policy, or not making efforts to make their science known to policy makers. “University reward systems rarely recognize inter-disciplinary work, outreach efforts, and publications outside of academic journals, which limits the incentives for academics to participate in real-world problem solving and collaborative efforts” (Jacobs, 2002, p.14). This probably helps to explain the observed lack of so-called “boundary spanners”, these being individuals who can link the worlds of science and management and translate the concerns of one to members of the other (Clark et al., 1998).

Communication problems. Research findings may be communicated in ways that policy makers cannot understand, using jargon, technical language, or mathematics. Conversely, policy makers also have a comprehensive set of jargon, and may have trouble expressing their information needs in ways that researchers can respond to.

Lack of expertise. In some situations there is rapid turnover or movement of staff in government policy agencies, leading to lack of expertise by responsible staff and lack of knowledge of relevant science and scientists. A culture may develop in government agencies that detailed subject knowledge is not necessary.

I believe that understanding of the adoption of new policy ideas by policy makers can be enhanced by a knowledge of the research literature on adoption of innovations (e.g. Pannell et al. 2006). Here are some generalisations from that literature that are relevant to the policy sphere:

Most potential adopters considering an innovation are sensibly cautious. They do not rush in, but seek information to improve their eventual decision about the innovation.
Where decision makers do not have personal experience with an innovation, they rely to some extent on external sources of information. As decision makers gain personal experience, this tends to have a dominant influence on their perceptions and their actual behaviour.
External sources of information are given more or less weight depending on factors such the expertise and credibility of the information source, the relevance of the external information to the decision maker’s circumstances, and the number of external sources reinforcing the message with similar information.
Apparently misguided decisions to adopt or not adopt an innovation can often be easily understood and seen as reasonable if one makes the effort to learn about the objectives and perceptions of the individual decision makers involved.
Many factors influence the speed of adoption of an innovation. Key ones include: the extent to which adopting the innovation is superior to maintaining existing practice; the ease with which the innovation can be observed and evaluated; the number of other potential adopters who have already adopted it; and the intensity and quality of efforts to promote the innovation.

Climate Change and Biodiversity - Letter to the Editor

2008-09-10T09:20:00.004+10:00

Letter to the Editor of New Zealand Geographic (submitted but not yet published) by Ian Spellerberg FEIANZ, CEnvP. Ian is Professor of Nature Conservation, Lincoln University and President of the New Zealand Chapter of EIANZ.

Dear Editor,

Congratulations on your editorial in the September-October issue of New Zealand Geographic. I hope that all New Zealand politicians read your editorial and take your message very seriously.

Climate change may well be 'the most significant geographical story of our generation'. However, climate change is but a symptom of our unsustainable use of the environment and nature. Addressing the symptoms is one thing but we need to put far greater effort into dealing with the causes.

In my opinion, the amount of attention devoted to climate change is unjustified and overshadows a far more significant and widespread problem. That is, the unsustainable and inequitable use of nature. In support of this statement, I would draw the attention of the readers of New Zealand Geographic to the results of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment published in 2005. This report is by far the most compelling argument about the degradation of ecosystems. The implications are diverse and long lasting.

Human unduced climate change is a fact and it will have serious and long-term consequences. More serious is the fact that that we have exploited nature's sources, services and sinks to the extent that there are now long-term and serious consequences.

"...the amount of attention devoted to climate change is unjustified and overshadows a far more significant and widespread problem. That is, the unsustainable and inequitable use of nature".

Humans depend on plants, animals and ecosystems for food and fibre. The quality or the water we drink, the quality of the air we breath, the quality of the soils we use, and the quality of human life is all dependent on the diversity within nature and the services provided by nature.

The losses of agricultural land, losses of genetic diversity, damage to fish populations, increasing biosecurity risks, and the growing number of taxa that are now threatened are but a few of the dire consequences of the unsustainable interplay between nature and humanity.

Human impact on the diversity of nature is surely the most significant biological story of our generation and one that is desperately in need of far greater attention and better understanding.

Quo Vadis, Ecology? Or, back to the future?

2008-09-09T20:33:00.006+10:00

In this 21st century, ecology should be central to national and international debates? Yet many ecologists lament that politicians don't listen to them, yet do, for example, listen to the hot air from the climate club.

One of our problems as a profession is that it is less clear now than 50 years ago what ecology is, and how it relates to broader societal concerns. For the last 22 years we have had the concept of biodiversity now solemnised into a UN Convention, and high up the political agenda of governments.

Or is it? I remember, at the 1990 IUCN World Congress in Perth, Western Australia, nearly choking on a prawn as my Minister at the time told me that they "really understood this biodiversity stuff now". The choking was largely due to a meeting held a week or so previously with senior biological and ecological figures where it was clear they didn't understand what biodiversity was about - and it seemed unlikely that an Australian Minister would have the advantage on them. (This is not however, an immutable law!!).

But recently, a new idea has become widespread; ecosystem services. It's actually a very helpful concept and area. But one consequence of closer working relationships is a blurring between biodiversity and ecosystem services. The EU study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) shows this very clearly - it's supposed to be about biodiversity, but is largely about ecosystem services.

Of course they are connected, but our biggest challenge in the next 50 years in to show how ecology is a vital underpinning for understanding biodiversity, and at the same tim, can provide insight into how ecosystems can function. And we need to grow up from narrow roots and realise that ecology is a global science that can be practised everywhere.

There is a new aspect of ecology called macroecology, which sounds useful, yet the journal dedicated to it is about as impenetrable as you can get. But the concept and idea is great - looking at large scale pattern. Understanding and explaining these patterns on earth are just what we need to be able to make headway politically. Yet - isn't this what we used to call natural history? While I'm not advocating a return to ecological information being largely the province of men of the cloth, the idea that observation and monitoring are vital aspects of ecology needs to be reclaimed. And while modelling is really useful, it must be informed by ecological sense and intuition.

The message I think is this: we need to be more proactive in taking ecological messages to the global community; to show how ecological thought and science can help the management of biodiversity at all its levels, and by working more closely with other disciplines really project the messages we think are important.

Then we will be listened to - sometimes, at least!!

Article by Peter Bridgewater, CEnv FIEEM (UK). Chair, UK Government Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peter Bridgewater was trained in Australian Universities, has been secretary general of the Ramsar Convention and Chief Executive of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. The article was written as Editorial for the IEEM Bulletin In Practice, No. 61, September 2008.

EIANZ Submission to Senate Inquiry

2008-08-28T16:39:00.003+10:00

The Senate has now processed our submission to the EPBC Act Inquiry. This can now be downloaded (279kB) in full from the committee's website. We are again very grateful to those of you who were able to complete the questionnaire and apologise to those who were not able to do so before it closed. We received 172 responses in just 24 hours and decided to analyse these, so we could present our findings as soon as possible.

On the basis of comments received, EIANZ was able to make the following recommendations to the Senate:

To find a way to substantially improve recognition, at the senior-management and office-floor level, of the true relationship between threatened species and overall biodiversity management, as it relates to the objectives of the EPBC Act. Ultimately, this needs to underpin a ‘re-education’ of the public, as to the real economic value of biodiversity.
To find a way to identify and implement basic policy needed to make the Act work. These policies are far-ranging and in many cases, do not need to be particularly prescriptive. They should mostly be geared towards identifying appropriate needs, requirements and standards where this is not readily available to planners and the public. EIANZ Ecology is particularly interested in any opportunity to develop national guidelines for ecological impact assessment. This process has been achieved recently by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and the UK government.
To consider how the implementation of the Act could be made more efficient, by a cross-pollination of experience and ideas between public administrators and the private consulting sector, who work daily within the planning legislation and have either very strong academic or practical experience credentials.
The profession is just as concerned about poor standards within the consulting trade, as much as lack of skills in the public sector. The success of environmental legislation like the EPBC Act depends on us as much as it does on the government. We would like to consider how minimum qualifications / experience, as reflected through Full and Association membership of Institutes like EIANZ and the Certified Environmental Practitioner (CEnvP) process, could be better recognised.
To consider how the scope of Australia’s commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) could be realised through more over-arching biodiversity controls. Our members believe the Act fails because the scope is limited to threatened species, whilst biodiversity management is more holistic. In order to protect threatened species, the EPBC Act cannot only apply to them alone – even though they may be triggers to decide at which locations the Act should apply. In accordance with Part 3 and Part 3A of the Act, it exists to maintain and enhance biodiversity as a whole, consistent with Australia's obligations to the CBD. If a threatened species is relevant, then it survives due to its relationship with whole-site ecology (all species are linked together in the landscape). Perhaps once triggered, the regulations and policy should apply to the landscape in question, not simply the controlling provisions. If this were to occur, it could begin to address another concern of members that is the limited scope of Commonwealth intervention in major projects.
To consider how the current listing process can be strengthened, drawing on independent data and becoming more proactive, rather than reactive to species decline.

How Wind Turbines Cause Bat Deaths

2008-08-27T13:19:00.002+10:00

Erin F. Baerwald, Genevieve H. D'Amours, Brandon J. Klug, and Robert M.R. Barclay (2008) Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines Current Biology, Vol 18, R695-R696

According to Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary, "an atmospheric-pressure drop at wind-turbine blades is an undetectable—and potentially unforeseeable—hazard for bats", explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures. Bats are more susceptible to barotrauma (sudden changes in pressure) than birds and bat fatalities at wind turbines far outnumber bird fatalities at most sites. Bat respiratory systems are superficially similar to birds. In either case, when outside pressure drops, the lungs can over-expand, bursting surrounding capillaries. However, compared to bat lungs, bird lung systems are more rigid and tube-like and can more easily withstand sudden drops in air pressure...read more in Science Daily

Abstract: Bird fatalities at some wind energy facilities around the world have been documented for decades, but the issue of bat fatalities at such facilities — primarily involving migratory species during autumn migration — has been raised relatively recently. Given that echolocating bats detect moving objects better than stationary ones, their relatively high fatality rate is perplexing, and numerous explanations have been proposed. The decompression hypothesis proposes that bats are killed by barotrauma caused by rapid air-pressure reduction near moving turbine blades. Barotrauma involves tissue damage to air-containing structures caused by rapid or excessive pressure change; pulmonary barotrauma is lung damage due to expansion of air in the lungs that is not accommodated by exhalation. We report here the first evidence that barotrauma is the cause of death in a high proportion of bats found at wind energy facilities. We found that 90% of bat fatalities involved internal haemorrhaging consistent with barotrauma, and that direct contact with turbine blades only accounted for about half of the fatalities. Air pressure change at turbine blades is an undetectable hazard and helps explain high bat fatality rates. We suggest that one reason why there are fewer bird than bat fatalities is that the unique respiratory anatomy of birds is less susceptible to barotrauma than that of mammals.

Biodiversity in the Paddock: a Land Managers Guide

2008-08-26T16:57:00.007+10:00

CSIRO have just published a new Sustainable Ecosystems handbook on sustainability of native pastures.

Biodiversity in the Paddock (PDF, 4MB), is a practical field guide to help graziers and land managers achieve biodiversity outcomes alongside the utilisation of native pastures. (30 pages).

There is growing interest in the role of native pastures in landscape health and biodiversity conservation... read more.

IAIA Conference Proceedings Online

2008-08-26T16:16:00.002+10:00

The International Association for Impact Assessment's 2008 Conference Proceedings are now online and can be accessed here.

Animal Ethics Approval Requirements in Australia and New Zealand

2008-08-25T14:40:00.008+10:00

Please note - this information is currently in DRAFT form. We are still awaiting comments or feedback from some State and Territory agencies. Please let us know if you believe any of this information is incorrect.

Each of the seven Australian States, Northern Territory and New Zealand has separate Animal Welfare legislation.

Victoria
Queensland
Western Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory
New South Wales
South Australia
New Zealand

Note, animal welfare licensing is different to scientific permits. In most cases, consultants would need to apply for both, although some states have been able to ensure that the two processes run simultaneously. Check to make sure you have all the necessary licenses before commencing work.

In every case, investigation of animals for ecological impact assessment or survey comes under the broad definition of "science" or "research". The only difference is that in states such as Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, licensing is a recognised requirement. In Northern Territory and ACT , responsible authorities have never knowingly received an application and are completely unaware of the ecological consulting profession.

There is no Australian Commonwealth control of Animal Welfare matters as this does not fall under Commonwealth constitutional powers. Unfortunately, this means any consultancy operating in numerous States or NT must apply individually for, and pay for licences individually. Licence costs vary but in most cases are in excess of a few hundred dollars for three-year periods.

Although the precise legislation varies between jurisdictions, the general theme is the same. Any consultant applying for a licence or another authority would need to be conversant with individual requirements. The following information provides a guide about what to look for.

In every Australian jurisdiction, a State or Territory licence is required to do science or research involving animals. Animals are usually defined as any non-human vertebrates and may include cephalopods and fish, occasionally crustaceans but not usually other invertebrates. In some cases, walking through animal habitat would be a licensable activity, if carried out for "science". In some cases, consulting businesses may need to be recognised as an "institution" and in all cases, must be represented by a qualified Animal Ethics Committee (AEC).

All consultants will require an AEC and in some cases, consultants will have to have more than on AEC, suitable for different jurisdictions (e.g. Tasmania and South Australia do not recognise interstate AECs).

The penalties for operating without a licence in Australia are severe. In most cases, offences can result in criminal conviction and impose fines ranging from a few thousand dollars per offence, to over a hundred thousand dollars for companies, and individual prison sentences of up to a year.

In New Zealand, the requirements are quite different. Animal welfare licences are not required but institutions need to be recognised and develop a Code of Ethics, agreed to by an AEC and be consistent with policies of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. There is some consistency between the policy in Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand points to the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, which draws heavily on the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. In all cases therefore, the manner in which companies operate is determined by an appropriate policy.

First and foremost, companies must abide by the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, although each jurisdiction may also have its own policies for particular activities and a company's AEC may impose additional requirements. In all cases, there is a requirement to report on activities (number of animals, problems encountered etc). Reporting demands can require consultants to complete different forms for specific jurisdictions, either annually and / or as part of a three-year audit. Whether reports are sent to the company's AEC or to the responsible authority varies.

Animal welfare legislation has a firm place in Australian and New Zealand policy and the penalties for breach of compliance are rightly serious. It is quite likely that many consultancies are unaware of the need, by virtue of the fact that ACT and NT have never knowingly received such applications.

Consultants operating unlicensed could face a serious problem if found to be in breach of compliance whilst representing a client. This would clearly be contrary to EIANZ's professional Code of Ethics.

At the same time, the variation in licensing requirements can impose a substantial burden, particularly on small businesses. In limited instances where there has not yet been proper recognition of the profession, there is even the risk that consultants may have to apply for licences on a project-by-project basis. At several hundred dollars per project, this would be prohibitively costly.

Some of the Australian states are aware of these problems, the need for a more nationally-consistent framework, and are working very hard towards this. Others however, are currently unaware that ecological consultancy is a major focus of the animal welfare legislation. It is therefore important that we continue to uphold high standards and by offering assistant to the various administrations, ensure policy is appropriate to the needs of both the animals and the profession.

Changes to Animal Welfare Licensing (Tas)

2008-08-25T14:36:00.002+10:00

The Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) was amended on 29 July 2008, to include Cephalopods under the definition of "animal" and to revise the meaning of "animal research", to which licensing applies.

What is a Licensed Institution?

It is important to note that animal research performed by a licensed institution is exempted from the Cruelty and Aggravated cruelty provisions of the Act, provided it has Animal Ethics Committee approval and is conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice.
An institution can be any entity that wishes to conduct research or teaching, for example a school, university, pharmaceutical company, ecological surveyor or private individual with a particular animal research interest.

To be licensed, the institution must agree to comply with the approved Code of Practice – currently the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes.

The Act provides that animal research (as defined below) can only be conducted by institutions licensed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Water. Research by unlicensed institutions (or researchers) is an offence for which substantial pecuniary and/or custodial penalties exist.

What is an animal?
All live, non-human vertebrates and cephalopods. ‘Animal’ includes juvenile forms

What is animal research?
Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) defines animal research as a procedure, test, experiment, inquiry or study on an animal which:

is undertaken to develop, demonstrate or acquire knowledge, or techniques, in an area of science or teaching; and
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the welfare of the animal.

What is a significant adverse impact?
Anything that renders an animal either dead or less able to cope with its situation as evidenced by abnormal physiological or behavioural responses. The significance of the impact must be assessed in context taking the following into consideration:

the environment in which the animal is being held, used and released into,
the nature of the animal, and
the physical and psychological state of the animal.

Observational studies where the animals are not handled, tagged or otherwise interfered with or the animal’s immediate environment is not entered or disturbed by that activity would not generally be considered to have a significant adverse impact on the animals.

For more information, go to the DPIW website:
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/CPAS-5JH6QT?open

Long Paddock Scientists Statement

2008-08-25T10:31:00.002+10:00

Please see below a message asking for scientists to support a letter that articulates the values of Australia's travelling stock route network as well as concern at threats it currently faces in both NSW and Queensland.

Details for how to support this statement are outlined in the letter below - it only takes approx 10 seconds to do!

Dear Fellow Scientists,

We are writing to request your support for a statement by scientists articulating the values of Australia's travelling stock route network as well as concern at threats it currently faces in both NSW and Queensland.

The Travelling Stock Route network provides a critical resource for biodiversity in our highly modified landscape. The urgency of this situation requires us to compile signatures by noon on 27th August, for formal launching of the statement on the 28th, and we apologise for that timeline. These things always take a huge effort and we don't control political timelines.

Since the 19th Century, the routes have provided an important resource to graziers. More recently it has been recognised that in extensively cleared landscapes, the network contains some of the best remaining examples of threatened vegetation, such as grassy white box woodlands. Being fairly straight lines they tend to sample the vegetation types fairly evenly, often better than our reserve system. Furthermore, the network of routes and reserves provides important connectivity over a vast area (over 3 000 000 ha across the two states). It is already well known to provide important resources for birds moving across the eastern states. The value of the network for movement of individuals and genetic material is heightened in an environment now adapting to changed climate
conditions. The network contains important historic and cultural heritage values.

Administrative changes imminent in NSW and Qld pose a threat to the network. In Queensland, it is likely that large areas will be subject to long term leases, allowing permanent grazing that is incompatible with the maintenance of biodiversity values. In NSW, the threat is even greater, as changes to the administering Act, likely to occur in September will make it probable that much of the network may be handed back to the Department of Lands and then leased for the long term or sold.
We thus ask you to read the attached statement and consider adding your support to that of other concerned Australian scientists in this 'Long Paddock Scientists' Statement'. Your professional details are not required, as we are asking for your personal support. However, we respectfully ask that in your reply you list your tertiary qualifications, as we feel this will add weight to the statement. Further, we would appreciate your help in sending this statement to fellow scientists with formal qualifications. For supporting scientists to be included in the statement we will require a return email from each, rather than a list of names. If you wish to sign then please send a reply email with your name and qualifications to longpaddockscientists@gmail.com.

Moving Toward a Global Biodiversity Observation and Measurement System

2008-08-22T08:26:00.003+10:00

From Science Magazine:

Biodiversity is a composite term used to embrace the variety of types, forms, spatial arrangements, processes, and interactions of biological systems at all scales and levels of organization, from genes to species and ecosystems, along with the evolutionary history that led to their existence. In part because of this complexity, universally applicable measures of biodiversity have proven elusive. Commonly used measures, such as the number of species present, are strongly scale-dependent and only reveal a change after species have been lost. Indices incorporating several proxy signals are potentially sensitive, but their arbitrariness obscures underlying trends and mechanisms. Integrated measures are both sensitive and achievable, but more research is needed to construct the globally robust relations between population data, genetic variation, and ecosystem condition that they require.

The paper goes on to reiterate the need for national to global-scale biodiversity measurements. This need was highlighted by the adoption of a target to "reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010" by the 190 countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

There is no widely accepted and globally available set of measures to assess biodiversity. Consequently, the community has fallen back on a range of existing data sets gathered for other purposes. Currently, in the CBD process alone, there are ~40 measures reflecting 22 headline indicators in seven focal areas... There is no general shortage of biodiversity data, although it is uneven in its spatial, temporal, and topical coverage. The problem lies in the diversity of the data and the fact that it is physically dispersed and unorganized.

The paper states that the solution to this problem is to organise the information currently available and to create systems whereby data of different kinds, from many sources, can be combined. The authors then go on to propose a new network, the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON) designed to help collect, manage, analyse, and report data relating to the status of the world's biodiversity. The new network would be based on the Global Earth Observation (GEO) platform.

The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) was launched in 2002 in response to the widely identified need for adequate information to support environmental decision-making. GEO is a voluntary partnership of 73 national governments and 46 participating organizations. It provides a framework within which these partners can coordinate their strategies and investments for Earth observation. The GEO members are establishing a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) that provides access to data, services, analytical tools, and modeling capabilities through a Web-based GEO Portal.

GEOBON aims to create a global network from multilateral collaborative efforts in the realm of biodiversity by linking and supporting individual efforts within an overarching scientific framework. It is proposed that GEOBON will allow the combination of top-down measures of ecosystem integrity from satellite observations (for example) with bottom-up measures of ecosystem processes, population trends of key organisms and genetic measures of biodiversity from field-based and molecular survey methods. The proposed role of GEOBON will be to guide data collection, standardisation, and information exchange. All participating organizations will retain their mandates and data ownership, but agree to collaborate in making part of their information accessible to others.

References
Scholes RJ, Mace GM, Turner W, Geller GN, Jürgens N, Larigauderie A, Muchoney D, Walther BA, Mooney HA (2008) Toward a Global Biodiversity Observing System. Science 321(5892) 1044-1045.

Landcare Research Symposium on Search and Detection (NZ)

2008-08-22T06:15:00.001+10:00

Landcare Research intends to hold a symposium of invited research papers on the theme of search and detection theory and its application to the control of wildlife diseases, pest and weed border biosecurity and island eradications, and conservation of rare plants and animals.

The symposium is partly funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology to provide better understanding of and the analytical and technical tools to detect the presence or absence of biota that are required to underpin research and management of several key problems facing New Zealand, and other countries, such as:

The feasibility of eradicating diseases such as bovine tuberculosis from wildlife vectors.
Designing optimal surveillance for national or internal border biosecurity for emerging diseases or new pests.
Certifying success of insular pest eradication operations.
Matching monitoring effort of rare ‘events’ with the costs and risks of being wrong.
Identifying the presence and distribution of rare or endangered species to focus protection management.

About 30 papers on key topics will be by invitation but additional papers will also be considered by submission of a title and brief abstract to John Parkes, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand (or to: parkesj AT land care research DOT co DOT nz).

Potential contributors should submit a title and brief abstract of their paper in the following format:

Title of paper (14 pt bold times roman)
Authors (12 pt bold times roman)
Address of first author (12 pt times roman)
Abstract (300 words, 12 pt times roman)

The symposium programme is being added to the website. Authors will be offered the opportunity to publish their papers as a ‘symposium proceedings’ in a suitable peer-reviewed journal. Others are welcome to attend.

Biodiversity body 'lacks science'

2008-08-15T04:30:00.003+10:00

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), is an international treaty that was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The Convention has three main goals:

conservation of biological diversity (or biodiversity);
sustainable use of its components; and
fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is currently the most important international political instrument dealing with the increasing threat of biodiversity loss. Almost every country in the world is party to the convention, and the work of implementation shapes the political process with respect to biological resources worldwide.

Swedish researchers have launched a scathing attack on the scientific credentials of the official scientific board advising the convention, warning that its effectiveness is being undermined by the increasing dominance of politicians and professional negotiators.

The researchers write in a letter published in Conservation Biology this month (Laikre et al. Conserv. Biol. 22, 814–815; 2008):

...the scientific board of the convention—the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)—is increasingly being politicized, effectively halting scientific discussion and progress, strongly limiting the quality of recommendations that will be taken to the decision-making biannual Conference of the Parties (COP). We stress the urgent need to improve the scientific input and influence in the CBD process.

Conservation scientist Michael Stocking of the University of East Anglia, says:

...the nomination system is “the core of the problem, in that these tend to be government nominees … not scientists who are up to date with the literature”. Countries that fund the CBD will have to insist on change for it to actually happen, says Stocking, who is vice-chair of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel for the Global Environment Facility, which administers the funding for the CBD.

The letter in Conservation Biology closes with this plea:

We urge our colleagues in science to become familiar with the current work of the convention. Find out who represents your country in the scientific body, provide your scientific input on the issues dealt with to those representatives, and stress the need for a scientific advisory function for CBD implementation within your country. Colleagues in the United States need to voice the importance of their country becoming a party to the CBD, thereby sharing the responsibility to secure and maintain biodiversity globally. The voices of conservation biologists worldwide are badly needed—please get involved in the CBD process now!

Federal Government Considering Legal Action over False Cape Abandonment

2008-08-14T09:59:00.004+10:00

Community video from YouTube video illustrating the scale of the erosion.

Article source : EDO Queensland Bulletin http://www.edo.org.au/edoqld/

False Cape remains an abandoned mess of a worksite since work stopped in early 2008 due to the developer’s financial constraints. Local Save False Cape campaigners have collected photo and video evidence showing the failure of erosion and sediment control measures on the site, adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This evidence was passed on to the federal Environment Department, who inspected the site in March and commissioned an expert in erosion and sediment control to assess the adequacy of the measures and what was required to stabilise the site for the upcoming wet season. The Department have refused to release the report but have recently advised that the Minister is considering taking action under the EPBC Act, after the developer refused to voluntarily fix the failed erosion and sediment control measures. Under the Act, the federal Environment Minister may revoke or suspend the approval or prosecute for breach of approval conditions.

Cairns Regional Council recently allowed a formal deputation from local Save False Cape campaigners to address their concerns that development approval conditions have not been complied with, and to recommended Council action. Council has advised that they are also considering all of their options in relation to the future of the development. Under Queensland planning laws, the Council could similarly revoke or suspend the approval or prosecute the developer for approval condition breaches.

Sadly the Queensland State Government has shown almost no interest in the environmental degradation that has been, and continues to be, occurring on site or in neighbouring waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area. Despite the local community conducting the bulk of monitoring of the site, they remain largely in the dark as to the results of assessments of compliance with approval conditions, and are left to simply trust that proper independent assessments have been undertaken and that all appropriate action will be taken to ensure that no further environmental harm is caused as a result of this controversial development.

EDO-NQ urges the local Council, the federal government and the state government to take action to remediate the site and to prosecute the developer for failing to comply with approval conditions regarding erosion and sediment control, of crucial importance in this sensitive area.

Download the entire bulletin here.

High Court rejects Tasmanian endangered species appeal (Tas)

2008-08-14T09:25:00.000+10:00

Article source : EDO Queensland Bulletin http://www.edo.org.au/edoqld/

Photo from Wikipedia Images by Fir2000

On 23 May 2008, the High Court, in a 2–1 split judgement, decided against an appeal by Greens Leader Bob Brown of the full Federal Court’s decision which overruled Justice Marshall’s 2006 ban on logging in Tasmania’s Wielangta Forest.

Justice Marshall found that the Swift Parrot, Wielangta Stag Beetle and giant Tasmanian Wedge-tailed eagle (all nationally-listed endangered species) were all at risk due to a loss of habitat from logging under Forestry Tasmania’s management.

Two months after Justice Marshall’s ban on logging in the area, then Prime Minister Howard and then Premier Lennon altered the Regional Forest Agreement to agree that, despite the court, it did protect these species. The High Court effectively ruled that this alteration, which has no parliamentary approval, overrode Justice Marshall’s judgement. This decision places Tasmania’s endangered species at an increased risk of extinction. The Court, citing public interest, did not award costs against Senator Brown.

Download the entire bulletin here.

EPBC Act Senate Inquiry Survey

2008-08-13T15:08:00.006+10:00

Thankyou to everyone who responded to the survey request and apologies to those who, when it came to responding, found that the survey had closed. The response was staggering with 172 people completing it over the course of 24 hours.

All submissions are posted to the Senate website.
Details of the EIANZ submission.

NSW & QLD ecological assessment guidelines

2008-08-13T13:48:00.005+10:00

Below are links to the main guidelines for ecological assessment in NSW. The 2004 document contains survey methodology and data collection as well as legislative assessment requirements (never progressed from draft though to my knowledge), while the 2007 document deals solely with requirements for legislative assessment under the NSW Acts. Note both documents refer only to threatened (protected) species.

TBSA Guidelines
DECC Guidelines

In QLD, guidelines for ecological assessment are most often provided, if at all, by local councils in or as an addendum to their planning schemes. For an example go to Brisbane City Council’s guidelines.

ECA NSW Annual Conference 4-5 Sep 2008

2008-08-12T11:04:00.002+10:00

Download the conference brochure

The role of the ecologist continues to increase and a far greater emphasis is placed on ecological issues than ever before in both NSW and Australia. Ecological site assessments and biodiversity impact statements continue to become more detailed, covering a wider range of technical issues and are under greater scrutiny from the community, the client and the consent authority.

As the role of the ecologist grows, so does the level of responsibility and accountability. Ecological advice and recommendations often become significant issues particularly in land use and planning matters, major developments and in the NSW Land & Environment Court.

This conference aims to provide an insight into the pitfalls and expectations associated with the role of ecologist in today’s environment.

Nature 2.0 - New Challenges for Ecologists in the Face of Climate Change

2008-07-24T12:42:00.004+10:00

Drawing on examples from Australia, Sharon Oosthoek wrote in New Scientist (5 July 2008 No 2663) "Nature 2.0" about the challenges for ecologists in the face of rapid environmental change, as a consequence of climate change, exotic species invasions and land fragmentation.

The following is a brief summary of the article. You can subscribe to New Scientist online and read the full article (2421 words) at: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926631.400

By definition, conservation is a status quo and in order to think outside the box, Timothy Seastedt from the University of Colorado argues conservationists have to "recognise that the box itself has moved, and in the 21st century will continue to move increasingly rapidly". He condones a process to reassemble ecosystems, selecting for the best survivors and maximising outcomes. Oosthoek reveals that, although this is viewed as controversial, we are already engineering changed ecosystems through our release of greenhouse gases and that non-governmental organisations like the World Wide Fund for Nature are already factoring change into decisions about where to direct their efforts. Australia is faced with a double whammy - dealing with over-clearing and fragmentation whilst trying to reassemble ecosystems that are drought resistant. According to Richard Hobbs, a restoration ecologist at Murdoch University in WA "people are thinking of bringing species from drier areas". As strange as this may seem, in other parts of the world similar things are happening naturally. In 2006, the first documented Grizzly Bear, Polar Bear hybrid a "Grizzlar" was shot by hunters in Canada. Accepting hybrids as a natural succession in human biodiversity management may be inevitable - what is the alternative? Hobbs agrees "to say you should not think about it is like putting your head in the sand".

Biodiversity & climate change conference 12 & 13 November, 2008

2008-07-24T11:45:00.002+10:00

Call for Papers The Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC) would like to invite submissions for the Call for Papers for the ‘Saving a Sunburnt Country’ conference, principally sponsored by the Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW.

Please note the (revised) dates of the conference in case you wish to attend. To indicate your interest in either presenting a paper/attending the conference please reply by email, or register by email on our website at www.nccnsw.org.au/sunburntcountry or fill out and return the form provided in the attachment.

Themes:

How Australian species and ecosystems might respond to climate change
The effect on human society of changes to biodiversity and ecosystem functions caused by climate change
Planning for higher temperature scenarios and other climate induced changes – the challenges of assisting mitigation and adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems
What further contributions, research, planning and innovations on the part of community and government are available to protect our biodiversity and ecosystems.

Abstracts due: 11 August, 2008
(Please contact us if an extension of time for submission of abstracts is required)

We would be most grateful if you could bring this event to the attention of your colleagues and friends and distribute it through your network

Thank you for your interest

Phoebe Ashton
Biodiversity Project Officer
Nature Conservation Council of NSW
Tel: (02) 9279 2466
Email: pashton@nccnsw.org.au

Importation of Savannah Cats Under Review

2008-07-22T19:36:00.006+10:00

Source: Jason Douglas, Wikimedia Commons

DECISION - on 24 July 2008 the Federal Minister made a decision not to allow the importation of Savannah Cats. Full reasons can be read here.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett has initiated a review of the potential impacts of hybrid Savannah Cats. The Savannah is a hybrid domestic cat breed. It is a cross between the serval and a domestic cat (image here). Owners boast at the species being able to jump 20 feet and grow to be 25-30 lbs. The draft assessment report is available for public comment for 20 business days, closing on 17 July 2008. Details of the invitation to comment and how to respond are available on the DEWHA website at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/invitecomment/index.html

The department will review all comments received and any additional information provided in preparing the report. It will then be provided to the Minister for consideration.

Ecology at the EIANZ October Conference

2008-07-22T17:17:00.020+10:00

ECOLOGY AT THE EIANZ CONFERENCE: 30-31 October 2008

A session was convened on Australian and New Zealand Ecology In Practice. We discussed completion of a Position Statement on Biodiversity and talked about how to move forward in developing Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment.

Useful reading:
EIANZ Ecology's Best Practice Forum
Ecological Society of Australia - Ecological Factors in Environmental Impact Assessment

Friday from 2:45 to 5:15 pm Biodiversity

The afternoon began with a presentation by Dr Sue Briggs (NSW DECC / CSIRO) on biodiversity management. She is practised in natural resources management and policy development with particular knowledge of woodland and wetland ecology. Sue has been instrumental in developing the Biobanking legislation in NSW.

Our second presentation was by Mark Pizey, Solid Energy's South Island Environment Manager in New Zealand. Mark has been employed in the mining industry for 28 years working in all sectors including metalliferous, alluvial, quarrying and coal mining, both in New Zealand and overseas. For the past thirteen years Mark has been involved heavily with the development and expansion of new mining projects in New Zealand and overseas, managing several large scale mine consenting programs through the preparation and application stages.

Our final presentation was from Professor Mark Burgman from the University of Melbourne. He spoke on the subject of using of experts in ecological risk analysis.

Abstract: Uncertainty is pervasive in ecological risk analysis. Decisions are necessary, despite lack of knowledge about systems, processes and parameters. In such circumstances, we build simple models of ecological systems to formalize our thinking, identify critical data and explore the potential consequences of management alternatives. To do so, we rely on expert judgements of cause and effect, and of the values of variables. Experts are susceptible to a range of psychological and contextual frailties. We have developed some simple protocols for elicitation that overcome some of the most serious weaknesses, allowing us to use expert judgements with greater confidence.

Mark's main interests are in applying model-based risk assessment to problems in conservation biology. He also runs research projects on the subject of improving accuracy and intelligibility of decisions for conservation and has recently, amongst other things, looked at the role of expert witnesses. Mark's experience in practical ecology, risk assessment and decision-making places him at the forefront of practical and applied ecological thinking in Australia.

Climate Change and Invasive Aquatic Species

2008-07-18T08:31:00.002+10:00

The journal Biodiversity Conservation has just published a special section titled: A Synthesis of Climate-Change Effects on Aquatic Invasive Species

Responses of birds to the characteristics of farm windbreaks in central New South Wales, Australia

2008-07-18T08:19:00.002+10:00

Kinross, C., and Nicol, H. (2008). Responses of birds to the characteristics of farm windbreaks in central New South Wales, Australia. EMU 108, 139–152.

A Charles Sturt University, PO Box 883, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia. B Nicol Consulting, Dalyup, 95 Ophir Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia. C Corresponding author. Email: ckinross@csu.edu.au

Abstract In parts of Australia where the clearing of native vegetation has been widespread the establishment of windbreaks is a common farming practice. There is some evidence that birds respond to certain characteristics of windbreaks, particularly width. This is the first study to investigate such effects in Australia. Six properties, containing 61 windbreak sites, were surveyed for birds 12 times between 1993 and 1997. Generalised linear models were used to test relationships between 19 predictor variables and bird community attributes, including the densities of 14 species of birds. Canonical variate analysis was undertaken to discriminate among four types of windbreaks and their avifauna. Species known to be declining in the region and uncommon (<100 observations) woodland birds were more abundant in wider and more floristically diverse windbreak sites. Several native species had a positive response to tree-height, density of understorey, structural diversity, the proportion of native plant species in the site or the proximity of remnant bushland. The density of introduced bird species, as a group, was strongly negatively related to the proportion of native plants and, for one species, Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), to width of windbreak. Recommendations for windbreak design are provided and include: using a diversity of native plants; providing adequate width, preferably over 20 m; and having a diversity of understorey densities. It is also recommended that patterns of experimental windbreaks are created that could be used for formal hypothesis testing.

Inquiry into the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

2008-06-25T23:54:00.007+10:00

The Australia Institute published a discussion paper in 2005 on how effective the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) had been in the first five years of its operation (Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005).

The paper specifically considered the following questions:

are the activities that are threatening the environmental issues covered by the EAA regime being appropriately regulated?
have the lists of threatened species, threatened ecological communities and national heritage places, which are linked to the EAA regime, been appropriately maintained?
has the Commonwealth taken adequate steps to ensure that people comply with the EAA regime?
have the bilateral agreements resulted in improvements in state and territory environmental laws and reduced unnecessary duplication?
has there been any improvement in the condition of the environmental issues covered by the EAA regime?

The paper concluded by saying of the Act’s environmental assessment and approval (EAA) regime:
"In almost all areas, the regime has failed to produce any noticeable improvements in environmental outcomes. The activities that pose the greatest threat to the Act’s ‘matters of national environmental significance’ are rarely being referred to the Minister and, when they are, the Minister is not taking adequate steps to ensure appropriate conservation results. In five years, the EAA provisions have been responsible for stopping only two activities out of potentially thousands and the conditions that have been imposed on developments under the regime have largely been ineffectual, unenforceable or a mirror of those already imposed under other processes". The terms of reference for an inquiry into the operation of the EPBC Act are now up on the Australian Government website. Submissions are due 5th September 2008.

The inquiry terms of reference state:
(1) The Senate notes the continuing decline and extinction of a significant proportion of Australia's unique plants and animals, and the likelihood that accelerating climate change will exacerbate challenges faced by Australian species.

(2) The following matters be referred to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2008:

The operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and other natural resource protection programmes, with particular reference to:

the findings of the National Audit Office Audit 38 Referrals, Assessments and Approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
lessons learnt from the first 10 years of operation of the EPBC Act in relation to the protection of critical habitats of threatened species and ecological communities, and potential for measures to improve their recovery;
the cumulative impacts of EPBC Act approvals on threatened species and ecological communities, for example on Cumberland Plain Woodland, Cassowary habitat, Grassy White Box Woodlands and the Paradise Dam;
the effectiveness of responses to key threats identified within the EPBC Act, including land-clearing, climate change and invasive species, and potential for future measures to build environmental resilience and facilitate adaptation within a changing climate;
the effectiveness of Regional Forest Agreements, in protecting forest species and forest habitats where the EPBC Act does not directly apply;
the impacts of other environmental programmes, eg EnviroFund, GreenCorps, Caring for our Country, Environmental Stewardship Programme and Landcare in dealing with the decline and extinction of certain flora and fauna; and
the impact of programme changes and cuts in funding on the decline or extinction of flora and fauna.

EIANZ members in Australia have practical experience working with the EPBC Act and are encouraged to make a submission to the inquiry on any of the above points.

Reference
Macintosh A, Wilkinson D. 2005. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act - A Five Year Assessment. The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 81, July 2005, Melbourne.

Carbon Trading and Biodiversity Credits

2008-06-20T03:44:00.005+10:00

Conservation biology began life as a crisis discipline, its central tenet to understand and help reverse losses of biodiversity and habitat (Armsworth et al 2007) . Those losses of biodiversity and habitat continue today, implying that conservation biology is not achieving its central aim. New tools for protecting habitat and biodiversity are urgently required if these losses are to be halted.

Carbon trading is an administrative approach used to control carbon emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon. Carbon trading was introduced as part of the Kyoto Protocol's goal to reduce industrial nations' greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012. The idea was that countries whose emissions fall under the emissions cap - the permitted level of CO2 equivalent emissions per year - could then sell those carbon credits to countries who are not able to meet their own caps.

An article in the June 2008 issue of Conservation Biology - Using Carbon Investment to Grow the Biodiversity Bank (Bekesy and Wintle 2008) - contains a novel and exciting proposal for halting biodiversity losses through a capped carbon trading regime. The authors propose simply that:

...investors should be allowed to reap the dual benefits of carbon and biodiversity credits from one parcel of land and those credits could later be traded on the relevant markets.

This is proposed as a response to the current approaches to carbon emissions offsetting which rely largely on investment in monoculture plantations. The authors go on to say that:

[the proposed scheme is] ...more robust to uncertainty about carbon sequestration and is guaranteed to have broad environmental benefits, including restoration of degraded natural systems and endangered species habitats. The proposed scheme provides a mechanism for investing in the world's most threatened ecosystems that makes carbon, biodiversity, and financial sense.

This is topical at the moment due to a convergence of a number of powerful factors: In 2007 Rupert Murdoch declared that News Corporation would be carbon neutral across all of its businesses by 2010, committing to reducing and offsetting its greenhouse gas emissions. This follows commitments by the World Bank Group, Formula One, and VirginBlue, among other large economic interests. On 30 April 2007 Australia's Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments commissioned an independent study by Professor Ross Garnaut into the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy. The Garnaut Review's Final Report is due on 30 September 2008, with a Draft Report due by 30 June 2008. The review will recommend medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity. The New Zealand Government currently has a bill for emissions trading schemes before a select committee. Various reports by a range of groups support the scheme but differ in opinion as to how it should be implemented, and the proposed bill appears to currently be stalled in parliament without sufficient votes to pass in it's current form.

The Garnaut Climate Change Review's approach to climate change mitigation was initially set out in the Interim Report released in February 2008. That report stated that:

Australia must now put in place effective policies to achieve major reductions in emissions. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the centre-piece of a domestic mitigation strategy.

That proposed ETS was described in a discussion paper released in March 2008. Public forums on the Draft Report will be held in a number of capital cities across Australia from 7 to 11 July 2008. This presents an valuable opportunity for ecological practitioners and concerned persons to make their voices heard in these important discussions. These public forums appear to be an ideal place for the powerful idea of biodiversity credits tied to carbon trading to be raised and debated in public. EIANZ members are encouraged to use their voices and expertise to shape these pieces of legislation with the potential to reverse some of the sustained environmental damage that has occurred over the last few decades.

References:

Armsworth PR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Kremen C, Ricketts TH, Sanjayan MA (2007) Ecosystem-Service Science and the Way Forward for Conservation Conservation Biology 21 (6), 1383-1384.

Bekesy and Wintle (2008) Using Carbon Investment to Grow the Biodiversity Bank Conservation Biology 22 (3), 510-513

Valuing Nature in Biodiversity

2008-06-16T20:01:00.007+10:00

A new BBC series has just begun on BBC World News. The following excerpt introduces the program which started this evening. There are a number of matters that pertain either directly or indirectly to Australia, from the value of Coral Reef services to the role of Fruit Bats in agriculture.

The role of practising consultants would be taken more seriously if there was better recognition of the true value of biodiversity sustainability both by within and outside the profession. There are a number of enlightening articles on the subject of Ecological Economics in the latest In Practice from the UK Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management.

The growth in biodiversity valuation with schemes like the New South Wales Biobanking and an increasing interest in business biodiversity practice in major investors is a subject of considerable influence for the modern ecological professional. Follow this link to read the latest principles for biodiversity offsets established by the London-based Business and Biodiversity Programme (BBOP).

View program schedule.

Australia's wetland birds in critical decline

2008-06-03T22:46:00.002+10:00

A recent study of Australia’s wetlands has revealed that 81% of resident wading birds have disappeared in just a quarter of a century throughout the mostly inland habitats of eastern Australia. The paper, published in Biological Conservation, reported that agricultural extraction, lack of rainfall, and inadequate water allocation may have caused the steep declines. Scientists from the University of New South Wales undertook aerial surveys of wetlands in eastern Australia between 1983 and 2006. During the monitoring period all resident wading birds declined.

The steepest drop was observed in Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor whose population plummeted by 98%. Further significant falls were detected in Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra novaehollandiae (-85%), Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus (-80%), and Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles (-69%)...read more.

OECD review on Australia's performance towards sustainable development

2008-06-03T14:26:00.002+10:00

On 19 May 2008, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published its review on Australia's performance towards sustainable development.

The OECD's full Conclusions and Recommendations can be downloaded as a PDF.

The OECD was positive about Australia's achievements in acquiring new reserve areas for the land and marine environment (although these are not considered comprehensive and representative); also measures to halt deforestation and more national-scale management. At the same time, it was critical of the downward trend in conservation status of Australia's species and that "overall conservation efforts have not been proportional to the economic benefits derived through tourism and environmental services from nature and biodiversity conservation". The report suggests that there is room for improving the integration of biodiversity into land use planning and that lack of taxonomic and trend data means policy-relevant data does not always exist.

The OECD made the following recommendations specifically in terms of nature and biodiversity:

further increase the terrestrial and marine are under formal protection while progressing towards the objective of a comprehensive and representative reserve system;
persevere with objectives to protect, manage and restore wetlands;
strengthen the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities through coordination of recovery plans and pest management plans on the regional level;
ensure that regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) plans give due consideration to biodiversity values on private land, as appropriate; ensure effective off-reserve conservation;
enhance the collection of taxonomic data and collation of nationally coherent information.

According to Science Alert (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20080505-17269.html)

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the government had pre-empted some of the recommendations with its new $2.25 billion Caring for our Country program announced in March.

The program focuses on six national priorities including improving the national reserve system, protecting biodiversity, fostering sustainable farm practices and improving natural resource management in remote and northern Australia.

ACT/VIC Seminar Invititation - Can Whaling in Antarctica be Stopped?

2008-04-30T15:52:00.003+10:00

The Federal Court has declared Japanese whaling in Australia’s Antarctic waters is unlawful under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) and granted an injunction restraining it. This seminar explores the legal and policy implications of the decision in the Japanese Whaling Case.

Monash University (Melbourne), Wednesday 7 May 2008, 6 – 7.30 pm
Start time will be 6 pm for tea and coffee, 6.30 – 7.30 pm for the seminar
Monash University Law Chambers 472 Bourke St, Melbourne
RSVP: see PDF via link above

Australian National University (Canberra) Tuesday 6 May 2008, 5.30 – 7:00 pm
Theatre 2, Sparke Helmore Law Theatres (Building 6A)
Fellows Road, Australian National University, Canberra
RSVP: see PDF via link above

Offsite Impacts and the EPBC Act

2008-04-28T09:16:00.003+10:00

Consideration of off site impacts is a basic principle of ecological impact assessment. Since substantial test cases and changes to legislation and policy at the Federal level, the term 'off site' has become an oxymoron. Where impacts are concerned, the effect is very much within the geographic boundary of an assessment, as statutorily defined.

In the high profile Nathan Dam case (Environment Defenders Office press release) the courts ruled that pollution effects of downstream irrigation should have been part of the original assessment process. The impacts in this case, were to be felt as far as the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. On 19 February 2007, substantial amendments to the EPBC Act came into force to better reflect this ruling.

The new section 527E defines an impact as an "event or circumstance" that is a direct or indirect consequence of an action, where the indirect impact must be "substantially caused" by the action. This clarifies that indirect impacts are material to the approvals process but limits this to the "primary action", except where the primary action "facilitates, to a major extent" the secondary action and the secondary action is "within the contemplation of the primary person" or a "reasonably forseeable consequence of the primary action".

The amended Act says that criminal and civil offences would not apply to a person acting at the direction or request of the proponent, where this "secondary" impact is a consequence of a "secondary" action. In other words, an individual could not be prosecuted for polluting a waterway whilst driving a car on a road built by a highways agency. It is nonetheless expected that a proponent still address all adverse impacts when seeking approval.

There is no impunity for omitting to assess an effect in the first place. Consultants need to give careful thought to the full scope of potential indirect effects on matters protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act, even if these are well beyond the construction footprint of the development. Accordingly, consultants should advise their clients to do an impact assessment of any effects that are:

substantially caused by the primary action and are
reasonably foreseeable; or
contemplated by the proponent.

References
Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 - Matters of National Environmental Significance (PDF - 743 KB)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Resources at the landscape scale influence possum abundance

2008-04-28T09:01:00.002+10:00

Harper, M.J, McCarthy, M.A. & Van Der Ree, R. (2008). Austral Ecology, 33(3): 243-252

The authors found that processes originating from outside a remnant patch may influence ecological processes within. The study looked at the abundance of Ring-tailed and Brush-tailed Possums in Melbourne and found that food availability outside the remnant but den availability within the remnant was responsible for increasing abundance.

Abstract: There is increasing realization that human perceptions of a ‘patchy’ environment do not necessarily relate to that of a particular organism and ecological characteristics of land adjacent to patches of natural vegetation (‘remnants’) may influence the ecological processes within. We investigated how the distribution and abundance of resources within and surrounding 39 small remnants located within the city of Melbourne, Australia, influenced the abundance of common brushtail possums Trichosurus vulpecula (Phalangeridae) and common ringtail possums Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Pseudocheiridae), two primarily folivorous marsupials. Bayesian modelling techniques were used to relate the abundance of both possum species to estimates of den and food availability both within the remnant and within a 100-m buffer strip extending out into adjacent residential development. We found that both brushtail and ringtail possum abundance within remnants increased with the density of potential den sites within the remnant and food availability within the surrounding landscape. Ringtail possum density within the remnant further increased with den availability within the surrounding landscape. Our results lend support to the hypothesis that, in highly modified landscapes, processes originating outside a remnant vegetation patch may influence the abundance of species within.

Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and overpasses

2008-04-23T16:27:00.002+10:00

Bond, A.R. & Jones, D.N.
Wildlife Research 2008, 35(2): 103-112

The impact of roads on local biodiversity is a major issue associated with urbanisation. A major arterial road in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, south-east Queensland, was upgraded in 2004–05 from two to four lanes. In an attempt to minimise the impact of the larger road on local wildlife populations, a range of fauna crossing structures were constructed at the site. Monitoring of road-kill was undertaken for 4 months before construction and after the completion of construction. Assessment of the use of two underpasses and a large overpass (‘land-bridge’) started 6 months after construction using sand tracking in underpasses and scat sampling on the land-bridge. An initial 26-week period of intensive monitoring was undertaken from August 2005 to February 2006 followed by monthly monitoring from June 2006 to June 2007. On average, 1–5 tracks per day were detected in the underpasses at the start of the survey, increasing steadily to ~42 tracks per day by February 2006. The monthly survey showed regular use of the underpasses by a wide range of species and species-groups, the most abundant being ‘rodents’, most likely Rattus species, both native and introduced. The land-bridge was also used continuously by three species of macropod (red-necked wallaby, Macropus rufogriseus; swamp wallaby, Wallabia bicolor; and eastern grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus) with brown hare (Lepus capensis) becoming increasingly common in summer 2006. The exclusion fencing was extremely effective in preventing most road-kill, at least of larger species, except following human-related breaches in the fence.

Best Practice Forum Apr 17 2008 Results

2008-04-20T21:16:00.045+10:00

Main Menu

Overview
Key Findings
Needs and Recommendations
Presentation Video - Ten Principles of Quality in Environmental Impact Assessment (Professor Murray Raff)
Panel Presentations (Charles Meredith and Matthew Townsend)
Podcasts

The forum was well attended and our thanks again go to RMIT for use of the room, Biosis for sponsoring food and wine and to our panel members, Professor Murray Raff, barrister Matthew Townsend and Director of Biosis Research, Charles Meredith.

The forum resulted in six key findings and a series of recommendations which will form the scope for future work by EIANZ Ecology.

We were grateful to have Professor Murray Raff of Canberra University introduce the forum with a presentation on principles of quality in EIA. Sections of the talk can be heard and seen by following the menu links above. A copy of the Powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here (680kB).

Much time was given to discussion of mentoring structures, such as there is for the legal profession, to facilitate understanding and provide support for ethical behaviour. Click on the 'play' button below to hear some of the discussion.

boomp3.com

This podcast is one of a number that can be accessed from the menu above.

LINK TO THIS PRESENTATION? This code will embed the above video and a link to the presentation main page, into your website (right click, choose 'select all' and then 'copy'):

Best Practice in Ecological Consulting Forum Overview

2008-04-20T21:07:00.011+10:00

Return to Main Menu

Overview

Murray Raff introduced the forum with a discussion of the ten principles of quality in environmental impact assessment, as determined by court cases in about 70 jurisdictions worldwide. EIA legislation is one of three areas he identified as being important drivers for 'best practice'. Others include accreditation by statutory authorities such as the EPA and other guidelines and standards developed by and for industry. Murray talked about why the introduction of environmental law, first in the United States, was pivotal in introducing foresight into the legal system which had traditionally depended on a discussion of historic precedent for decision-making and how this has become the model for Australian environmental law. Our legal system depends entirely on the provision of information and there is the assumption that this information is correct before a decision is made. The worse case scenario is that a decision is made and the information is incorrect or that the information to make a correct decision is not provided in the first place. This very much places the work of ecologists practising in Australia in a clear legal context.

This photo from the Wimmera of top soil erosion after agriculture illustrates the extent of what can go wrong if we fail to find the right information about environmental impacts.

The realisation of quality in EIA, the realisation of ecologically sustainable development and therefore, its legal integrity, depends heavily on the provision of reliable information and several of the ten principles relate more directly to the work of ecologists practising in Australia. For example, EIA must be done over viable time frames (Principle 5); must take a hard look at ecological consequences (Principle 9); and findings must be presented in clear language and methodologies explained (Principle 10). Murray was asked for his opinion on the apparent increase in the use of preliminary information and limited information for decision making. He noted a worrying trend towards the use of desktop information and that this was not just confined to Victoria (here).

The lack of information informing decisions in many cases limits the ability of ecologists to present findings that are consistent with EIA quality principles (listen to point 2 here). Nevertheless, we should be mindful that ecologists are not empowered to change this, except in so far as these limitations must be recognised in their reports. Matthew Townsend later supported this view by stating that caveats in the quality of work presented clearly at the head of reports was one of the basic standards by which the legal profession measured the honesty and therefore usefulness of consultants' work (listen to point 1 here).

Further reading:

Treweek (1996) Ecology and Environmental Impact Assessment
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management's Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom
Treweek (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment (limited review in Google Books)
What a Graduate Should Know: Survey Skills (IEEM, 2007)

Best Practice in Ecological Consulting Forum - Needs and Recommendations

2008-04-20T20:59:00.007+10:00

Return to main menu

There is need for:

Better skills in developing and presenting methods specifically for projects and to recognise the importance of realistic time frames for field data collection.
Better basic field naturalist skills in the academic system.
Improved professional development of young and up coming ecologists.
Better peer review of consultants' work by recognised senior professionals in the industry.

A general point that came up on a number of occasions was the need for realistic pricing of ecological work. Where ecological advice is under-priced, the value of the service to clients is often inhibited to a great degree.

Recommendations

Establishment of a formal ethics committee for EIANZ members

boomp3.com
boomp3.com

Mentoring, as part of membership and certification

boomp3.com

An overview of the scope of policies and activities of similar organisations worldwide - for example, IEEM and SoE provide useful models.
Production of a range of standards and guidelines about scientific methods and approaches to ecological impact assessment

boomp3.com
boomp3.com
boomp3.com

Best Practice in Ecological Consulting Forum Key Findings

2008-04-20T20:53:00.011+10:00

Return to main menu

Key findings from discussion about best practice:

Best practice cannot be singularly defined. It is a term used to market standards and guidelines that are otherwise produced in pursuit of best practice. Best practice is done in the context of a particular set of standards or guidelines relevant to a particular situation.
EIA legislation was developed to introduce some foresight into the legal process. Nevertheless, the legal system still mostly depends on past history to shape its decisions. In respect to the ecological profession, law may be construed as recognising a current standard, but not necessarily best practice.
Although the legal system can respond to standards and does play a role in upholding them and shaping their use, it cannot be expected to decided what standards are for other industries, especially as they can evolve quickly and often apply to very specific matters.
In other professions, standards of best practice are often developed by the members. Practising professional ecologists are well placed to create their own standards, as they have the necessary skills to know how best ecology is applied in the situations they work. There is often the naive view that he development of standards fall to the government or courts but those are not always in the interest of professionals or the environment. Standards are better set by the profession as a whole and in the absence of other suitable guidelines, recognised professional standards are given great weight by the legal profession.
The entire system, whether it be legal, social or scientific, points back to ecologically sustainable development. Best practice is defined by what needs to be done to achieve an appropriate conservation outcome.
Membership of organisations like EIANZ and the provision of certification, such as under the Certified Environmental Practitioner process, carry a commitment to a certain number of hours per year continued professional development. This commitment can be achieved through working on standards development with the Institute. Membership should be seen as more than just a personal stamp of approval but a way to progress the profession and recognise its role in long-term environmental management and ecologically sustainable development.

Podcasts

2008-04-20T20:19:00.016+10:00

Return to main menu

1. Matthew Townsend responds to question about what happens when you are forced to work to standards that are less than desirable.
boomp3.com
2. Charles Meredith responds to concern about the influence of clients' constraints of price on reducing quality of work.
boomp3.com
3. Charles Meredith responds to question about when it appropriate for the courts to decide outcomes. Alhough they are not always in a position to make a correct technical judgement, by and large they get it right and the precedents are very helpful. VCAT decisions in Victorian net gain are an example of a positive influence of the courts on ecological process. Murray Raff adds that discussion of ethics and standards is not limited to the courts. Groups like EIANZ are just as capable of reaching a concensus of understanding on a matter and that can also have influence.
boomp3.com
4. Matthew Townsend comments on wind farm guidelines that promote wind energy but do not provide any consistent best practice guidance for ecological consultants.
boomp3.com
5. Matthew Townsend responds to comments on short-comings of the legal model.
boomp3.com
6. Charles Meredith comments on setting of standards by the industry. Engineers have never been shy about doing this where they do not exist elsewhere. Ecologists tend to sit around ask when government are going to set standards. We as professionals, have a good idea what they are, can produce them ourselves and publish them e.g. as the EIANZ standards. Decision makers will measure decisions against those until something better comes along.
boomp3.com
7. Charles Meredith comments on some examples of trying to set standards for consultants without involving the profession and the problems this causes.
boomp3.com
8. Alan Chenoweth responds to a question from Matthew Townsend about the structure of EIANZ's accreditation and training processes, explaining the way that the Certified Environmental Practitioner process works and the role of the policy and practice committee.
boomp3.com
9. The discussion proceeds on the ramifications of having an ethical conduct committee where consultants could be charged for unethical conduct.
boomp3.com
10. EIANZ is establishing an alignment with the St James Institute for ethics but the discussion continued on the subject of EIANZ's own role in supporting ethical conduct and training amongst peers. Matthew Townsend continued by describing the process established for barristers, which includes senior mentoring and formal ethics advice, which is used often by those in the legal profession. A second model was suggested by Alan Chenoweth based on mentoring by people specifically appointed to individuals.
boomp3.com

Panel Presentations

2008-04-20T20:19:00.015+10:00

Return to main menu

Charles Meredith (Biosis) was asked to sit on a panel for discussion of best practice and introduced this session with the following short presentation, identifying two key points. First Charles identified the fact that courts will only usually apply existing practice, so the real challenge for the ecological profession is to move this forward, especially given a great deal of inertia in the system. Current best practice is only good practice now, rather than what may be necessary best practice in future. Charles also identified the importance of consequences as a driver for best practice. A great failure of the environmental system is that there are often no consequences for poor work. Esablishing standards to achieve best practice is best done through a robust appeal process that involves the public to a great extent.

Matthew Townsend (Barrister) took some time out to look at the use of best practice in a legal sense and found it had not been judicially defined. He introduced the panel to the view that it is a term used to market a set of guidelines or standards deemed to be appropriate for a given situation. Best practice should therefore only be read and understood in in terms of what is done in a given context. On a more practical basis, Matthew identified the need for individuals and their colleagues to do their own research to decide what may be appropriate for a particular circumstance. The legal profession relies heavily on the honesty of its experts so whereas there may be a temptation to do less, under pressure from clients, lawyers only want someone who has independent integrity.