MORE NATURE!!
What do I mean?
I want areas of natural vegetation cover expanded;
especially areas that have some level of protection of their biodiversity.
I want biodiversity to increase; not to continue to slide…
I want, generally speaking, numbers of each native species,
from insects to Eastern Grey Kangaroos to increase. I want to save endangered
species and I want common species to become, if at all possible, abundant
again.
The greater Sunshine Coast area has the potential to become
one of the showcase areas for biodiversity and biodiversity protection in
Australia. And to do so, in many cases, we need to continue and expand
programmes that we have already established. We just need the imagination and
will to do it.
[The following descriptions deal with the Sunshine Coast
Council area. This does not diminish the fact that the Sunshine Coast Area, as
far as Birdlife Australia is concerned, includes Noosa council area and other
places besides. Generalisations about SCC can, most likely, be applied to other
areas.]
First, What do we have in terms of protected biodiversity?
Within the SCC area we have a variety of protected public areas thus far. We
have a National Park estate within SCC of over 40 000 hectares, administered
not by our federal government but the state authorities. We have 5500 hectares
protected by our Councils. We have private land protected as wildlife refuges
and by conservation covenants [some 3000 hectares], again authorised by council.
SCC has the most successful Land for Wildlife scheme in the nation with nearly
1200 private land owners protecting 8500 number of hectares of invaluable
biodiversity on private land. SCC has established the Blue Heart Area – an area
of some 5000 hectares – on the floodplains east of Yandina. A major part of
which is the Unitywater owned Yandina Creek Wetlands; a valuable lowland
freshwater reserve – The Yandina Creek Wetalnds was a conservation scheme
instigated by Greg Roberts that was unique in that it succeeded! Notwithstanding
that Greg is both a knowledgeable birder, conservationist and journalist; this
remains a powerful example of the effect a committed individual can have. [Note
to self – Encourage Greg Roberts to pen a ‘How to save a Wetland
campaign’.]
It is an excellent
start but there is much more to do.
The first thing is to want more land of biodiversity value [public
and private] protected otherwise significant natural vegetation that remains
will continue to be eroded – cleared or modified. It is much better to have
land protected prior to development plans.
Here we, the community, need to apply pressure to
government. Government, of all levels, is both our ally and an enemy for while
they are motivated, in part, to respect environmental law and protect our
biodiversity, for them [and sadly the community they represent] the environment
is but one issue of many. Governments, too, may lack necessary ambition.
Case in point a statement from the SCC’s own Biodiversity
Report of 2020.
This report states as a goal that by 2040 the Sunshine Coast
has as much land under natural vegetation as in 2016. They also state, perhaps
by way of preparing their excuses, if this rather unambitious target is
unsuccessfully reached that the responsibility of this target is the
community’s not just councils.
Let’s reflect a moment on these statements.
First – while
this is a council statement, a council target, they remind all that it is not
their responsibility alone. It is a good reminder, if we needed one, that we
are ignorant to blindly rely on government [at any level] for the conservation
of our biodiversity.
Second - No
negative natural vegetation losses from
2016 levels to 2040.
First question –
Why 2016? What makes 2016 the golden year in terms of natural vegetation cover?
To me this is a classic example of Shifting
Baseline Syndrome.
To put it in its
simplest terms, Shifting Baseline
Syndrome is basically the
way in which humans, and every generation essentially, lowers its standards
over the course of time. These generations are not lowering their standards
on purpose, or because they have any negative goal, but simply because they
don’t know any better. It is the idea that things were better in the ‘old
days’. If we limit our view of the old days as ‘the oldest days in my lifetime’
we may not have a great reference point for what abundance the environment may
be able to sustain and therefore could be satisfied with only very minor
improvements or losses.
Our environments
are suffering the death of a thousand cuts – Shifting Baseline Theory neatly
hides the extent of the injuries and thus makes seeking appropriate remedy more
difficult.
So what should we learn from Shifting Baseline Syndrome? I think that by knowing about it we
guard against it. And we should remind governments, acting on our behalf, if
their judgements are being affected.
 |
| Shifting Baseline Syndrome - changing environmental conditions lead to differing expectations with each decade. The knowledge of what is truly lost is lost. |
We should also set more ambitious environmental targets. If,
for example, we accept the 2016 target for natural vegetation are we not guilty
of continuing to allow the slide of environmental degradation? My thinking is
that we must not just protect what we had in 2016 but expand the areas of
natural vegetation and, especially, protected areas of natural vegetation. [I
appreciate this is reasonably simplistic as we also must take into account what
habitats have been degraded the most? In other words not all areas of natural
vegetation are the same.]
Perhaps our local governments should be persuaded to spend
more of their environmental budget towards land acquisition as this strategy
would prove to be more economically and environmentally sustainable in the mid
to long terms. Each year the SCC raises some 9.3 million dollars via
environmental levies; of this 3.6 million is spent on land acquisition. While I
am not saying that land acquisition is the only important thing perhaps it is
the most important…
Our state government
also needs to be lobbied against when they set poor targets or fail to reach
the ones they set.
Perhaps we need to lobby
the state government to increase the National Park estate as recommended in the
2020 report, “Lost Opportunities for new National Parks in Qld”. Australia
has signed on to the Convention on Biological Diversity and has committed to a
target of 17% of terrestrial and inland water in the National Reserve System in
a balanced way that is ecologically representative, with at least 10% of each
bioregion protected, well connected, and well-managed. Australia’s National Reserve System is a
network of more than 12,000 Commonwealth, state and territory reserves, and
Indigenous and private protected areas that covers 19.8% of the country (Fig
1).
Surprisingly Australia is meeting this expectation. Queensland
though is not. Qld has the lowest percentage (8.7%) of area protected of all
the states and territories, less than half the national average (Fig 1).
National parks cover 5.6% of Queensland which is well below
the national average of 7.5% (Fig. 1).
Queensland is clearly falling behind the national and
international expectations of protected natural estates. We must do better to
insist to our pollies that they must do better.
On the Sunshine Coast there are areas that could be
converted to our National Park estate [to help our government reach their
targets] or, at least, improve their biodiversity such that they could be
considered to be included.
Consider copying the technique used to convert forestry
plantation lands to National Park estate as has been achieved in our Noosa area.
Noosa National Parks Association contributed funds to the project along with
Noosa Council.
Consider innovative schemes such as Greg Robert’s scheme to
convert Hoop Pine plantations in the Imbil area in our council’s western areas
to more valuable nature estates. The scheme very quickly; Hoop pine, a native
species, is being commercially grown and logged in areas that were, in many
cases, lowland rainforest - an endangered ecosystem. Greg’s plan involves
simply abandoning the plantations and allowing the rain forest to slowly
consume the hoop pines. So don’t log and don’t weed native spp. Predictably the response from forestry and
politicians of all stripes is that economic concerns and jobs are too
important. The environment must compromise apparently. Greg suggested a trial
site of some 250 hectares between Charlie Moreland Park and Conondale NP. So
far there has been no positive responses to any of these suggestions. I
personally think that the trial idea is a good one and a relatively easy one
for government. It is a relatively small area and thus relatively little
economic pain while being a very positive good news story. Should we support
this idea more publically and forcefully?
Biodiversity can never be protected completely though on
public lands though. Consider if the 17% global target of publically protected
land was reached on the Sunshine Coast then obviously 83% would be
‘unprotected’. Could we afford to lose 83% of our biodiversity? Obviously not,
so therefore we need to insist that there is protections for biodiversity on
all land use types.
So, very quickly and obviously, we [the community] should
encourage the expansion of conservation covenants. Expand and promote Land for Wildlife Schemes from the most successful in the nation to
the ‘even more, most successful in the nation…’
Maybe start a similar Farms
for Wildlife Scheme to instruct primary producers to better manage their
farms to both improve their soil, their biodiversity in as many ways as
possible although this is a subject for a never ending TV series…. [Please view
the Australian Story on Charles Massey and Regenerative Farming and/ or read
his book “The Call of the Reed Warbler”. Or buy a copy for a farmer….]
In Europe and no doubt other places abandoned agricultural
land is proving a boon for wildlife. Here on the coast lowland agricultural
areas are being abandoned by Cane producers for economic reasons offering land
that can be returned to near natural areas. Dairy farming’s slide may allow
some hinterland farmland to be converted from pasture to forest. I am not
applauding the economic downfall of farmers, of course, but I am saying we
should search for possible environmental silver linings.
And, by way of example, we need to consider our land - no matter how small - and the biodiversity there....but that is is the next entry....
So, in brief:
Birders are naturally
positioned to be concerned with conservation of biodiversity.
We need to lobby
local and state governments to continually increase the publically protected
areas within our greater local areas. And to promote such beliefs within our
communities.
We should consider,
and perhaps lobby for and promote, innovative schemes to convert land currently
managed for some other purpose [farming or forestry for example] to manage for
nature.
Congratulate local
government for their outstanding Land for Wildlife schemes and, among our
contacts, promote conservation on private lands.
Learn about
regenerative agriculture and its potential to aid global warming and
biodiversity.
Ken Cross
All of the above is merely personal opinion and dreaming and NOT the perspective or policy of Birdlife Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment