This strategy has taken many months to finalise after extensive consultation was undertaken with interested groups, often with competing interests.

STEP’s main interest is the Warrimoo downhill mountain bike track in St Ives. We have written about this many times (STEP Matters 181 and 188). It was built illegally back in the early 2000s.

Council closed the track in 2016 because it went through a coastal upland swamp, a vegetation community that was declared to be an endangered ecological community in 2012. The track also went through areas that are habitat for endangered wildlife such as the Eastern Pigmy-possum and Rosenberg’s Goanna. Nevertheless, the mountain bikers ignored or removed the barriers and carried on regardless.

Council resolved the situation by deciding to create an official track covering some of the existing track but changing the route so that it was well away from the upland swamp. This is a single downhill track (pretty scary) and a separate track for the return uphill. There is still stage 2 to do to investigate completing the loop for the return uphill and provide access for walkers. This project will be subject to approval from Crown Lands and an environmental impact assessment.

A volunteer Trailcare group, the Moo Volunteers has been appointed to assist with the construction planning and maintenance.

A visit to the site in March 2020 revealed that it was already in use but some signage is still needed.

The strategy also plans the following actions where improvement is badly needed:

• Establish and manage an environmental advisory group, with representatives from Council, the community and environment groups, to provide advice on environmental issues and opportunities in relation to recreation in natural areas and to assist Council in promoting responsible and sustainable recreation in the region.
• In collaboration with recreation user groups, develop codes of conduct for endorsed recreation activities in Ku-ring-gai’s natural areas, as well as dog walking and horse riding, to facilitate responsible and safe user behaviour and practices and to reduce conflict between recreation user groups and individuals. Codes of conduct will guide users to partake in recreation in natural areas in a socially and environmentally sustainable way.
• Reduce the incidence and impacts of unauthorised bicycle track construction through proactive management and stakeholder engagement – this activity is rife – we need to keep an eye out for these illegal tracks and shortcuts. In some cases, Council will pursue prosecution for unauthorised clearing or environmental harm.
• Improve directional signage and interpretative information about recreation areas on location and on Council’s website.

Sydney escaped the extreme bushfire experiences of last summer but the heatwaves, strong winds and extremely dry bush conditions could easily have caused a major fire. After all the experiences of 1987, 1994 and 2001–02 demonstrate what can happen.

Bushfire preparation has been extensively upgraded by the Rural Fire Service and local councils. The following information has been provided by Ku-ring-gai Council’s Bushfire Technical Officer, Heath Fitzsimmons. He has now moved to the Central Coast so his position is vacant.

The authorities cannot possibly provide all the protection that property owners need from bushfire. People living near bushland have a responsibility to maintain their own properties to minimise the fuel load and vulnerability of their houses. Maintaining means regular clearing the roof and gutters, ensuring there are no wood piles or flammable gardens etc. Maintenance could also mean upgrading doors, windows etc to safer options).

Even so it is important not to overestimate the level of protection that a fire break or hazard reduction burn can provide. Experience with recent fires such as in Paradise California has shown that homes far from the fire front are at great risk from ember attack.

There is also the issue of whether property owners next to bushland are able to do any clearing of an Asset Protection Zone in bushland next to their boundary if the vegetation and debris has built up to be a fire hazard and Council or National Parks have not been able to do any clearing in recent times.

STEP developed the STEP Method of Selective Hand Clearing to be used for this purpose some 40 years ago but the legality of its application on Council or National Park land is not clear. If Council and National Parks are able to adopt a policy whereby qualified homeowners are able to be permitted to hazard reduce in land adjacent to their properties then STEP would of course support that. A natural extension of that would be permitting approved commercial bush regeneration firms to carry out such hazard reduction work at the homeowner's cost should they so propose.

When Ku-ring-gai Council has appointed a new bushfire officer STEP will hope to discuss this issue further and organise a talk prior to the next bushfire season, COVID-19 restrictions permitting.

Information from Ku-ring-gai Council

Planning and coordination of bush fire hazard reduction works

Bush fire hazard reduction works in the Ku-ring-gai Area are planned by the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Risk Management Committee (BFMC), comprised of representatives from Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and other land managers, emergency services and utility managers.

Every 5 years the BFMC develops a Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP), Risk Assessment Table and Asset and Treatment Table. These documents identify the ‘assets’ within the district, categorise those assets based on the level of bush fire risk faced and set out a broad 5-year plan for prioritised bush fire risk management works including hazard reduction burning, fire break and fire trail maintenance, and community engagement. From this broad plan the BFMC develops an annual works program.

A list of the hazard reduction burns on the current works program for the Ku-ring-gai area and maps of the proposed burn areas can be found toward the bottom of the bush fireplans and policies page of Council’s website. As these burns are scheduled (up to a week in advance) they will appear on the hazard reduction section of the NSW RFS website, and will also be published on Council’s Twitter and Facebook pages. Past fire history including both hazard reduction burns and bush fires can be viewed on Council’s web map.

Bush fire protection measures and effective risk management treatments

When considering the bush fire risk faced by a home it is most important to consider two major methods of bush fire attack; radiant heat and ember attack. Direct ignition from radiant heat/flame contact accounts for less than 15% of the houses lost to bush fire, while the overwhelming majority (approximately 85%) of losses are due primarily to ember attack. The two also have a cumulative effect, with houses exposed simultaneously to both radiant heat and ember attack at greatest risk.

The threat posed by radiant heat is very effectively reduced by establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ), i.e. increasing the separation distance between buildings and bush fire prone vegetation. The separation distance required ranges from 10 to 100 m depending on slope, vegetation type, and the nature of the asset. Council maintains more than 22km of fire breaks on public land in locations where APZs cannot be accommodated within private property boundaries. Where APZs can be accommodated within private property boundaries it is the responsibility of private property owners to manage these areas.

It is important to note that even the largest APZ provides a negligible reduction in the risk posed by ember attack and the only effective way to increase a home’s resilience to ember attack is through upgrading and effectively maintaining the building and immediate surrounding area. It is also critical that people living in bush fire prone areas recognise that there can be no guarantee that even buildings constructed to the absolute highest standards will be defendable or able to provide a safe refuge during a bush fire, and often the only safe option is to leave early, before a fire even starts. No buildings are designed to withstand a bush fire during Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating conditions, and many older buildings and subdivisions were not designed to withstand bush fire at even the lower Fire Danger Ratings.

Hazard reduction burning is an important aspect of an effective bush fire risk management plan, but does not provide long term protection from the threat of bush fire on its own. Rather, it is intended to complement other bush fire protection measures such as ember protection and APZs. More specifically, the purpose of hazard reduction burning is to:

• Provide fuel reduced areas which enable the protection of assets by firefighters when APZs are not in place,
• Complement APZs where these do not provide adequate protection,
• Provide strategically located fuel reduced areas to reduce the potential for large wildfires to develop,
• Provide areas where fire can more easily be suppressed, or
• Provide strategically located fuel reduced areas to reduce vulnerability of assets which are susceptible to fire.

A range of environmental considerations must be taken into account when planning hazard reduction activities, and for information on this see Guidelines for Ecologically Sustainable Fire Management and Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code. A key concept of these guidelines is that of an appropriate fire interval – the minimum and maximum length of time between fires necessary to maintain ecosystem functions. Recommended fire intervals vary depending on vegetation type, with the minimum intervals applicable to Ku-ring-gai ranging from 5 years for dry ridgetop vegetation to 25 years for wet eucalypt forests.

The final critical component of an effective bush fire risk management plan is community engagement. Ku-ring-gai Council, in consultation with emergency management agencies and government, has developed the award-winning Climate Wise Communities initiative to actively engage with individuals and communities and assist in increasing the resilience of their homes and neighbourhoods to extreme weather events including bush fire. Through this program we partner with other councils, emergency services, non-government organisations and community groups to provide workshops, tools and access to experts for ‘at risk’ community members.

You may also find some useful information at the following links:

• Climate Wise Communities Ready Check – An online tool developed by Council to help you understand your risk from bush fire and other extreme weather events, and the first step in creating a survival plan.
• Bush Fire Survival Plan – A guide from the RFS to help you and your family create an all-important survival plan.
• NSW RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones – Includes recommendations on landscaping and vegetation management.
• Building Best Practice Guide: Upgrade of Existing Buildings – Upgrades you can make to your home’s building elements to improve bush fire resilience.
• Water Smart and Energy Smart rebates – some applicable to bush fire protection, including up to $1000 for water tanks and up to $500 for external window shutters.
• 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code – Some information on the sort of vegetation clearing you may be allowed to carry out on your property without Council consent.

One final link I want to include is the Overall fuel hazard assessment guide 4^th ed. This is the industry standard method of assessing bushfire fuel hazard and is used to inform bushfire behaviour models and help plan hazard reduction activities.

Optimistic, prosperous – a country of rare beauty, blessed with abundant natural resources. Australia has all the ‘golden eggs’ ’needed to position itself as a global leader, to help its Asia-Pacific region leapfrog to a new energy future and to guarantee its prosperity in the process.

Watching this summer’s unprecedented firestorms, I was heartbroken by the sheer scale of the human and ecological tragedy. ‘This must be the tipping point on climate politics in Australia,’ I said to myself. ‘Surely now the politicians will join hands and forge a bipartisan plan for a better future.’

Instead, the climate wars have returned, driven by a handful of deniers given air by powerful media sympathisers and a Prime Minister unwilling to fully embrace the science and stare them down.

For Australia, the choice between danger and opportunity is clear, and that choice must be made now. Since the 2008 Stern Review, the world has known that the cost of not acting is much greater than the cost of our current path. And since the 2008 Garnaut Review, Australians have known that without stronger action, droughts and bushfires would become more frequent and intense, and ‘observable by 2020’. It is time to move on from denial, delusion and delay towards preparedness, productivity and prosperity.

The following three steps will put Australia on track to the future we must create. First, be honest about where Australia is at. Your country is much more than 1.3% of the global climate problem. Carbon emissions from Australia’s use and export of fossil fuels account for about 5% of the global fossil fuel footprint. With exports included, Australians have the biggest per capita carbon footprint in the world.

Australia is not ‘meeting and beating’ its emissions targets. Emissions have increased in every calendar year since 2014. The government’s own projections say Australia will reduce emissions by only 16% by 2030, not the 26 to 28% it promised in Paris, nor the 50% required by science to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

Kyoto ‘carryover’ can’t be used to make up the gap. The Paris Agreement doesn’t allow it. To suggest otherwise is at best an attempt to paper over Australia’s lagging efforts and at worst a legally baseless ploy that encourages cheating and holds back the next phase of carbon markets.

A highly vulnerable Australia cannot address climate change on its own, but its heel-dragging leaves it without the international credibility to drive a stronger global response.

The Australian government must look seriously at how to truly meet and beat its 2030 target, and it must ask other major emitters to join it in an alliance for higher ambition at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this November.

Second, Australia needs a bipartisan, long-term vision for decarbonisation. Rattled by the bushfires and growing evidence of climate-related risks and stresses, Australia’s biggest corporations – including Rio Tinto, Qantas, Telstra and BHP – have announced support for a national net zero target for 2050. For them, legislating this target is important to finally end the climate wars and provide certainty to underpin investment in the transition.

All states and territories have 2050 net zero targets, as do 73 other nations, including Britain and Canada. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would welcome Australia joining these ranks ahead of the COP26 and giving consideration to the British model of using an independent expert body to advise government on five-yearly carbon budgets en route to net zero by 2050.

Independent MP Zali Steggall’s private members’ bill does exactly that.

Third, Australia must embrace net zero by 2050 as a central pillar of its economic plan for the future. The plan must prioritise the policies, industries and technologies that are scientifically aligned with the 1.5 degree temperature limit, and retire those that are not. Despite a booming renewables industry, coal still accounts for around 60% of Australia’s energy mix. But the technology is tired and unreliable in the summer, highly polluting, and no longer price-competitive with solar and wind. There is no place for governments signed up to the Paris Agreement to provide subsidies for dying coal. We must instead invest in the future.

After two years in operation, South Australia’s 100 megawatt ‘big battery’ at Hornsdale has successfully stabilised the state’s grid, saved consumers $50 million and produced handsome financial returns for its investors. In NSW, the Snowy 2.0 hydro project will deliver at least two gigawatts of dispatchable power to the main Australian grid, creating up to 5000 jobs along the way.

These ground-breaking projects are examples of how Australia can lead and prosper. With political honesty and vision, ambitious targets and a stubborn commitment to innovation, Australia stands ready to assume its rightful place as a clean energy superpower.

This article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 March 2020 and is republished with permission of the author Christiana Figueres. Christiana is a former UN Executive Secretary for Climate Change and the co-author of The Future We Choose

China decided two years ago to ban the importof plastics for recycling and several SE Asian countries have limited imports. This has forced governments to think of new ways of dealing with the growing pile of plastic waste. The mindset of out-of-sight-out-of-mind has to change.

Current waste generation statistics

According to the National Waste Report 2018 by Blue Environment Pty Ltd, prepared for the Department of Environment and Energy in 2016–17, Australia generated an estimated 54 million tonnes (Mt) of waste including:

• 17.1 Mt of masonry materials
• 14.2 Mt of organics
• 6.3 Mt of hazardous waste (mainly contaminated soil)
• 5.6 Mt of paper and cardboard
• 5.5 Mt of metals

This comprised 13.8 Mt (560 kg per capita) of municipal solid waste from households and local government activities, 20.4 Mt from the commercial and industrial sector and 20.4 Mt from the construction and demolition.

Although waste per person is going down, Australia’s population is growing so more volume is being generated.

Recycling rates are highest for metal: 90% is successfully reused (mostly overseas). Masonry materials have a recycling rate of 72%, followed by paper and cardboard (60%), glass (57%), organics (52%) and hazardous waste (27%).

The report makes a telling point about the lack of recycling of mobile phones and computers:

Some toxic metals, such as cadmium and cobalt, and rare and precious metals, such as gold and palladium, are still being landfilled in composite material products such as electronic waste. The tonnages are low but the potential environmental impacts and value of the lost resources are high.

Only 12% of plastic is recycled. Nationally we use 3.3 bn plastic bags, 2.6 bn coffee cups, 2.4 bn plastic straws and 1.3 bn plastic bottles each year. In total each person generates about 103 kg of plastic each year.

In August a meeting of environment ministers agreed to a ban on the export of waste glass, plastic, paper and tyres that will be phased in from mid-2020 after they agreed to a timetable for changes in the way Australia deals with recyclable material. The export of waste glass will be banned by July 2020, followed by mixed plastics by July 2021, whole tyres by December 2021 and all remaining waste products, including paper and cardboard, by no later than mid-2022. It has finally been recognised that we should be responsible for our waste generation and it is a resource that is valuable.

The plastic waste problem

The most difficult issue is plastics. A National Plastics Summit was held on 2 March with 200 participants from government, industry and the community.

The meeting agreed to 2025 National Packaging Targets:

• 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging
• 70% of plastic packaging being recycled or composted
• 30% of average recycled content included in packaging
• phasing out of problematic and unnecessary single-use plastics packaging

Several manufacturers made pledges to introduce new measures to reduce or reuse plastic. Most significant was the pledge by the Pact Group, the largest manufacturer of rigid plastic packaging in Australasia, to invest $500 million in research and facilities to include 30% recycled content in their products by 2025 and keep 2 billion plastic containers out of landfill. McDonalds pledged to phase our plastic cutlery and straws by the end of 2020.

New technologies for reusing plastics

New technologies are being developed all the time so hopefully we won’t resort to the huge waste to energy incineration plant in Eastern Creek in western Sydney that has yet to be approved. The application for approval was refused in 2018 based on advice from the EPA, NSW Health and the independent experts that the air quality impacts and risk to human health of the proposal are unknown.

One example of new technologies that has huge potential was profiled on ABC’s 7.30 Report.

The patented Catalytic Hydrothermal Reactor (Cat-HTR) technology is a circular solution to problem plastic. The Cat-HTR is able to chemically recycle mixed plastics without separating different plastic types, including end-of-life plastic that would otherwise be sent to landfill, incineration or end up in our oceans. The oil created from the process can be refined into fuels and chemicals, including the chemicals to make new plastics.

There is a pilot plant operating in Somersby on the Central Coast but operation on a commercial scale is some way off. The first such plant is being built in the UK.

Local council plans

Hornsby Council updated their waste strategy early this year.

Ku-ring-gai Council decided at the March meeting to adopt a new waste strategy. Some of the major changes to the current services relate to the bulky clean-up and green waste services. A pleasing development is a plan to introduce waste recovery at the kerbside for e-waste, mattresses and metals. Currently there are organisations that will collect and recycle the components of the mattresses but they are not free. Surely the two councils could coordinate collection of large items like mattresses so we no longer see them sitting forlornly by the roadside in the rain.

We look forward to receiving details of timing of implementation.

Click here for recycling locations for specific items such as printer cartridges and mobile phones.

This article is based on recent visits by John Martyn to two different burnt areas, the Blue Mountains and the Mitchell Crescent side of Twin Creeks Reserve and is a summary only of a complex situation: of course we must await and monitor the long-term consequences.

The southern edge of the Gospers Mountain megablaze complex impinged on Blackheath, but a spring hazard reduction burn of the bushland south-west of Mitchell Oval, Turramurra, gave those of us living downwind of it a feeling of security whilst watching the January carnage elsewhere on ABC TV. Regrowth by coppicing, sprouting from tuberous rootstock and germination is obviously time related, and is relatively advanced at Mitchell Crescent, but is widespread too in the Blue Mountains after relatively few weeks. The article is illustrated with a small selection from numerous pictures.

Blue Mountains

We stayed in Blackheath over the weekend of 8 February (talk about a ‘wet weekend’ probably the wettest in recent history). Torrential rain and gale force winds made observations difficult, but from glimpses through the fog it was apparent that fire intensity in the Grose Valley was strongly variable and slope related. The canopy in the valley bottom was widely unburnt even though the ground flora and understory were brown and charred. Some eucalypt canopies were even in flower though it was hard to tell what species through the mist.

The wooded rocky slopes, cliffs and ridge crests were completely charred, however. Trees on ridge crests are generally shorter, and coupled with high fire intensity burning uphill, most canopies didn't survive. Many such trees however were bursting with epicormic shoots, and the charcoal-strewn ground was peppered with green shoots of rushes and sedges, even some grasses. Most if not all of the numerous tree ferns at Govetts Leap were bursting with lush new green crosiers (pictured) and some ground ferns like gristle fern were also flush with new leaves from their underground rhizomes.

Mitchell Oval ridge

This local hazard reduction burn left large areas of canopy untouched so total loss of foliage was restricted to shrubs and small trees, plus ferns and ground flora. In the broad sense, eucalypts were relatively unaffected, and short species that did get burnt, like dwarf apple Angophora hispida, are mostly bursting with new growth.

Many Proteaceae species have coppiced or re-shooted. We saw banksias B. oblongifolia and B. spinulosa coppicing readily while one large B. serrata was flush with epicormic shoots. Other proteoid re-sprouters were mountain devil Lambertia formosa and crinkle bush Lomatia silaiifolia.

The fire was limited by the northern valley track downhill from the bottom of Mitchell Crescent, but singed the edge of the valley rainforest and riparian understory. Young specimens of coachwood Ceratopetalum apetalum, white cherry Schizomeria ovata and scentless rosewood Synoum glandulosum show flourishing coppicing. The two other main rainforest species of the valley, Lillypilly Acmena smithii and sassafras Doryphora sassafras were out of reach of the fire, as were most grey myrtles Backhousia myrtifolia. Essentially riparian species like black wattle Callicoma serratifolia have coppiced strongly where burned.

Some surprises maybe, maybe not: the pea flower Platylobium formosum was seen re-shooting, as was one black sheoak Allocasuarina littoralis too.

Ferns like rainbow fern Calochlaena dubia and gristle fern Blechnum cartilagineum have widely recovered, and there are many pinnate seedlings of unknown wattle species plus twiners like Hardenbergia violaceae. The latter will create carpets of purple in a couple of years’ time, perhaps with a sprinkling of ground orchids in season.

Many Australians feel compelled to help our damaged wildlife after this season’s terrible bushfires. Suggested actions have included donating money, leaving water out for thirsty animals, and learning how to help the injured. But there is an equally, if not more, important way to assist: weeding.

An army of volunteers is needed to help land owners with judicious weed removal. This will help burnt habitats recover more quickly, providing expanded, healthy habitat for native fauna.

Other emergency responses, such as culling feral animals and dropping emergency food from aeroplanes, are obviously jobs for specialists. But volunteer weeding does not require any prior expertise – just a willingness to get your hands dirty and take your lead from those in the know.

The recent bushfires burned many areas in national parks and reserves which were infested with weeds. Some weeds are killed in a blaze, but fire also stimulates their seed banks to germinate.

Weed seedlings will spring up en masse and establish dense stands that out-compete native plants by blocking access to sunlight. Native seedlings will die without setting seed, wasting this chance for them to recover and to provide habitat for a diverse range of native species.

Read more: Many of our plants and animals have adapted to fires, but now the fires are changing

This mass weed germination is also an opportunity to improve the outlook for biodiversity. With a coordinated volunteer effort, these weeds can be taken out before they seed – leaving only a residual seed bank with no adult weeds to create more seed and creating space for native plants to flourish.

With follow-up weeding, we can leave our national parks and reserves – and even bushland on farms - in a better state than they were before the fires.

Weeding works

In January 1994, fire burned most of Lane Cove National Park in Sydney. Within a few months of the fire, volunteer bush regeneration groups were set up to help tackle regenerating weeds.

Their efforts eradicated weeds from areas where the problem previously seemed intractable and prevented further weed expansion. Key to success in this case was the provision of funding for coordination, an engaged community which produced passionate volunteers and enough resources to train them.

Read more: Conservation scientists are grieving after the bushfires -- but we must not give up

Following recent fires in the Victorian high country, volunteers will be critical to controlling weeds, particularly broom (Scotch broom and related species), which occurs throughout fire-affected areas .

Fire typically kills these woody shrubs but also stimulates seed germination. Without intervention, broom will form dense stands which out-compete native plant species .

However, swift action now can prevent this. Mass germination reduces the broom’s seedbank to as low as 8% of pre-fire levels, and around half of the remaining seeds die each year. Further, broom usually takes three years to flower and replenish its seedbank. So with no new seeds being produced and the seedbank low and shrinking, this three-year window offers an important opportunity to restore previously infested areas.

Parks Victoria took up this opportunity after the 2003 fires in the Alpine National Park. They rallied agencies, natural resource management groups and local landholders to sweep up broom . Herbicide trials at that time revealed that to get the best outcome for their money, it was critical to spray broom seedlings early, within the first year and a half.

Broom management also needs to use a range of approaches, including using volunteers to spread a biological control agent.

Plenty of work to do

Parks Victoria continue to engage community groups in park management and will coordinate fire response actions when parks are safe to enter. Similar programs can be found in New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and the ACT.

A wide range of weeds expand after fire and warrant a rapid response. They include lantana, bitou bush, and blackberry.

Read more: Yes, native plants can flourish after bushfire. But there’s only so much hardship they can take

Managing weeds after fire is currently a high priority at many sites. At the edges of the World Heritage Gondwana rainforests of southwest Queensland and northern and central NSW, there is a window to more effectively control lantana. In many forested areas in NSW, Victoria and South Australia, fire has created an opportunity to address important weed problems.

State government agencies have the mapping capacity to locate these places. Hopefully they can make these resources easy for the public to access soon, so community groups can self-organise and connect with park managers.

All this needs money

Emergency funding is now essential to enable community-based weed control programs at the scale needed to have a substantial impact. Specifically, funding is needed for group coordinators, trainers and equipment.

While emergency work is needed to control regenerating weeds in the next 6-18 months, ongoing work is needed after that to consolidate success and prevent reinfestations from the small, but still present, seed bank.

Ongoing government funding is needed to enable this work, and prepare for a similar response to the next mega-fires.

Want to act immediately?

You can volunteer to do your bit for fire recovery right now. In addition to state-agency volunteer websites, there are many existing park care, bush care and “friends of” groups coordinated by local governments. They’re waiting for you to join so they can start planning the restoration task in fire-affected areas.

Contact them directly or register your interest with the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators who can link you with the appropriate organisations.

Read more: You can leave water out for wildlife without attracting mosquitoes, if you take a few precautions

If we do nothing now, the quality of our national parks will decline as weeds take over and native species are lost. But if you channel your fire-response energy and commitment to help manage weeds, our national parks could come out in front from this climate-change induced calamity.

By all means, rescue an injured koala. But by pulling out weeds, you could also help rescue a whole ecosystem.

Dr Tein McDonald, president of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators, contributed to this article.

Don Driscoll, Professor in Terrestrial Ecology, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NPA NSW has released a new research paper that has found that the claimed benefits of the Snowy 2.0 project are overstated or false.

Several environmental groups have signed an open letter to the Ministers of Planning and Environment appealing to them to reject the environmental impact statement for the main works that will be the first stage of the Snowy Hydro pumped storage project. Several contracts for the project have already been awarded before the EIS has been assessed.

A group of 30 experts also sent a letter to the prime minister and premier calling for a comprehensive review of the project and alternatives.

Politicians are acting as if the project is a fait accompli. The media is not giving any attention to the issues that have been raised. We need to send emails to the ministers so the issue cannot be forgotten.

We are pleased to announce that the John Martyn Research Grant for 2020 has been awarded to Ruby Paroissien.

Ruby is currently undertaking her honours at UNSW, studying the effects of fire seasonality on seed ecology, a particularly important topic given the current climate. Her current focus is on Doryanthes excelsa (Gymea lily), a post-fire flowerer endemic to NSW and at risk to changes in fire regimes.

She holds both a Bachelor of Fine Arts and a Bachelor of Science giving her a unique perspective to understanding dynamics in nature. Prior to this year Ruby has spent her time volunteering alongside Mark Ooi among other scientists, to work on a variety of research projects. Last year she completed a summer research scholarship, which lead her to develop a paper on the rare flannel flower Actinotus forsythii.

The grant winner for 2019, Gabby Hoban has had to defer her project but we expect to hear all about her project later this year.

Postscript

Ruby's research was published in Environmental and Experimental Botany, vol 192, Dec 2021, 104634. You can also download a PDF of the paper, Effects of fire season on the reproductive success of the post-fire flowerer Doryanthes excelsa.

We have written several times about Mirvac’s proposal to develop the land at 55 Coonara Ave, West Pennant Hills that contains the old IBM corporate headquarters plus a large area of forest. IBM sold the site to Mirvac in 2010 but stayed on as a tenant until September this year. Mirvac’s proposal was for the development of a 600 dwelling complex that would result in the loss of many mature trees including Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. The future responsibility for management of a large forested area below the new housing areas was left unknown.

In order for the development to proceed the Hills Council needed to vote in favour of the rezoning of the land from its current classification as a business park to various residential zonings plus an E2 zoning for the forest. The vote was due to be held at the council meeting on 26 November. Naturally the council was recommending approval.

The local community has been objecting to the development for over two years. Many meetings have been held and large numbers have sent submissions and signed petitions. When the item was placed on the meeting agenda the community united again to remind the councillors of their opposition with over 4,000 submissions.

The Forest in Danger group was overjoyed to learn that council voted against the proposal. It was a tied vote of six all with Mayor Michelle Byrne using her casting vote to refuse the proposal.

Councillors who spoke against the proposal expressed the arguments that:

• the proposal is inconsistent with the district plans
• whole of area planning should take place not spot rezoning
• business zones should not be rezoned for housing – Hills has met their housing targets but are short of business zones
• lack of infrastructure
• the significant impact it would have on this sensitive environmental site
• the large amount of community concern about this development

A couple of councillors put in a last-ditch attempt to submit a rescission motion but this was soon seen to be very bad form so the council decision stands. Who knows what Mirvac will do next?

The local residents living near Mimosa Oval, Turramurra that is part of Rofe Park have been campaigning strongly against Ku-ring-gai Council’s proposal to install synthetic grass on the oval. The vote was taken on 10 December and the residents were much relieved when council resolved to not proceed with installation on the grounds that:

• the oval is impacted by the Vegetation Category 1 bushfire zone and the proposal presents an unacceptable fire risk
• the oval is surrounded by Rofe Park and Sheldon Forest comprising Ku-ring-gai’s only Biodiversity Stewardship Site
• the proposal cannot accommodate informal recreational use currently enjoyed by the community

Mermaid Pool, a rock pool below Manly Dam was named in the 1930s for the naked girls who used to swim in it. The beauty was lost when suburbia arrived and the pool became a dumping ground for rubbish. The bush was not held in very high regard in those days! But some locals saw the potential beauty of the area and its importance as a wildlife and vegetation link between Manly Dam and Millers Reserve. They got together to save the bushland and waterway.

In the first exercise on Clean Up Australia Day in 2002 over 4 tonnes of waste was removed from the creek including old ovens, car parts, trolleys and building materials. Ever since, the Save Manly Dam Catchment Committee has been working converting the area into high quality bushland. More about the story of Mermaid Pool can be found here.

The Committee has developed a proposal to create a small bird habitat corridor on some Crown land parcels that are currently zoned for potential residential development. The land is close to Mermaid Pool and along Manly Creek but is bounded by low density residential development to the north and south.

Rare bushland has already been lost nearby through the development of Manly Vale Public School. The Species Impact Survey conducted for this school development identified the presence of many species of small birds. Upstream at Manly Dam Reserve (Manly Warringah War Memorial Park) over 80 bird species have been recorded. The proposed corridor is particularly suitable for small birds due to large areas of dense undisturbed vegetation, connectivity with surrounding reserves and refuge from predation and harassment by aggressive species like noisy miners and other impacts associated with the urban environment.

The Northern Beaches Council and local MPs have supported changing the zoning of these parcels to Public Recreation. In August 2019 the Department of Planning made a Gateway Determination in favour of the proposal. The rezoning process has progressed to the stage where council has called for public submissions on the proposal. The final hurdles are likely to have been overcome. Ultimately it is hoped it will be given the status of a Wildlife Protection Area.

Australia and the world have been horrified by the devastating bushfires that have been burning along the east coast and tablelands and South Australia since September and reached their climax in December and January. These events have given the world a stark example of the extreme events that will be experienced as a result of climate change. The severe drought conditions combined with weather systems that delivered hot westerly winds followed by strong southerly changes created severe and unpredictable fires. On top of the impact on fire fighters and communities, the long-term impact on biodiversity will become apparent over many years. The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (the department) has done a preliminary assessment of the areas affected by fires using satellite imaging. 

As the department states, the period immediately after a fire is critical for the survival of injured animals and for threatened species. The priority is to support those involved in the recovery of injured wildlife and detailed data on the damage to habitat is essential for planning the next steps to minimise the long-term loss of ecosystems.

As of 10 January 2020, the data available reveals that:

• 5.128 million hectares (6.4%) of NSW has been affected by the wildfires. The severity of fire within this total area varies.
• More than 35% of the national park estate (or 2.539 million hectares) has been impacted. In key bioregions, the figure is well over 40%.
• More than 80% of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and 54% of the Gondwana Rainforests World Heritage Area have been affected by fire.
• The most affected ecosystems are rainforests (35% of their state-wide extent), wet sclerophyll forests (41%) and heathlands (53%).
• More than 60 threatened fauna species have been affected by the fires, including 32 species for which 30% or more of all recorded locations occur in the burn areas.

As at 10 January 2020, the bushfires had impacted on the habitat of at least 60 threatened species listed under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

The intensity of the fires has varied widely. In this initial assessment, the department developed a new methodology using Google Earth imagery which enabled the rapid estimate of where fire skipped over an area within the fire ground, leaving it little affected, where it burned the understorey and some of the canopy, where it burned the canopy only, and where it appears to have burned all vegetation.

Once it is safe to do so and ensuring that the environment is not damaged inadvertently, the department is carefully preparing a more refined version of this data for each fire ground, which utilises reference data gained from aerial imagery and ground-based post-fire surveys to provide a more detailed understanding of this variation.

Impact on Threatened Fauna

The department has compared the records of 300 threatened fauna species with bushland affected by the ongoing fires.

As of 10 January 2020, fires have burnt in:

• 70% of the bushland where six threatened animal species were previously sighted include the Long-footed potoroo, Philoria pughi (a frog), Hastings River mouse and Brush-tailed rock-wallaby
• 30% of the bushland where 32 threatened animal species were previously sighted
• 5% of the bush areas where 114 threatened animal species were previously sighted

As of 6 January 2020, more than 24% of all koala habitat in eastern NSW was within fire-affected areas. The total area of highly suitable koala habitat affected by fire in eastern NSW was more than 19%.

The data is being renewed as staff get the opportunity to check the situation on the ground.

Threats to Recovery

In the flurry of announcements of funding for bushfire recovery it is hard to get a perspective on funding that has been provided to prevent loss of animals that have survived. $50 million sounds good but this is against a background where funding for environmental management has been cut by Coalition governments. Will extra staff be employed to carry out the work required?

Recovery will involve the following stages:

• rescue of injured animals
• providing survivors with food and water
• prevention of damage to unburnt bushland from the extra browsing pressure, particularly from feral animals
• removal of feral predators such as cats and foxes

Will the NSW Government Amend its Policies?

There are two areas where the NSW Government has perverse policies.

Feral Horses in Kosciuszko National Park

In November the results of an aerial survey of feral horse numbers was released. The numbers have increased by more than 170% in the past five years. In the most populated area, North Kosciuszko National Park, the 2019 numbers are almost five times the 2014 numbers (see Table 1).

These numbers of horses are having a huge impact on alpine species and ecosystems. Horses create tracks through alpine swamps causing the water to drain away. They damage vegetation along streams that are essential for the survival of threatened species such as the Corroboree frog and Stocky Galaxia fish. These streams are the headwaters of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers. Horses also pose a risk on roads.

The North Kosciuszko area, that has the highest number of horses, is also an area badly affected by the fires. So, the horses will move into the undamaged parts of the north placing great pressure on alpine vegetation already stressed by drought.

The NSW Government has virtually completely cut the program to remove the horses from the park. Only 99 were removed in 2019 and none in 2017 and 2018. Thanks to the influence of the leader of the National Party, John Barilaro, the horses are treated as having heritage value despite the huge damage they are doing to the sensitive alpine vegetation and animal species. The successful program of aerial culling has been terminated.

Hope for change now rests with the new feral horse management plan being developed by the recently established Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Community Advisory Panel and the Wild Horse Scientific Advisory Panel.

The Scientific Committee said the draft plan for action will be open for comment in February 2020 to meet NSW environment minister Matt Kean’s deadline for a final plan by 1 May 2020. This rapid timeframe is essential as substantial control measures should be implemented straight away before winter conditions arrive.

Clearing of Koala Habitat

The decline in koala numbers in NSW has been highlighted over many years by environment groups. The major causes have been land clearing for agriculture, forest logging and urban development. A significant part of koala habitat in NSW is in state forests or private land. The forests will recover after the fires but in the meantime the precarious situation for koalas will worsen.

Before this summer’s bushfires, koala populations in NSW and Queensland had already dropped by 42% between 1990 and 2010, according to the federal Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

The mid-north coast is home to a significant number of Australia’s koalas, with an estimated population between 15,000 to 28,000. It is estimated that 30% of their habitat was destroyed in the November/December fires in that area.

NSW Forestry Corporation is still logging unburnt koala habitat in state forests. It is believed that the NSW Government is planning on privatising the Forestry Corporation. The initial focus will be on selling softwood plantations but, as the organisation shrinks, the rest of the organisation will be regarded as uneconomic and the native forests will be next. It is reasonable to expect that private owners are likely to expect a higher profit and hence more rapid harvesting. The principle of sustainable harvesting has been compromised before.

The major clearing is occurring in the inland woodlands where the push is for agricultural development. Grazing land can allow for trees to be retained to shelter stock and provide bird habitat. The push has been to total clearing to make it easier for machinery to plough, plant and harvest vast swathes of land. The value of this cleared cropping land increases dramatically. What will its long-term value be when the nutrients and carbon in the soil have been blown away in dust storms?

As for clearing for urban or tourist development, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 has been changed recently. It clarifies the definition of core koala habitat and increases the number of tree species that can be used to identify koala habitat from 10 to 123. 99% of identified koala habitat on private land in NSW was at risk of being cleared before these changes and that remains the case.

On a more hopeful note the NSW Government has allocated $20 million for the purchase of private land that is core koala habitat to be converted into the reserve system. The NSW Koala Strategy is part of a long-term vision to first stabilise, then increase, koala population numbers across the state. Through many of its actions, it will also contribute to protecting other threatened species.

The NSW Government has committed $44.7 million to support the implementation of the NSW Koala Strategy.

With the sudden loss of so much koala habitat the logging contracts must be reassessed. There is talk that the numbers of koalas killed has tipped the population into the threatened category. It is hoped that the population assessment is made before the loggers can move back in to unburnt habitat.

In November the results of an aerial survey of feral horse numbers was released. The numbers have increased by more than 170% in the past five years. In the most populated area, North Kosciuszko National Park, the 2019 numbers are almost five times the 2014 numbers (see Table 1).

These numbers of horses are having a huge impact on alpine species and ecosystems. Horses create tracks through alpine swamps causing the water to drain away. They damage vegetation along streams that are essential for the survival of threatened species such as the Corroboree frog and Stocky Galaxia fish. These streams are the headwaters of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers. Horses also pose a risk on roads. The North Kosciuszko area, that has the highest number of horses, is also an area badly affected by the fires. So, the horses will move into the undamaged parts of the north placing great pressure on alpine vegetation already stressed by drought.

The NSW Government has virtually completely cut the program to remove the horses from the park. Only 99 were removed in 2019 and none in 2017 and 2018. Thanks to the influence of the leader of the National Party, John Barilaro, the horses are treated as having heritage value despite the huge damage they are doing to the sensitive alpine vegetation and animal species. The successful program of aerial culling has been terminated.

Hope for change now rests with the new feral horse management plan being developed by the recently established Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Community Advisory Panel and the Wild Horse Scientific Advisory Panel.

The Scientific Committee said the draft plan for action will be open for comment in February 2020 to meet NSW environment minister Matt Kean’s deadline for a final plan by 1 May 2020. This rapid timeframe is essential as substantial control measures should be implemented straight away before winter conditions arrive.

The decline in koala numbers in NSW has been highlighted over many years by environment groups. The major causes have been land clearing for agriculture, forest logging and urban development. A significant part of koala habitat in NSW is in state forests or private land. The forests will recover after the fires but in the meantime the precarious situation for koalas will worsen.

Before this summer’s bushfires, koala populations in NSW and Queensland had already dropped by 42% between 1990 and 2010, according to the federal Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

The mid-north coast is home to a significant number of Australia’s koalas, with an estimated population between 15,000 to 28,000. It is estimated that 30% of their habitat was destroyed in the November/December fires in that area.

NSW Forestry Corporation is still logging unburnt koala habitat in state forests. It is believed that the NSW Government is planning on privatising the Forestry Corporation. The initial focus will be on selling softwood plantations but, as the organisation shrinks, the rest of the organisation will be regarded as uneconomic and the native forests will be next. It is reasonable to expect that private owners are likely to expect a higher profit and hence more rapid harvesting. The principle of sustainable harvesting has been compromised before.

The major clearing is occurring in the inland woodlands where the push is for agricultural development. Grazing land can allow for trees to be retained to shelter stock and provide bird habitat. The push has been to total clearing to make it easier for machinery to plough, plant and harvest vast swathes of land. The value of this cleared cropping land increases dramatically. What will its long-term value be when the nutrients and carbon in the soil have been blown away in dust storms?

As for clearing for urban or tourist development, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 has been changed recently. It clarifies the definition of core koala habitat and increases the number of tree species that can be used to identify koala habitat from 10 to 123. 99% of identified koala habitat on private land in NSW was at risk of being cleared before these changes and that remains the case.

On a more hopeful note the NSW Government has allocated $20 million for the purchase of private land that is core koala habitat to be converted into the reserve system. The NSW Koala Strategy is part of a long-term vision to first stabilise, then increase, koala population numbers across the state. Through many of its actions, it will also contribute to protecting other threatened species.

The NSW Government has committed $44.7 million to support the implementation of the NSW Koala Strategy.

With the sudden loss of so much koala habitat the logging contracts must be reassessed. There is talk that the numbers of koalas killed has tipped the population into the threatened category. It is hoped that the population assessment is made before the loggers can move back in to unburnt habitat.

Currently there are several reviews taking place into biodiversity management at the federal level:

• Senate inquiry into faunal extinction
• review of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
• review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act)

The outcomes of these reviews will be important in setting policies for the long-term survival of Australia’s unique biodiversity.

In the shorter term there is vital work to be done in ensuring that the wildlife that has survived the drought and fires has sufficient food and water and is not overwhelmed by feral animals such as cats and foxes. The major work will be in bushland to ensure it not invaded by weeds or pillaged by feral horses and deer.

Funding for biodiversity management at the federal and state level has been cut severely since the coalition came into power in 2013. Surely, after the massive bushfires governments need to reassess their priorities for biodiversity management. The media focus has been on the rescue of cute and cuddly animals. Even their long-term survival depends on restoration of habitat.

STEP Matters has included articles about Australia’s biodiversity strategy before. In Issue 194 we lamented the inadequacy of the 2010–2030 strategy. In summary it was at the level of simplistic statements with no quantification of targets. Instead it linked to various strategies that are to be adopted by the states and territories.

It is pleasing to report that progress has been made. On 8 November 2019, Australian, state and territory environment ministers endorsed a new approach to biodiversity conservation through Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2019–2030. The strategy is supported by a dedicated website, Australia’s Nature Hub. Both the strategy and the hub are owned by all the governments involved.

The strategy is coordinated with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. These targets are meant to be in place by 2020. We are a bit late but at least we have started.

The strategy provides an adaptive approach allowing each jurisdiction the flexibility to establish targets appropriate to the variety of environments across Australia and to change these as we continue to build knowledge during the life of the strategy.

It does acknowledge the scale of our biodiversity crisis and the role of science in finding solutions. For the first time there is explicit recognition of the need for management to allow for climate change.

An example of the goals is ‘reduce threats to nature and build resilience’. There are six progress measures under this goal, but most are not anything that can be measured, for example ‘retention, protection and/or restoration of landscape-scale, native vegetation corridors’.

A baseline is needed in order to assess progress in achieving this sort of goal. Following the fires, we may need two baselines for many species and vegetation communities – pre-fires and post-fires.

In a positive move the strategy sets an accountability framework, with ongoing working groups and four-yearly reporting, and should drive collaboration between federal agencies, the states and territories on nature conservation – all welcome moves. Fingers crossed that there is the will to progress the strategy beyond statements of the problems and the desire to fix them.

The amount of funding provided for the implementation of the strategy by all the jurisdictions involved is unknown. In the short term, funding will be focussed on fire recovery. Federal funding for the environment department has been cut.

The legislation to support the strategy at the federal level is the EPBC Act. It is currently under review – see below. The shortcomings of the NSW biodiversity legislation will be a stumbling block.

The Nature Hub is a link to projects and strategies that have been adopted so far. There is not much information there yet so the implementation mechanisms for most objectives are unclear.

For example, the national Threatened Species Strategy that commenced in 2016 has goals to tackle the feral cat problem, create safe havens for species at risk from feral cats, improve habitat and apply emergency interventions to avert extinctions. Targets to measure success are:

• 2 million feral cats culled by 2020
• 20 threatened mammals and 20 threatened birds improving by 2020
• protecting Australia’s plants
• improving recovery guidance

Senate Inquiry into Faunal Extinctions

This enquiry commenced in June 2018 and provided an interim report in April 2019 just prior to the federal election at which point the enquiry automatically folded.

The main points in the interim report were:

• Our lack of knowledge about fauna species – estimates suggest that, at present, there are 250 000 faunal species in Australia, with around 120 000 of these yet to be scientifically documented.
• We have a damning track record with a continuing decline in mammal species and a very significant slump in bird populations.
• Evidence given to the enquiry raised serious questions about the ability of the EPBC Act to achieve its objectives with extinctions continuing since the act was introduced in 1999.
• The EPBC Act has no compulsory mechanism to address the cumulative impacts of species decline including the loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat, the threats posed by invasive species and the effects of climate change.
• The framework of the EPBC Act is not adequate to address the drivers of species decline plus there have been significant failures in its implementation, including use and resourcing of compliance and protection mechanisms, and that these would need to be addressed in a new or revised act.
• New environmental laws should be developed and there should be an independent institution with sufficient powers and funding to administer and oversee environmental approvals and compliance.

After the election the Senate granted the committee a further extension of time to produce a final report to 7 September 2020. We hope the Senate inquiry has some influence on the formal government processes and the funding available.

Review of EPBC Act

The federal government is undertaking a review of the chief biodiversity conservation law, the EPBC Act. It is led by Prof Graeme Samuel. A discussion paper can be found here.

The closing date for submissions has been extended to 17 April 2020.

The EPBC Act is more than 1000 pages of complex legislation, to which has been added over 400 pages of regulations. Clearly it is not fit for purpose of improving biodiversity into the future when we consider the outcomes of the past 20 years.

The Environment Defenders Office is calling for:

• A new Australian environment act that elevates environmental protection and biodiversity conservation as the primary aim of the act instead of the narrowly defined matters of national environmental significance.
• Duties on decision makers to exercise their powers to achieve the act’s aims.
• Two new statutory environmental authorities – a National Sustainability Commission and a National Environment Protection Authority.
• New triggers for federal protection action including activities that will impact on national reserve system (terrestrial and marine protected areas), ecosystems of national importance, vulnerable ecological communities, significant land-clearing activities, significant greenhouse gas emissions, significant water resources (beyond coal and gas project impacts).
• A dual focus on protection and recovery of threatened species and ecological communities.
• A national ecosystems assessment and environmental data and monitoring program that links federal, state and territory data.
• Greater emphasis on indigenous leadership, land management and biodiversity stewardship, including formal recognition of indigenous protected areas.
• A suite of international conservation protections to ensure Australian governments, companies, citizens and supply chains protect and support global biodiversity.

One of the stumbling blocks is the mindset held by governments and business that decisions should be made quickly to reduce ‘green tape’. The value of the environment has to be elevated above the value of development at any cost.

After a prolonged process of research, impact assessment, economic analysis and discussion with residents the Lord Howe Island Board got the go ahead for the rodent eradication program – see STEP Matters Issue 191.

It was estimated there were 150,000 rats and 210,000 mice on Lord Howe — some 1,000 rodents for each of the island's 350 residents. Lord Howe Island is home to many threatened, endemic and migratory species. Rodents have previously caused the extinction of five bird and 13 invertebrate species on the island and currently threaten another 70 species.

One area of concern about the widespread use of baits was the risks to the island’s unique wildlife, particularly two endemic species of bird, the Lord Howe Island woodhen and the currawong, that might be particularly at risk of eating the bait. The former is an endangered bird, which was nursed back from the brink of extinction on the island in the 1980s — only a few hundred exist. The two species were taken into captivity while the rodent eradication program took place — placed in cages and looked after by staff from Sydney's Taronga Zoo.

Baits being used in the past to control the rodent population have proven to be ineffective largely because the program was too limited and most of the island is inaccessible. The program had to be much more comprehensive. In June the project commenced when cereal pellets laced with poison were placed inside 22,000 lockable traps distributed around the island. Inaccessible areas were targeted by aerial drops of the same bait.

There was a rapid reduction in the number of rodents at first, and then a few little blips of activity. The last set of baits was distributed in November. The island will be monitored for two years, and if no rats or mice are spotted, the area will be declared rodent free. So far it appears the project has been a resounding success.

Return of the Phasmid

If the rodents are eliminated it should be possible to reintroduce the world’s rarest insect, the Lord Howe Island phasmid or stick insect. This giant is about the length of an adult’s palm when fully grown. It lives in communities, from a few dozens to several hundreds, in hollow trees.

In the early nineteenth century the insect was common but the rats found them very palatable so they disappeared in about 20 years. They were believed to be extinct until, in 2001, a group of scientists managed to climb onto the precipitous Ball’s Pyramid, a rock island 20 kilometres away. Several specimens were collected but only two survived. The female nearly died but intensive care enabled her to survive and lay several eggs. She has provided the insurance population but with a lack of genetic diversity.

Another expedition was undertaken in 2019 using professional climbers. The exploration had to be carried out at night as the phasmid is nocturnal. After a week only 17 insects were found. The low numbers may be because these insects only eat one plant, Melaleuca howeana. The museum had a permit to take no more than 10% of them so one precious specimen was taken back to Melbourne Zoo. She is now busily laying eggs.

In about two years’ time it is hoped they will be released onto Lord Howe Island.

At the start of the bushfires right up to December the government refused to talk about the influence of climate change on the drought and bushfires – ‘now is not the time’, etc.

Seriously!

Australia’s current climate change polices are woefully inadequate. So much so that they were ranked 57^th out of 57 countries in a report by The 2020 Climate Change Performance Index prepared by a group of international thinktanks that looked at national climate action across the categories of emissions, renewable energy, energy use and policy.

On the assessment of national and international climate policy, Australia is singled out as the worst-performing, with the report saying the re-elected Morrison government:

has continued to worsen performance at both national and international levels.

As the fires worsened the government’s stonewalling became stronger still trotting out the tired old excuses; we are only 1.7% of world-wide emissions. we will make our 2030 target ‘at a canter’, we are doing better than other countries on a per capita basis, etc.

In response to the criticism the statement from PM Morrison that policies are ‘evolving’ does not engender confidence that any meaningful changes will be made.

I don’t want to bore the reader with a lot of technical detail but I will try to provide a brief fact check on progress in meeting emissions reduction commitments and the effectiveness of current policies in one place.

Emission Reduction Targets Explained

The reports from the Australian Department of Environment and Energy provide detailed explanations of the sources of emissions and projections through to 2030. The past data is constantly updated which can be confusing. I am using the latest report called Australia’s Emissions Projections 2019 published in December 2019.

Carry Over Credits

The original Kyoto Protocol commitments were based on data of greenhouse gas emissions during 1990. Australia managed to negotiate a favourable position whereby the base year data included emissions from land use, land use change and forestry. It just so happened that there was a high rate of land clearing in Queensland in that year so we had an unusually high baseline.

Australia’s first commitment for the 2008–12 period was an allowance for average emissions to increase by an average of 8% compared to 1990 levels, unlike most countries that committed to reduce emissions by at least 5%.

As it happened, we managed to over-achieve the target emissions and ended up with a carryover credit of 128 Mt CO₂-e.

The next commitment was made to reduce emissions compared to 2000 levels by 5% to 2020. The way this is described implies that the level at 2020 should be 5% below the 2000 level. In fact, the requirement is that the total emissions over the 8-year period 2013 to 2020 should be 5% less than 8 times the level in 2000. The data cannot be quite finalised yet but it looks as though this commitment will be over achieved by around 280 Mt CO₂-e. The total carryover is then of the order of 400 Mt.

The next target to focus on is the commitment made under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. Again, this means that the total emissions over the 10-year period 2021–30 will be 26 to 28% below ten times the level in 2005.

The government’s own advisory body, the Climate Change Authority advised in 2015 that the science-based target should be between 40 and 60% below 2000 levels based on a goal of keeping global temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

How are Emissions Tracking?

The latest government report states that the 2005 emissions level was 602 Mt CO₂-e. So, the total emissions allowance for 2021–30 is 4,778 to 4710 Mt (602/1.26x10 to 602/1.28x10) (see figure which shows Australia’s emissions 1990–2030).

Emissions in 2020 are estimated to be 534 Mt and in 2030 511 Mt. The current projections are that emissions over the 10 years will be 5,169 Mt, at least 390 Mt over the commitment. We can only achieve the commitment if use is made of the carryover credits of 400 Mt.

Taking advantage of these credits is very poor form. No other country is doing this. Most of the rest of the world is genuinely taking action to reduce their emissions. What matters is emissions now and the path to zero emissions by 2050, not the easy ride we were given last century.

2050, not the easy ride we were given last century.

Climate Policies

The policies to reduce emissions are:

• Renewable Energy Target (RET)
• direct action under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)
• safeguard mechanism
• National Energy Productivity Plan (NEPP)

It doesn’t appear that these policies, particularly the ERF, are sufficient to achieve our 2030 target, particular given that many do not currently appear to have sufficient funding.

Renewable Energy Target

The original RET was established with the goal of increasing generation from renewable electricity sources compared with the level in 1997 to 20% by 2020. In practice the goal was expressed as 41,000 GWh of electricity generated per year.

The Abbott Liberal Government claimed the cost was too high and instituted a review by the Climate Change Authority. As a result, the target was reduced to 33,000 GWh by 2020 equivalent to about 23.5% of the current total of electricity demand.

Despite the dramatic rhetoric from the politicians supporting coal-fired power, the cost of providing incentives for renewable electricity generation has increased bills by only about 5%.

This target has been achieved already in 2019. No announcement has been made of any future policy creating great uncertainty in the industry. There has been a drop in new investment of nearly 21% in 2018–19 (see figure) at a time when the technology is developing rapidly.

Several states have announced renewable energy targets so it looks as though it is up to the states to encourage new renewable energy projects. The take-up of rooftop solar is also still strong. Data from CSIRO and AEMO confirms that, while existing fossil fuel power plants are competitive due to their sunk capital costs, solar and wind generation technologies are currently the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity for Australia, compared to any other new-build technology.

Continued renewables growth also requires long-term planning of transmission infrastructure and storage technologies to ensure the distributed energy can be delivered where it is needed, and that reliability is maintained.

Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)

The ERF is a voluntary scheme designed to provide financial incentives for businesses, landholders and communities to reduce emissions. As of 16 November 2017, the ERF had contracted 189 million tonnes of emissions reductions at a cost of $2.23 billion. Around $300 million remained for government purchasing of emissions reductions. Further funding of $200 million pa has been agreed over the next 10 years.

A range of projects to reduce emissions have been funded under the ERF so far. These include, for example, projects to replace Melbourne street lights with more energy efficient light bulbs, native forest and vegetation regrowth projects and the use of gas from waste to create energy. Many have been criticised as an inefficient way of reducing our emissions, amid suggestions that the government is paying polluters for emissions reductions that would have happened anyway even without the scheme – see STEP Matters Issue 188.

Safeguard Mechanism

The ERF includes a safeguard mechanism, which aims to ensure that emissions reductions achieved by the ERF are not nullified by rises in emissions elsewhere. The safeguard mechanism came into effect on 1 July 2016, and encourages large businesses not to increase their emissions above historical levels. The mechanism applies to emitters with annual emissions of over 100,000 tonnes CO₂-e. The mechanism has been criticised as weak as there is too much flexibility to allow companies to shift or adjust their obligations.

Energy Productivity

There is also a National Energy Productivity Plan (NEPP) that aims to encourage more productive consumer choices and promote more productive energy services.

Measures listed in the NEPP include improved vehicle efficiency and improved residential building energy ratings and disclosure. The NEPP could result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions in numerous sectors including transport, agriculture, industry and electricity.

The NEPP is expected to contribute over one quarter of the emissions reductions required to meet our 2030 target. However, as of July 2016, there does not appear to be any additional funding specifically allocated to implement this plan. The plan appears to have a very low profile.

While we may stand on a clifftop lookout and gaze in awe at its world-class sandstone scenery, it wasn't the scenery or the geology but the flora and fauna that pushed the Greater Blue Mountains over the line in its world heritage listing. In an era in which we are easily distracted by technology and worrying world events not to mention frantically busy lives, this book is a balm to the spirit and a timely reminder that we have on our doorstep a region that is unique and biologically rich, and must be preserved at all cost. The work was compiled by veteran Blue Mountains ecologists whose names many of you will recognise from their comprehensive botanical surveys of the Hornsby Shire and other wild areas of greater Sydney.

Native Fauna of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is far from the first publication on the topic in the region of course, but it compiles for the first time in one volume all the mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds that have been recorded in that vast and physically challenging area. It does this with many compact but excellent photos, and also with summary descriptions of sightings, key habit and habitat information and conservation status. Plus there is a full index and comprehensive reference list.

The impact of the book is further lifted however by more than 25 beautiful watercolours by Kate Smith. These not only are accurate representations of their subjects but have a pleasing softness that contrasts with the many sharply-defined photographs taken by Peter Smith. This is a must buy for anyone with an interest in Blue Mountains natural history and should sell at least many hundreds of copies. It's available in Blue Mountains bookshops and information centres (there are many) so buy a copy next time you're up there.

Judy, Peter and Kate Smith
P&J Smith Ecological Consultants
published 2019, 172 pp, full colour, $35
Review by John Martyn

The state and federal governments are unwilling to discuss the issue of Australia’s population growth. The general view is that the greater the growth the more we will all benefit. Of course their only interest is the simple notion of economic growth, not social wellbeing or environmental quality. Actually economic growth has not been great either. The fact that economic growth per capita has not kept up with inflation has been conveniently ignored.

Australia’s population grew by an average of 400,000 over each of the last five years to reach 25.4 million at 30 June 2019. 60% of this growth is from net overseas migration. This is adding another Canberra every year. The prospect that our population could reach 60 million by the end of the century doesn’t seem to worry the politicians. They appear to believe that this is a fact of life.

Sustainable Population Australia commissioned a report on the infrastructure needs of Australia following the increase in our growth rate this century. The report by Leith van Onselen from business analysis firm Macrobusiness found that unless Australia's population growth is substantially reduced, it is an illusion to believe that infrastructure will ever catch up.

Amenity for people in our major cities is being eroded through increasing congestion and road tolls, declining housing affordability and loss of green space. The whole country is having to bear the growing infrastructure costs.

The report estimates that each additional person requires at least $100,000 worth of additional public infrastructure to maintain the current standard of living. Governments have been trying to catch up with a backlog of infrastructure that developed during the early part of this century. Some progress is being made but we will be forever trying to catch up to cater for the new residents.

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics estimated that congestion costed the Australian economy $16.5 billion in 2015. Moreover, without major policy changes, congestion costs are projected to reach $27 to $37 billion by 2030. Similarly, Infrastructure Australia, in its 2019 infrastructure audit, estimated that the annualised cost of traffic congestion and public transport crowding in Australia would rise from $19 billion in 2016 to $39.6 billion in 2031. These congestion pressures will be particularly acute in Sydney and Melbourne.

The cold hard truth is that the quantity of infrastructure investment required for a big Australia is mind-boggling.

The volume of population growth into Sydney and Melbourne needs to be put into perspective:

• It took Sydney roughly 210 years to reach a population of 3.9 million in 2001. Yet the official medium projection by the ABS has Sydney reaching roughly 2.5 times that number of people in only 65 years.
• It took Melbourne nearly 170 years to reach a population of 3.3 million in 2001. The official medium ABS projection, however, has Melbourne’s population tripling that number in only 65 years.

In the face of these unprecedented numbers, the key difference between then and now needs to be underlined: unlike the post-war period, it is no longer easy to further expand the capacities of our largest cities. What was an abundant supply of cheap frontier land in the 1950s and 1960s is now well and truly built-out. Both cities are now sprawling metropolises with greenfield land in short supply. Ever-longer commutes erode productivity, and ever-greater distances between rich and poor neighbourhoods entrench disadvantage. New infrastructure investment necessarily requires costly solutions like land acquisitions and tunnelling in order to retrofit projects into existing suburbs.

Some recent examples are stark. The WestConnex project in Sydney will reportedly cost $17 billion for 33 km ($515 million per kilometre) while Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel is expected to cost $6.7 billion for five kilometres of highway ($1.34 billion per kilometre). In contrast, the 155 km Woolgoolga to Ballina highway upgrade, a surface road, costs $4.9 billion, or just $32 million per kilometre (approximately 16 times less than WestConnex, and 42 times less than the West Gate Tunnel, on a per kilometre basis). And yet, with all of this current and proposed investment, of increasing orders of magnitude, congestion is still expected to increase.

The Productivity Commission has reported several times on the costs and benefits of immigration and has found little if any net benefit for the existing population. It has also added an important caveat, namely that it has not taken the infrastructure or environmental costs into its analyses because of the complexity of doing so

There are two myths that the government keeps on spruiking as the solution. Again these were the findings of a COAG report.

Invest in Infrastructure and Plan Better

The SPA report demonstrates that this is impossible with the current growth rate.

Settle New Migrants in Regional Areas

There is no way of keeping migrants in regional areas when there is not enough employment. Cutting Sydney’s population by 40,000 would not be noticed but the addition of that many people to a centre like Orange would double its current numbers. Most regional centres do not have enough water supply to cater for a large increase in population. Much of regional Australia is located far away from the ocean, meaning that desalination of seawater is not an option, and large-scale desalination of groundwater for inland towns is unlikely to be feasible or ecologically sustainable.

Members of the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society and the Lane Cove community have been saddened by the death in September of Doug Stuart. Doug was a tireless advocate for the natural and built environment of Lane Cove and further afield. His first venture into bushland protection was prompted by news in 1970 that the local golf course wanted to double its size by annexing bushland, some of it at the bottom of his garden. Community anger at the potential harm to local flora and fauna prompted a public meeting and the foundation of the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society in March 1971. Stuart was a founding executive member and, with his wife Norma, has been a driving force behind the society serving as president (10 years) and secretary (12 years).

In the summer of 1971 to 72, Stuart organised a large team of volunteers to survey the state of all Lane Cove’s bushland to identify sites suitable for regeneration. He drew maps of each site and collated ownership details. He gave the document to council who responded to the call to maintain and protect it. In 1998, he helped found RASAD, a community group advocating for appropriate development in the Lane Cove village. Doug’s profession as an architect enabled close analysis of development proposals.

His philosophy was that development should complement and improve the local built environment, sit easily in the natural world and provide real public benefit. RASAD spoke out against a series of inappropriate proposals, demanded change in others and refused to accept developers’ proposals that would have turned Lane Cove’s art deco village into concrete and steel.