1

HSI & Sigourney Weaver raise plight of the albatross at the United Nations

HSI recently took up an invitation from Australia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, H.E. The Hon Robert Hill, to give a presentation on albatross conservation* (with the help of Bird Life International) at an event alongside film star Sigourney Weaver, The Natural Resources Defence Council and The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition.

The presentation was given to an audience of UN Ambassadors from 80 other countries at Australia’s Consulate in New York in April, to raise awareness that the world’s longline fishing fleets are risking the extinction of several species of albatross.

HSI’s Alistair Graham gave the presentation and showed that technology is available to prevent albatrosses getting caught and drowned by the longlines, if only there was the political will to make it happen. Alistair beseeched the Ambassadors to take the message home to their fisheries’ ministers admonishing them to take the issue much more seriously.

HSI sincerely thanks Ambassador Hill for giving us such a prestigious platform for our albatross campaign and Sigourney Weaver for taking time out of her busy schedule to support this important issue.

* “The Protection of the Deep Sea and Conservation of Seabirds: What has to be done and what we need to do in September 2009”.

Thanks to Greg Grainger for producing video footage for the event.

TECHNICAL BULLETINIssue 14 2009

EXT INCTION DENIED PROGRAM

Humane Society International Inc. ABN 63 510 927 032 PO Box 439 Avalon NSW 2107 AustraliaTelephone (02) 9973 1728 • Facsimile (02) 9973 1729 Email admin@hsi.org.au • www.hsi.org.au

Climate and forests

Introducing Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA)

Seeking to amplify our voice in the international negotiations for a new climate change agreement, we are among the founding members of the Ecosystems Climate Alliance www.ecosytemsclimate.org. The Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA) is an alliance of environment and social NGOs committed to keeping natural terrestrial ecosystems intact and their carbon out of the atmosphere, in an equitable and transparent way that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. ECA recognises that avoiding emissions of terrestrial carbon stored in the soils and biomass of forests, peatlands and wetlands represents an important opportunity for cost-effective greenhouse gas pollution impact mitigation. ECA advocates climate, forest and land use policies to give strong, equitable, transparent and positive incentives free of perversities for avoiding the degradation of terrestrial carbon stores and for rehabilitating degraded land, supported by effective forest governance, robust monitoring and demand-side policies to ensure meaningful outcomes.

Other members of the ECA are the Environmental Investigations Agency, Global Witness, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Foundation Norway, Rainforest Foundation UK, The Wilderness Society (Australia) and Wetlands International. Since combining forces, there are signs from the negotiating tables at the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Chance) that the ECA is getting its message across to key REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) policy makers.

Scrutiny and praise for Australia from ECA

Australian members of the Ecosystems Climate Alliance have drawn attention to accusations Australia is hiding greenhouse gas emissions from forestry and land clearing set out in a report on Australia’s greenhouse gas inventory by a UNFCCC Expert Review Team. The inventory reveals that Australia’s emissions since 1990 have risen dramatically in the energy and industrial sectors, and that it is only the claimed reductions in emissions from the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry sector) — apparent reductions in landclearing, especially in Queensland — that prevented Australia from otherwise recording a 30% increase in emissions. A net 7% increase is reported. The UNFCCC Expert Review Team has cast doubt on Australia’s claimed emission savings from the LULUCF sector, raising questions over our National Carbon Accounting System and underestimations of emissions from forest clearance and fires.

The Wilderness Society and Humane Society International have called on the Rudd government to admit the problems of reporting and accounting in the LULUCF sector that they inherited from the Howard era, and to make a commitment to make them honest and transparent.

The ECA has published “Deconstructing LULUCF and its perversities: rules made by loggers for loggers” which explains how developed countries avoid their responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol in the landuse and forestry sectors, available at http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=261. The latest ECA submission on reform of LULUCF is at http://www.hsi.org.au/editor/assets/climate_change/ECA_Submission_on_REDD_24April09.pdf.

Continued page 2

HSI Consultant Alistair Graham, Australia’s UN Ambassador Robert Hill and Sigourney Weaver in New York.

2

Climate and forests (continued from page 1)

Meanwhile, the Rudd Government has won congratulations from the Ecosystems Climate Alliance at the latest climate change negotiations in Bonn in March for intervening on the importance of indigenous peoples in any measures to be agreed on forests. This followed a shift in the Gov- ernment’s indigenous rights policy after endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At issue is the impact that any new system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation around the globe might have on forest dwelling indigenous peoples and local communities. The Ecosystems Climate Alliance has welcomed and looks forward to seeing more of this focus in their REDD negotiating position as talks continue towards Copenhagen. Details on all the ECA recommendations for the REDD mechanism are at http://www.hsi.org.au/editor/assets/climate_change/ECA_Submission_on_REDD_24April09.pdf. ECA partner organisat-ions, including HSI, have been attending all recent UNFCCC negotiations, and will be in Bonn in June for the next major round of talks, where HSI will participate in a side-event on biodiversity and REDD.

Australia champions REDDHSI has welcomed the Australian Government’s proposal for the design of a REDD market mechanism being negotiated at the UNFCCC for inclusion in the new international agreement for post 2012 emission reductions expected to be agreed on at the next UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen in December 2009. The Government has described REDD as being one of the priorities for Copenhagen. Following a concerted effort on the part of HSI and others, we are pleased that the Australian proposal aims to tackle forest degradation and is not limited to deforestation (which is simply degradation at its most extreme and ignores the impacts of logging) and that Australia is concerned to ensure that the mechanism does not lead to perverse outcomes for biodiversity. Also welcome is the Government’s intent to see eventual full inclusion of the land use sector, including agriculture, in market approaches at the UNFCCC and their proposition that any REDD mechanism must include compliance measures and dispute settlement procedures. We also welcome the Government’s intent for REDD incentives to be available for countries with different rates of historical emissions, however HSI would prefer the Government recommend a carbon stock change approach rather than an activity based approach to REDD to better deal with this.

HSI does agree with Australia that the magnitude of the problem is such that multiple funding sources will be needed to combat deforestation and forest degradation around the world — both market based and direct financial assistance from developed countries will be needed. History has shown that direct financial assistance alone from developed countries has never been enough to tackle the world’s environmental challenges. Whereas, HSI believes emerging carbon markets present an unprecedented opportunity to increase the value of intact forests and leverage the sort of funds needed to stop their degradation and thus protect their precious biodiversity.

HSI believes it is possible to design a REDD market mechanism that will provide money to developing countries to protect forests while fostering appropriate development of forest-dependent communities, without reducing the incentive for all countries to reduce their industrial emissions, and that concerns forest credits will flood the carbon market can be allayed.

However, while supportive of the Australian Government’s stance on REDD, we are warning that Australia risks accusations of hypocrisy if it fails to bring an end to industrial logging and associated degradation of carbon stores in our own native forests. HSI is also highly critical of

the Government’s failure to commit to overall greenhouse gas reduction targets that have a decent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. Even the conditional 25% reduction recently put back on the negotiating table, if adopted by all developed countries, would be insufficient to save coral reefs and other chunks of Australian biodiversity.

Restricting imports for unsustainable timber

The Federal Government has asked the Centre for International Economics (CIE) to undertake a Regulatory Impact Statement for its election commitment to restrict imports of illegally logged timber and associated wood products. CIE is seeking comments on options ranging from voluntary self regulatory measures to mandatory measures such as tariffs, bans and regulation. Meanwhile, rumours abound that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) prefers a continuation of the self regulatory approach favoured by the Howard Government and is developing a Code of Practice1. Anyone reading the election commitment by Rudd and Sidebottom on 23 July 072 to ‘crack down on illegal timber imports’, ‘identify and restrict’ them would reasonably have assumed this meant a prohibition and yet HSI is concerned ‘restrict’ is being interpreted loosely by DAFF. HSI is further con- cerned that, in the forestry sector, “legal” is not a good proxy for “ecologically sustainable” and so we have set out proposals for the Government to also tackle imports of timber that have been harvested unsustainably. Such demand side measures are all important in the overall REDD strategy. We hope the Rudd Government will not to falter on this important election commitment.

Trading REDD credits in Australia

Land clearing in Australia is the fourth largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the use of a market based mechanism to conserve carbon such as the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) provides an enormous opportunity to clamp down on land clearing and rehabilitate degraded landscapes. This would help meet key biodiversity conservation objectives while making an immediate contribution to reducing Australia’s carbon emissions and improving ongoing carbon sequestration rates.

The Government’s White Paper for the CPRS rejects the proposition that a domestic version of a REDD mechanism should be included. Perversely, the White Paper discriminates in favour of the establishment of plantation trees and against the retention of native forests with both higher carbon densities and biodiversity values, to the detriment of both the Australian environment and of national efforts to reduce emissions.

HSI proposes that Australian landholders choosing to surrender a legal right or forego a legal opportunity to remove or degrade native vegetation on their land be able to voluntarily opt in to the CPRS permit system just as the Green Paper proposes that landholders choosing to plant trees can opt in. The modalities of any such mechanism aimed at reducing emissions by ceasing to degrade natural carbon stores would obviously be different from those aimed at increasing sequestration by planting trees.

As a supplementary measure, HSI proposes that a proportion of any CPRS revenues derived from selling pollution permits be used to establish a new environmental stewardship trust fund dedicated to providing incentive payments to landholders choosing to protect areas of high biodiversity value native vegetation, while also contributing to carbon emission reduction and provision of other ecosystem services of interest to the wider community.

HSI commends the Government for taking a strong international lead on efforts to achieve agreement at the December Copenhagen climate change talks on an effective REDD mechanism and we support the White Paper’s proposals to provide, under the CPRS, the opportunity for domestic emitters to purchase REDD credits from developing countries with appropriate mechanisms in place to contribute towards their domestic emissions reduction targets. The multiple benefits of this regional opportunity to help our developing country neighbours, especially Indonesia and PNG, are undoubtedly strong, given the huge carbon stores and high biodiversity values at risk.

1 Illegally logged imports under scrutiny, Christopher Jay, 1 May 2009 Australian Financial Review (Abstracts).2 Securing the Future of Tasmania’s Forestry Industry, Media Statement, 23 July 2007.

3

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

HSI has been privileged to contribute seed funding to a Demonstration Atlas by the United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) of carbon and biodiversity hotspots. The Demonstration Atlas* shows the potential for spatial analysis to identify natural areas within countries that are high in both carbon and biodiversity. Such areas will be of interest to countries wanting to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through avoided deforestation and to maximise biodiversity protection at the same time. It is an important capacity building tool to help developing countries prepare to make the most of the REDD mechanism from the perspective of both climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. The first phase of the research was launched at the UNFCCC meeting in Poznan, Poland in December 2008. http://www.hsi.org.au/editor/assets/climate_change/Carbon&Biodiversity.pdf

The second and final stage of the project, to which HSI is also contributing funds, will produce a web-based carbon and biodiversity atlas. It will provide flexible tools to assist countries to deliver benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services from REDD and related climate mitigation policies. This work will inform the preparations for UNFCCC COP 15, which is expected to adopt a decision on REDD. HSI will be in Copenhagen to help launch the final initiative. Below is the country carbon and biodiversity profile for Viet Nam reproduced from phase one of the project.

* Kapos V., Ravilious C., Campbell A., Dickson B., Gibbs H.K., Hansen M.C., Lysenko I., Miles L., Price J., Scharlemann J.P.W., Trumper K.C. (2008) Carbon and biodiversity: a demonstration atlas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK

Mapping biodiversity and carbon hotspots

Country profile — Viet NamViet Nam lies along the south-eastern margin of the Indo-Chinese peninsula. Three quarters of its 329,000 km2 land area is hilly or mountainous, with river deltas and marshlands prominent in the coastal lowlands. Viet Nam’s terrestrial ecosystems contain approximately 5.4 Gt of carbon. High carbon areas (shown in dark brown) run the entire length of Viet Nam, largely tracking the distribution of rain and monsoon forest, but are particularly prevalent in the carbon rich soils in the south in the delta of the Mekong River.

Viet Nam is high in biodiversity and endemicity, with more than 12,000 species of higher vascular plants, and hundreds of recorded species of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, including several new species only recently discovered. The high biodiversity areas shown in green on the demonstration map are based on Viet Nam’s Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs; Birdlife Indochina et al. 2004), which have been identified at the national level using simple, internationally defined criteria, based on their importance in maintaining populations of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish and plants. The map shows that much of Viet Nam’s high biodiversity land (58%) is also high in carbon, and 19 per cent of the area with the highest carbon stocks is also important for biodiversity.

Therefore, actions to reduce emissions from land use change in Viet Nam could have significant biodiversity benefits. In total, 0.4 Gt of carbon is stored in the areas with high values of both carbon and biodiversity. Protected areas, shown on the map in orange, cover about 30 per cent of the land area that is of high importance for biodiversity. However, they overlap with only 9 per cent of the area with the highest carbon stocks.

The diagram (right) shows that Viet Nam’s protected area network covers 32 per cent of the land area that has been classified as having high values for both carbon and biodiversity.

Viet Nam’s terrestrial ecosystems contain approximately 5.4 Gt of carbon.

4

Earlier this year, HSI nominations gave native habitat protection in Australia’s eastern states a welcome boost with the listing of four new threatened ecological communities, encompassing up to 637,184 hectares, under the EPBC Act.

Gippsland red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana) grassy woodland and associated native grassland is endemic to Victoria and covers between 900 and 5,600 ha in the Central Gippsland Plain. Land clearing, weeds and exotic species, fragmentation of habitat and inappropriate fire and grazing regimes have reduced this community by between 95.3 and 99.2%. As such, it has been listed as Critically Endangered. This listing combines HSI’s previous nominations for Central Gippsland Plains Grassland of the South East Coastal Plains, and Forest Red Gum Grassy Community of Gippsland, Victoria, which were originally submitted to the Government in 2005.

Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern NSW and southern QLD were also listed as Critically Endangered following a review of the previously listed Bluegrass (Dichanthium spp.) dominant grasslands of the Brigalow Belt Bioregions (North and South) ecological community (listed subsequent to an HSI nomination), and HSI’s nomination for Austrostipa aristiglumis grasslands of the Liverpool Plains in NSW in 2003. The community defined by this new listing has undergone a severe decline of at least 95%, with only 29,000 ha remaining.

The review of the bluegrass community was also incorporated into the listing of the natural grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin as an Endangered ecological community. Extending over 241,584 ha, this commun- ity has undergone a decline of 64% since European settlement.

Following a reduction of 83 to 94%, Weeping Myall Woodlands have now also been listed as an Endangered ecological community. Extending throughout parts of Queensland, NSW and Victoria, this community occurs on highly fertile and arable soils and has been under considerable pressure from the landclearing demands of cropping. Landclearing, habitat fragmentation, overgrazing and weed invasion have reduced this habitat to between 220,000 and 361,000 ha.

A decision is due on a number of additional HSI threatened ecological community nominations currently being assessed by the end of the year. These include Inland Grey Box communities in NSW, Qld and Vic, Lowland Temperate Grasslands of Tasmania, and the nomination to up-list Cumberland Plain Woodland to Critically Endangered. HSI is hopeful that these communities will finally receive the protection they need to ensure their full recovery.

These recent listings bring the total amount of threatened communities protected by HSI under the Commonwealth’s EPBC and other state legislation to approximately 2 million hectares (5 million acres).

Significant boost for habitat protection

HSI Nominations table footnotes:1 This listing combined HSI’s previous nominations for Central Gippsland Plains Grassland of the South East Coastal Plains, and Forest Red Gum Grassy Community of Gippsland, Victoria.2 This listing includes and supersedes the previously listed Bluegrass (Dichanthium spp.) dominant grasslands of the Brigalow Belt Bioregions (North and South).3 This listing also includes and supersedes the previously listed Bluegrass (Dichanthium spp.) dominant grasslands of the Brigalow Belt Bioregions (North and South).4 Threatened species nominations for great hammerhead, dusky shark, and long- and shortfin mako sharks were submitted in March 2009 to be considered in the current assessment period. A decision on whether they have been prioritised by the government for assessment is due in October 2009. The nomination for southern bluefin tuna was prioritised in the assessment period commencing in 2007 and a decision is due by the end of 2009.5 A decision has been made to reject this nomination. The TSSC has found that patagonian toothfish are unlikely to have undergone a substantial decline in Australian waters, that numbers of individuals are not low, and that current levels of fishing do not constitute a threat to the survival of the species. 6 This nomination is currently being developed.7 A preliminary decision not to list this community was made by the NSW Scientific Committee in August 2008. HSI is sourcing additional information on the community that could enable us to re-submit the nomination for consideration.8 Both the Federal and NSW Governments have acknowledged the ecological importance yet continuing decline of this community. Although not currently being assessed, it is being held for possible consideration this year.9 This nomination was submitted in March 2009 to be considered in the current assessment period. A decision on whether it has been prioritised by the government for assessment is due in October 2009.10 The Coral Sea was submitted as a joint nomination with the Pew Environment Group, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Cairns and Far North Environment Centre and The Wilderness Society. 11 A decision on the listing of Fitzgerald River Ravensthorpe Range Area, Beekeepers-Lesueur- Coomallo Area and Nambung National Park, Ningaloo Reef, Cape Range and Exmouth Gulf Area, and the Tarkine Wilderness Area is due by the end of 2009.12 The assessment of this area includes HSI’s nominations for the Drysdale River National Park Prince Regent Nature Reserve and dingo populations.

Thanks to DEWHA for providing the ecological communities map.

5

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

HSI Nominations

Recent ecological community listingsGippsland red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana) grassy woodland and associated native grassland1

Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern NSW and southern QLD2

Natural grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin3

Weeping Myall Woodlands

Recent marine species listingsSchool sharkOrange roughyGemfish (eastern population)

Pending marine species nominations under the EPBC Act4

Great hammerhead sharkLongfin mako sharkShortfin mako sharkDusky sharkSouthern Bluefin TunaPatagonian Toothfish5

Pending threatened ecological community nominations under the NSW TSC ActBull Mallee – White Mallee tall mallee woodland on red sand loam soils in the central western slopes of NSWCumberland Plain Woodland (this nomination is an uplisting)Marsh club-rush very tall sedgeland of inland watercoursesPorcupine Grass – Red Mallee – Gum Coolabah hummock grassland / low sparse woodland on metamorphic ranges on the Barrier Range, Broken Hill Complex BioregionBlue Mallee – Green Mallee – Broombush mallee low woodland of the NSW South-western Slopes BioregionPoplar Box and Belah Woodlands in the NSW central and north wheatbelt6

Yellow Gum Tall Woodland of Murray River Floodplain7

Threatened ecological communities being assessed for protection under the Commonwealth EPBC ActThe Coorong and Lower Lakes (Lakes Alexandrina and Albert)Cumberland Plain Woodland (this nomination is an uplisting) Coolibah/black box woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and Queensland Brigalow Belt South bioregionsMacquarie Marshes8

Giant kelp forests of the east and south coasts of Tasmania9

Pending National Heritage nominationsCooper Creek sub-catchmentCoral Sea10

Barrow Island and the Montebello / Barrow Islands Marine Conservation ReservesCape York PeninsulaGreat Western WoodlandsThe Paroo RiverLake Eyre and Elliot Price Conservation ParkBrisbane Water and Bouddi National ParksAustralia’s Antarctic Territory (AAT) / Australia’s Antarctic Whale Sanctuary (EEZ)Daintree Lowland RainforestFitzgerald River Ravensthorpe Range Area11

Beekeepers-Lesueur-Coomallo Area and Nambung National ParkNingaloo Reef, Cape Range and Exmouth Gulf AreaTarkine Wilderness AreaThe Kimberley, WA12

Pending Commonwealth Heritage nominationsTownsville Field Training Area

Status

Critically EndangeredCritically Endangered

EndangeredEndangered

Conservation DependentConservation DependentConservation Dependent

EndangeredVulnerableVulnerableVulnerable

Conservation DependentConservation Dependent

Critically Endangered Critically EndangeredCritically Endangered

Endangered

EndangeredEndangeredEndangered

Critically EndangeredCritically Endangered

EndangeredEndangeredEndangered

Further information on HSI nominations can be found on our website at http://www.hsi.org.au/index.php?catID=94

6

The east and south coasts of Tasmania are the only places where the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, exists in Australia’s waters. A unique and dynamic ecosystem, giant kelp forests are one of the most spectacular marine habitats in temperate Australia, and are of outstanding ecological significance, representing areas of high biodiversity and productivity. This ecological community, however, has suffered a significant decline throughout its distribution over the last 50 years, and its limited extent makes it particularly susceptible to continuing threats. As such, HSI has recently nominated the giant kelp forests of the east and south coasts of Tasmania for national protection as an endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act.

While the community is dominated by the giant kelp species, its three dimensional structure creates a complex habitat of immense biodiversity. An intricate structure of understorey levels is comprised of other specialised species, including kelp species whose fronds are held vertically above the rocky substratum and those with canopies lying horizontally, algal turfs and encrusting coralline algae on the rocks beneath.

The complex physical structure of the community also supports an abundance of marine fauna. It provides shelter and habitat for fish species, molluscs, bryozoans, polychaete worms, crustaceans such as crabs, isopods and amphipods, echinoderms and sponges. These species live throughout the kelp plants — on the holdfast, among the kelp fronds, on the kelp plants themselves, and in the low light areas of the seafloor beneath the kelp canopy. The disappearance of giant kelp would therefore have significant downstream effects on marine biodiversity.

Unfortunately, the most recent research estimates that the canopy area of this community has already undergone a decline of 64% over the last 50 years, and a 45% decline over just the last 20 years. This downward trend is likely to continue from the alteration of predator-prey relationships resulting from overfishing, marine pollution, and large-scale oceanographic changes that are expected to worsen due to the predicted increases in sea surface temperatures as a result of climate change. Already, an increased pattern of warming along the north-eastern coast of Tasmania has been correlated with major kelp losses.

The Federal Government will be releasing their finalised priority assessment list for ecological communities later this year. This will specify the communities to be assessed during the 2009-2010 assessment period. Given the limited distribution and continuing decline of the giant kelp forests, HSI is urging the Government to prioritise this community for a speedy assessment.

Protection sought for Tasmania’s giant kelp forests

At the start of 2009, HSI published a comprehensive National Heritage strategy entitled, “Conserving Australian Landscapes Beyond the National Reserve System: Developing Terrestrial Natural Heritage Priorities and Using the EPBC Act Effectively”. Prepared by Dr Judy Lambert of Community Solutions and HSI Director Michael Kennedy, the document prioritises areas for National Heritage assessment and listing based primarily on concentrations of high biodiversity (biodiversity hotspots). The primary recommendations were provided to Minister Garrett, and are reproduced below:

“While there are a large number of areas that are deserving of comprehensive assessment for their biodiversity and National Heritage values, priority areas are identified as follows:

•CapeYorkPeninsula •Cairns-WooroonooranNationalPark-DaintreeLowlandRainforest •Einasleigh&DesertUplands •BrigalowNorth •GreatEasternAustraliaForests •WesternTasmania,Midlands&Tarkine

HSI National Heritage strategy •Gawler,LoftyRanges&KangarooIsland •GreatWesternWoodlands •SouthwestWesternAustralia •CarnarvonBasin •Hamersley-Pilbara •NorthKimberley •WestMacDonnellRanges

To these priorities should be added the Mound Springs of South Australia and the Northern Territory, the Paroo River and Cooper Creek catchments, and Barrow Island. (These places are currently being assessed for heritage listing or have been nominated by HSI for heritage listing.) As part of ensuring that our Natural Heritage is as adequately protected as possible, a review of all existing Commonwealth places (especially those on the Register of the National Estate (RNE)) for their potential National and/or Commonwealth Heritage values, and listing of those places that meet one or more of the criteria, should also be completed”.

http://www.hsi.org.au/editor/assets/admin/HSISpecialTB_Jan09.pdf

© iStockphoto.com / Todd Winner.

7

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

The following is taken from the introduction to a nomination to list approximately 85 square kilometers of largely unprotected Daintree Lowland Rainforest on the National Heritage List, prepared by ARUP in cooperation with HSI and DRF. The Commonwealth must decide whether to trigger a formal assessment for the Daintree lowland rainforest National Heritage values by around June 2009.

Introduction

“This National Heritage Listing nomination is for the Daintree Lowland Rainforest. It is being submitted jointly by the Daintree Rainforest Foundation, Humane Society International (www.hsi.org.au) and Arup (www.arup.com).

The original nomination for the Daintree Lowlands was submitted to the then Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) on the 14th of August 2006 and was proposed as an emergency nomination. This was because the IPA Planning Scheme for the then Douglas Shire had not yet been adopted and the Temporary Local Planning Instrument preventing development in the lowland areas was due to be lifted on the 15th of September 2006. This would potentially have left the area open to unchecked development.

However on the 4th of September 2006 the new Douglas Shire Planning Scheme came into effect, providing some development control in the lowland areas and reducing the imminence of the threat to the national heritage values. A revised nomination was submitted for assessment under the normal National Heritage Listing process on the 18th of September 2006 and contained additional information as requested in the letter from DEH (23 August 2006).

Following further comments from DEH, the nomination was again revised to include all lowland rainforest areas regardless of their tenure status and was resubmitted in November 2006. Therefore the nomination now refers to a continuous area rather than 4 distinct groups of freehold properties as for the previous version. However additional detail for each of the 4 previously nominated areas is still included to highlight the values specific to these areas.

The November 2006 nomination was not selected by the Australian Heritage Council for the priority assessment list. This current nomination (February 2009) is therefore submitted for renewed consideration.

The ‘Daintree Lowland Rainforest’ is located between the Daintree River and Cape Tribulation approximately 100 km North of Cairns. The area is primarily the freehold land extending from the northern esplanade of the Daintree River to just north of Cape Tribulation.

Daintree Lowland Rainforest — National Heritage nomination

These freehold lands are surrounded by conservation reserves that include the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area (including the Daintree National Park and Timber Reserve TR165) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Daintree National Park and other crown reserves total approximately 8990 square kilometres and are all included in the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area (WTQWHA) (Wet Tropics Management Authority 2003).

There are significant areas of lowland rainforest in the Daintree lowlands, totalling approximately 85 square kilometres, which are outside the World Heritage Area (Rainforest CRC 2000). These are currently held under freehold title and are the areas Daintree Lowlands National Heritage List Nomination that were originally

the subject of this nomination. The management and protection of these areas has been the subject of much debate and was the focus of the ‘Daintree Futures Study’ (Rainforest CRC 2000) commissioned by the Wet Tropics Management Authority Ministerial Council.

Following comment from DEH in 2006 relating to the definition of a National Heritage ‘place’ in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, this nomination includes not only the freehold land but all the lowland rainforest in the Daintree region, including the freehold properties and some areas of World Heritage Area and National Park. This therefore enables the lowland rainforest to be defined a continuous area or ‘place’ consistent with the requirements for National Heritage Listing.”

8

The Wildlife Land Trust is involved in a growing number of habitat refuges internationally, that have become a part of the global Trust network, usually reflecting places and projects where the WLT or HSUS/HSI has provided funding support, but where we do not necessarily have ongoing management responsibilities. The Golden Stream Corridor Preserve in Belize is another example of WLT cooperative land protection programs.

Nearly ten thousand acres of irreplaceable rainforest and related wildlife habitats in Belize’s Golden Stream watershed are protected by a cooperative agreement entered into by The Wildlife Land Trust with the Golden Stream Corridor Preserve, Fauna and Flora International, and EarthVoice. Through the teaming of resources and expertise, the land is permanently protected from the encroachment of development and other activities that would otherwise diminish the land’s ability to nurture wildlife.

Large blocks of pristine forest, including many large mahogany and Santa Maria trees, make the preservation of this habitat especially important. As the last tropical lowland mixed broad-leaf forest linking the Maya Mountains with Port Honduras Marine Reserve, this expansive property provides essential food, shelter and safe places for a rich array of indigenous wildlife.

A number of threatened and endangered species of mammals inhabit the area, including the threatened Baird’s tapir, the endangered Central American spider monkey, and the endangered West Indian manatee. Other mammals for whom this land provides sanctuary are the collared peccary, paca, kinkajou, coatimundi, neotropical river otter, and Central America’s five great cats: the jaguar, jaguarundi, puma, ocelot and margay. Over 300 species of birds have also been identified on the property, many of which are considered endangered on a global scale, such as the keel-billed motmot.

Golden Stream Corridor Preserve, Belize

The 600 acre Curricabark Wildlife Refuge is owned and managed by WLT and HSI Director Michael Kennedy, family and friends. The property was purchased back in 1979, for the express purpose of designation as a wildlife sanctuary, and is now a member of the Wildlife Land Trust network of sanctuaries.

Curricabark is located a few miles north-west of Gloucester in NSW, and contains a good mixture of rainforest assemblages, including the Rusty Fig (Ficus rubiginosa), the Whalebone Tree (Streblus brunonianus), the Giant Stinging Tree (Dendrocnide excelsa), Red Olive Plum (Cassine australis) dry rainforest, and Alectryon forsythii – A. subdentatus – Native Olive (Notelaea microcarpa) vine thicket dry rainforest.

The refuge also protects the nationally endangered rainforest climber Cynanchum elegans, which was recorded at three sites, and is listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995. This threatened climber may be at its most western and north western geographic limit over its whole global distribution. The refuge also protects koalas and glossy black cockatoos, both threatened in NSW, and a moth (Dichromia quinqualis) which is of conservation significance. It has been a decade since Curricabark was briefly surveyed however, and it is time for another look at its broad biodiversity status.

The primary aim of the management plan is to effectively conserve and protect all habitats and species currently occurring at Curricabark, and to contribute to efforts regionally for connecting wildlife corridors and mitigation work against the growing effects of climate change.

Michael and family and friends are in the process of negotiating a “Voluntary Conservation Agreement” with the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change, aimed at protecting, in perpetuity, its important ecological communities.

Curricabark Wildlife Refuge

Private Conservation Grants Program

HSI’s Wildlife Land Trust (WLT), in conjunction with the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife, the Paddy Pallin Foundation, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Nature Conservation Trust of NSW and the Diversicon Environment Foundation, have instigated a second round of the “Private Conservation Grants Program” for properties within New South Wales that are covered by a perpetually binding conservation covenant. Administered by the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife, this program is designed, through the provision of funding from $500 up to $3,000, to enhance the conservation efforts of privately owned properties across the state.

Applications are received on an annual basis up till the end of June and programs up to three years will be considered based on a series of relevant criteria. With a total of $50,000 available for the management and improvement of biological diversity in 2009/2010, it is hoped that this fund will not only serve to protect and improve a significant amount of properties, but also encourage others to permanently protect their land with a binding agreement. Grant applications for this year close on June 30th, 2009. Application forms can be accessed on line at: www.fnpw.org.au/Funding/SmallGrantsProgramApp.htm

Douc Langur. © iStockphoto.com / Windzepher.

9

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

Golden Stream Corridor Preserve, BelizeLocated along Canada’s Pacific coast, the Great Bear Rainforest, spanning 21 million acres, boasts some of the world’s most spectacular landscapes. As one of the largest temperate rainforests on Earth, its majestic mountains, forests, fjords, and waterways are home to thousands of species of birds, plants and animals — including grizzlies, black bears and spirit bears.

With the name Great Bear Rainforest, one might think of this vast wilderness area in British Columbia as a safe haven for bears, especially the grizzly, which once roamed widely across North America. However, trophy hunters have set their sights on the vulnerable animals, shooting them for entertainment.

Now, the HSUS/HSI Wildlife Land Trust and other animal protection and conservation groups are joining forces with Coastal First Nations in a historic campaign to protect bears from cruel and unsustainable trophy hunts in British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest.

This campaign to end trophy hunting is one step in protecting the bears and other wildlife in the 21 million acre Great Bear Rainforest.

“The Wildlife Land Trust is honored to be able to support the Coastal First Nations in this important initiative to protect wildlife and habitat,” says Robert W. Koons, Executive Director. “The complexity and scope of the Great Bear Rain Forest demands visionary thinking and action. The campaign to end trophy hunting of bears is one piece of the mosaic. And we are heartened by the broad support indicated by the recent poll of residents of British Columbia, which found that more than 78 percent of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunting of bears in the Great Bear Rainforest.”

Conservationists know that hunting poses a threat to bear populations, noting that of the 430 grizzly bears killed in BC in 2007, 87 percent were killed by trophy hunters. Bears are often gunned down by trophy hunters near shorelines as they forage for food in the spring and fall, in some cases only days after bear viewing operations have left the area. Black bears are also at risk. The BC coast has one of the greatest diversity of black bears subspecies in North America, ranging from the spirit bear (kermode subspecies) to the Haida black bear.

Kitasoo/Xaixais Chief Percy Starr is disappointed that all species of bears in their Traditional Territory are not protected. “We’ve spent years to ensure our lands are protected, only to learn that trophy hunters can continue to come on our lands and kill bears for sport.”

“It’s not right that anyone should make a sport of killing,” said Guujaaw, a spokesperson for Coastal First Nations. “Bears are as much a part of the environment as we are.”

Trophy hunting is also negatively impacting BC’s lucrative ecotourism industry, as bears generate more income for coastal communities alive than dead. “Each bear killed is one less bear that tourists will pay top dollar to photograph,” said Dean Wyatt of the Commercial Bear Viewing

Protecting the Great Bear RainforestAssociation. “Viewers come back year after year to watch the same bears and their young develop and grow. Only a total ban on trophy hunting will ensure that bear populations can support the high-end viewing operations that add valuable income to coastal communities.”

In order to expand the scope of WLT’s influence and effectiveness for the benefit of wildlife, the Trust frequently shares funds, expertise and WLT’s humane philosophy with other organizations. All WLT partnerships are rooted in our commitment to providing wildlife with safe places to live, forever, by assisting other organizations that share our concerns for wildlife and habitat. The WLT is committing significant resources to this campaign.

Our partners on this project include:

Humane Society International/Canada is a leading force for animal protection, representing tens of thousands of members and constituents across the country. HSI/Canada

has active programs in companion animals, wildlife and habitat protection, marine mammal preservation and farm animal welfare.

The Coastal First Nations is an alliance of First Nations on British Columbia’s North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii. Our goal is to restore responsible land, water and resource management approaches on the Central and North Coast of British Columbia, and Haida Gwaii that are ecologically, socially and economically sustainable.

We have developed partnerships with environmental groups, the federal and provincial governments, municipal leaders, industry and other interests to begin the move to a new conservation-based economy with increased First Nations involvement through strong leadership and vision. Members of the Coastal First Nations include Wuikinuxv Nation, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xaixais, Holmalco, Gitga’at, Haisla, Metlakatla, Old Massett, Skidegate, and Council of the Haida Nation.

Pacific Wild is a BC-based non-profit society dedicated to wilderness and wildlife conservation. We work in partnership with a diverse group of organizations and individuals working to achieve lasting environmental protection. Pacific Wild founders and staff have been working on marine

and terrestrial environmental campaigns in British Columbia for two decades.

Grizzly. © iStockphoto.com / _HiM-- _.

10

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International have been supporting and funding an innovative alternative to lethal elephant population control in South Africa since 2000. Increasing elephant populations are fast becoming a growing concern for elephant managers and conservationists alike, especially on small isolated reserves where management is intense and requires urgent attention. When it comes to the control of elephants, managers really have only two options at their disposal, namely translocation and culling.

However, translocation is no longer a viable option due to the lack of suitable wildlife areas available as South Africa, and many other parts of Africa, have virtually reached saturation point. Culling is greatly opposed by many and is viewed as an inhumane population control method. Thus, the majority of reserve managers are prevented from controlling their populations effectively with these means.

A group of local and international scientists have been working on an alternative method of elephant population control called PZP (Porcine Zona Pellucida) immunocontraception. After the initial trials of the immunocontraception in the Kruger National Park (KNP) (1996–2000), the team have been studying the follow-up phase at The Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve, outside Hoedspruit in South Africa (2000 – present)*. These studies have spanned approximately 12 years. Unfortunately, the hormonal trials run in conjunction with the immunocontraceptive trials in the KNP have incorrectly labelled both methods of elephant contraception as socially disruptive, displaying severe behavioural anomalies.

Whilst this was clearly demonstrated with the hormonal trials, a comprehensive, long-term study at Makalali has revealed that immuno-contraception is a safe, remotely deliverable (no need for immobilisation), reliable, reversible, efficacious means of fertility control with no behavioural anomalies with the treatments not affecting bull hierarchy or cow selection. Furthermore, the Makalali study has demonstrated that the vaccination does not affect pregnancies in progress (irrespective of the gestational stage) and a non-pregnant female will be immediately contracepted from the first vaccinational series. For reserves that are largely eco-tourism driven, the implementation of a PZP program will have little effect on game-drive and safari activities.

The method has been demonstrated as cost effective with implementation costs approximately R1,500/elephant (equivalent to approximately US$150). The successes demonstrated in the Makalali study have resulted in the implementation of immunocontraception as an elephant management tool in 12 reserves including Phinda, Welgevonden, Thornybush and recently, Tembe Elephant National Park.

With such comprehensive studies demonstrating that PZP contraception causes no long-term behavioural changes, managers need to assess PZP immunocontraception as a realistic alternative management tool, particularly as part of a longer-term management strategy. It is anticipated

The Greater Makalali Elephant Immunocontraception Programthat the results of this groundbreaking research project will assist game reserves in managing their elephant populations, as the only alternatives have been culling or translocation, neither of which are entirely suitable or feasible management methods in all reserves. On a larger conservation scale, immunocontraception has enormous potential to change the way in which we manage our elephant populations in the future. For further information, visit www.makalaliresearch.co.za.

The advisors and participants of this project include: 1) The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International (principal sponsors); 2) Ms Audrey Delsink and Mr Ross Kettles, Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve, PO Box 1009, Hoedspruit, 1380, South Africa; 3) Mr JJ van Altena and Dr Douw Grobler, Catchco Africa, PO Box 1148, Highlands North, 2037, South Africa; 4) Prof. Henk Bertschinger, University of Pretoria, PO Box 75058, Lynnwood Ridge, 0040, South Africa; 4) Dr Jay Kirkpatrick, Science and Conservation Center, ZooMontana, 2100 South Shiloh Road, Billings, MT 59106, USA.

* The Greater Makalali Private Game Reserve is only a few kilometres from the SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary, a member of HSI’s Wildlife Land Trust.

NSW review of licenses to shoot flying foxes

At the request of HSI and others, New South Wales Environment Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, is reviewing the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) policy to allow licenses for over a thousand grey-headed flying foxes to be killed every year. The licenses are issued despite the species being classified as threatened under NSW and Australian Commonwealth law. HSI is one of 60 animal welfare and conservation organisations that have submitted to the review calling for the shooting to stop.

The licenses are issued to farmers who think shooting flying foxes helps protect their fruit crops. The fact is, shooting is an ineffective method of crop protection so the flying foxes are dying needlessly and in a great deal of pain.

Very often the flying foxes are not killed outright and are left hanging in the trees to die painful slow deaths from their injuries. Worse, they will often be carrying young, also left to die slowly and cruelly. An autopsy report from a typical shooting event, which confirms the cruelty involved, has been sent to Minister Tebbutt questioning whether it is tenable for DEC to issue licenses that are leading to offences being committed under the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Queensland Government recently stopped issuing licenses to shoot flying foxes to their fruit growers after an investigation by the Queensland Animal Welfare Advisory Committee found shooting flying foxes to be inhumane.

On top of the cruelty, scientists are warning the grey-headed flying fox population is in serious decline and the mortality rate from shootings is a contributing factor.

HSI is asking the NSW Government to follow the lead of Queensland and also stop issuing the licenses. We have also recommended Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, refuse permission for the Royal Botanic Gardens to attempt to relocate their flying fox camp due to concern for the species’ deteriorating conservation status.

Photo by Nick Edards.

Auds Delsink and “Kwatile”. Photo by J. Barber.

11

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, is moving ahead with a review of the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC) as promised pre-election, and HSI hopes an amendment bill will be presented during this term of Government, noting that a bill is also needed to fulfill the election commitment to add major new greenhouse gas emitting projects as a Matter of National Environmental Significance.

HSI has appeared before the Review Panel appointed by the Government and headed up by Dr Alan Hawke and also the Senate Enquiry set up to examine the Act, and given detailed submissions to both setting out our recommendations to strengthen the legislation to better deal with the conservation challenges facing the country. Above all, we have argued for a substantial increase in funds for effective EPBC Act implementation.

Among our recommendations for amendments are new Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) triggers for greenhouse gas emissions, vegetation clearance and vulnerable ecological communities. In addition to a trigger, we have called for amendments to include climate change as a consideration in decision making right throughout the Act, as well as a Threat Abatement Plan for biodiversity adaptation to climate change. Amendments are also needed to strengthen protection for critical habitats for threatened species, including climate refugia.

We have argued for provisions to deal with cumulative impacts to avoid MNES suffering death by a thousand cuts. Also to assist with cumulative impacts, we have recommended base line criteria be developed to guide strategic assessments so that what is approved through a strategic assessment avoids further degradation of MNES. Such criteria would specify, for example, that further clearance of an ecological community or critical habitat for a threatened species would not be approved.

We are calling for the triage and drip feed nomination process for listing threatened species, ecological communities and heritage places, introduced in 2006, to be replaced with a fairer process that will see the prompt listing of all that qualifies. Another key recommendation is the reinstatement of the public’s right to appeal the merits of decisions related to wildlife trade and threatened species that were removed in 2006, and a call for merit appeal rights to be expanded to MNES approvals. Copies of HSI submissions to the Hawke Review and Senate Enquiry can be found at http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=61.

Reform of Australia’s national environment laws

In accordance with a statutory requirement, an independent review of the EPBC Act is currently underway. Having been closely involved with the development and passage of the EPBC Act in 1999, HSI is keen to ensure that this reform is focussed on improving the provisions of the Act, and that the areas in which it is already strong are not weakened. Previous articles in recent editions of HSI’s Technical Bulletin have highlighted the Act’s ability to protect Australia’s endangered species and habitats, and nationally significant icons. Current Environment Minister Peter Garrett has demonstrated the versatility of the Act to protect Australia’s unique biodiversity by being the first Environment Minister to utilise the “clearly unacceptable” provisions of the Act, having done so on six occasions. Further examples of the Act’s utility have been demonstrated over the last 6 months.

As the EPBC Act requires a precautionary approach to be taken for any proposal regarding the introduction of a new species into Australia, a request from the hydroponics industry to allow the import of potentially disastrous large earth bumblebees was rejected in October 2008. Despite the proposal that the bumblebees would be confined to greenhouses for crop pollination, on the basis of scientific evidence and advice, the government determined that the risk of escape was too great, and could lead to significant environmental consequences including habitat loss and degradation.

In November, the government utilised the provisions of the EPBC Act to protect the Interlaken Lakeside Reserve Ramsar site and the endangered golden galaxias fish from a Tasmanian Government proposal that would have seen the release of up to 5 megalitres of water each day from Lake Crescent. Water levels in Lake Crescent and the adjoining Lake Sorell are already below the critical levels defined in Tasmania’s water management plan, and any further extraction was deemed unacceptable.

The precautionary provisions of the EPBC Act enabled the government to hold off on giving the final approval for the Gunns pulp mill until detailed studies on the potential impacts of its operations on the marine environment are completed. The proponents will therefore have to complete hydrodynamic modelling for the mill, and detail proposed management and response strategies to protect the environment, before the mill can gain final approval.

In March, the EPBC Act was used to reject a land rezoning proposal that would have seen development on 1200 allotments near Jervis Bay in NSW, that were previously sold 20 years ago as rural land that could not be built on. The proposal, submitted by Shoalhaven City Council, would have isolated the Booderee National Park from important wildlife corridors that are critical to the survival of nationally threatened animals and plants.

Most recently, the Federal government intervened to protect the nationally vulnerable superb parrot, by issuing a stop-work order to the NSW State Government, ordering a halt to all clear-felling of red gum in the Central Murray Darling region. These birds nest in the hollows of the red gums, and timber harvesting practices are disrupting their nesting habitat and flight patterns.

EPBC Act protects endangered species and habitats

Superb parrot. © iStockphoto.com / Stetner.

12

Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday (8/5/09) let stand a Bush-era regulation that limits protection of the polar bear* from global warming, saying that a law protecting endangered species shouldn’t be used to take on the broader issue of climate change.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that he will not rescind the Bush rule, although Congress gave him authority to do so. The bear was declared threatened under the Endangered Species Act a little over a year ago, because global warming is harming its habitat.

Salazar said rescinding the Bush rule “would provide no more protection for the polar bear and result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species.”

The iconic bear was declared a threatened species because global warming is causing a severe decline in Arctic sea ice. But the Bush administration rules limit that protection, saying no action outside the Arctic region could be considered a threat to the bear under the law.

Environmentalists have strongly opposed the rule as have many members of Congress. They argued the limits violate the Endangered Species Act because the release of greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars indirectly threaten the bear’s survival.

But Salazar said the answer to dealing with global warming rests in a broader, comprehensive approach that limits greenhouse gases.

“The Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue, and that is the issue of global warming,” said Salazar in a conference call with reporters.

In March, federal lawmakers authorized Salazar to scrap the Bush regulation without going through a long regulatory process. The deadline for such action was Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.

When the Bush administration in March 2008 declared the bear a threatened species, the declaration came with a “special rule” that said no action outside the polar bear’s Arctic habitat — such as carbon dioxide emissions from power plants thousands of miles away — could be viewed as detrimental to the bear’s survival.

Business groups and their supporters in Congress have argued strongly that the Endangered Species Act is the improper vehicle for addressing climate change and that there are other ways to deal with the global environmental issue.

Congress is trying to craft broad legislation that would limit greenhouse gases and, separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun a lengthy regulatory process that could lead to heat-trapping emissions being controlled under the federal Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA declared carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases a danger to public health.

When the polar bear was declared threatened in 2008, environmentalists hoped they could use the endangered species law to force broader nationwide limits on greenhouse gases.

* Humane Society International offices in Washington and Canada continue to work to see better global protection for the polar bear, and to reduce human induced carbon emissions.

US Government sticks with Bush-era polar bear rule HSI’s push for truth

in labelling continuesEarlier this year, HSI submitted an application to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The application proposed changes to existing Standards such that it would be mandatory for meat, eggs and dairy products to be labelled with their method of production. This would restrict the number of labelling terms in use and require that they are defined in legislation. In addition, they would relate to criteria on the source of the product, the type of housing provided and the specific standards of husbandry, transport and slaughter. These labelling terms would also be linked to consistent national standards.

In Australia, currently only the ACT and Tasmania expressly require the identification of production systems, and this only extends to egg production. Throughout the rest of the country, animal-derived food products are labelled with an array of unregulated and poorly defined labelling terms that not only hinder the ability of consumers to make informed decisions but also facilitate misleading and deceptive product marketing.

Unfortunately, HSI’s application to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code was rejected by FSANZ during the initial 20 day Administrative Assessment period, largely on the basis that FSANZ considers these issues to be social or ethical in nature, rather than relating to the protection of public health and safety, which they maintain is their primary objective. While there are strong social, ethical and environmental issues associated with intensive farming methods, HSI maintains that the use of antibiotics and other drugs in this industry is a major health issue, and there is much research to support this view. Accordingly, HSI intends to expand on the use of pharmaceuticals in the intensive farming industry in Australia, and elucidate the growing international concerns regarding these practices and their effects on human health, in an updated submission that will be sent to FSANZ in the coming months.

Notwithstanding this, there is a precedent where the FSANZ Act has been used for the express purpose of providing adequate information to enable consumers to make informed choices, and prevent misleading or deceptive conduct. This was the case with Country of Origin labelling, and it was made possible by a groundswell of parliamentary support. On occasion, FSANZ takes guidance from Ministers regarding the development of standards, and the revision of the existing Country of Origin standard was prompted by Ministerial policy guidance.

Accordingly, in addition to resubmitting our applic- ation to FSANZ, HSI is now focussing on building parliamentary support for the introduction of a mandatory and nationally consistent labelling scheme by amending the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. A copy of the initial application and supplementary information has also been sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into meat marketing, which has recently been extended to include the use of “organic” and “free-range” labels across all meat products.

© iStockphoto.com / John Pitcher.

13

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

National Heritage protection sought for the Coral Sea

As part of our marine nominations program, HSI recently submitted a nomination to list the Coral Sea due to its critical natural and cultural values as Natural Heritage under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. This nomination was prepared and submitted in collaboration with the Pew Environment Group, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, CAFNEC, The Wilderness Society and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.

The Coral Sea within Australia’s jurisdiction comprises many small islands spread over a large area of approximately 1,000,000 square kilometres, extending east between the eastern boundary of the Great Barrier Marine Park and Australian’s Exclusive Economic Zone. There are around 30 separate reefs and atolls, 12 being wholly submerged or exposed only during low tide, and 18 others with a total of about 51 islets and cays, some of which are vegetated.

As part of Australia’s oceanic boundary, the Coral Sea is a special place encompassing a diverse array of habitats including coral reefs, remote islands, sandy cays, underwater mountains, abyssal plains and deep-sea canyons. It is home to spectacular wildlife, including sharks, tuna, marlin and swordfish as well as threatened sea turtles, whales, seabirds and an abundant diversity of coral and fish assemblages.

The Coral Sea is one of the few remaining places on Earth where large pelagic fishes (tuna, billfish and sharks) have not yet been severely depleted. For over 50 years longliners have been operating in the region, interacting with non-target fish and non-fish species (seabirds, turtles and marine mammals). Therefore whilst this area cannot be considered pristine, with full no-take protection adequately enforced, it is possible that near natural levels of some species could be restored, with ecosystem benefits. As a result designation for the area to become a no-take marine reserve is being sought separately by a coalition of organisations.

However the Coral Sea also has significant m i l i t a r y a n d c iv i c heritage values that are of great importance to Australia’s cultural h i s t o r y. S i n c e t h e discovery of the Coral S e a i n t h e e a r l y 1800s, the navigational difficulty of the reefs in the area has caused many exploratory and commercial vessels to run aground on its shallow reefs, with the actual number of shipwrecks in the region still unknown. In addition to its substantial natural history, it has a rich maritime history, as the site of the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. This was the world’s first battle at sea, involving both US and Australian naval ships, and the first time during WWII that the Imperial Japanese Navy failed to win a naval battle, impeding their seaward advance to Port Moresby. The battle was recognised by Prime Minister Rudd who acknowledged that the Battle “marked a dramatic and permanent strengthening” of ties between Australians and Americans.

HSI and its partner organisations (Pew, IFAW, AMCS, CAFNEC, ACF, TWS & WDCS) has written to the Government urging it to prioritise the Coral Sea for assessment as National Heritage by including it on the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL) currently under consideration. We expect to hear whether it has made the FPAL in June 2009.

Stop Press — On 19th May, Peter Garrett, the Federal Environment Minister, announced the establishment of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone — a welcome first step towards our goal of having the area declared a ‘no-take’ zone.

© www.globaloceanlegacy.org

http://www.globaloceanlegacy.org/resources/CoralSea_Web_100808.pdf

© Troy Simpson.

14

NT proposes crocodile safari hunts — again

The 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species was held in Rome in December 2008, and saw the addition of porbeagle, long- and short-fin mako sharks, and the northern hemisphere populations of spiny dogfish to Appendix II of the CMS. They now join basking, whale and great white sharks on the CMS Appendices. HSI was present at the meeting as a member of the Australian Government delegation.

Heavily targeted and globally exploited in commercial fisheries, these species are subject to intense fishing pressure as they migrate across national boundaries. They are among the most highly sought after shark species in international markets for their meat and fins, and yet are not subject to any international catch limits. As such, listing under the CMS has highlighted the need for international cooperation to stem the decline of these species.

Immediately following the CoP, the 2nd meeting was held to continue discussions on the elaboration of a conservation agreement for migratory sharks. Rather than negotiate a legally binding instrument which would have enabled a strong global agreement and provided the impetus to advance the cooperative conservation of migratory shark species, a consensus was reached early on in the meeting to pursue a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding.

Furthermore, Parties to the Convention are now divided on whether this agreement should apply to all seven shark species now listed on the CMS Appendices, or just the original three species. Disappointingly, Australia did not support the inclusion of all seven species, and instead strongly encouraged that only the “iconic” great white, basking and whale sharks be included. In the face of all recent global population trends and stock assessment analyses for shark species, this position is ecologically indefensible.

The World Conservation Union has classified porbeagle, long- and short-fin mako sharks and spiny dogfish as threatened. An agreement that builds international cooperation and identifies measures to build capacity, coordinate stock assessments and research, foster active cooperation with the fishing industry, identify and protect critical habitat and migration corridors, implement processes to encourage the prohibition or strict control of shark finning, promote and regulate the non-consumptive use of sharks including eco-tourism, and develop enforcement and compliance measures, is urgently needed for all shark species listed in the CMS Appendices. This is especially the case for the most recently listed species, for whom the real value of the agreement would be evidenced.

As negotiations continue intersessionally, HSI is now working to ensure the inclusion of all seven shark species, and on making the text and Conservation Management Plan for this MOU as strong as possible. The agreement is expected to be finalised by the end of 2009.

Momentum builds for migratory sharks

In April, the Northern Territory Government released its Draft Management Program for the Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) for public comment and approval from the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC (as products from ranches and farms are destined for export). Included in this management plan is the introduction of a crocodile safari hunting program, where the trophy heads would also be exported. Their proposal suggests an initial quota of 25 animals as part of the broader 500 animal quota for wild harvesting of adult crocodiles. This is not intended as a means of controlling nuisance crocodiles, but a means by which to attract money from tourists wishing to obtain trophies from their hunting expeditions.

HSI believes that allowing crocodiles or any Australian native wildlife to be hunted for trophies is unacceptable and will damage Australia’s eco-friendly reputation. This proposal is raised every three years since 1994, and each time successive Federal Environment Ministers have rightly rejected it, reflecting the public opinion of Australians who are opposed to trophy hunting of our native animals. We are therefore working to ensure current Environment Minister Peter Garrett maintains this position and rejects the Northern Territory’s proposal.

HSI believes that a return to trophy hunting would be a return to the outdated attitudes to wildlife from the last century, and undo decades of education about biodiversity conservation and the need to minimise human impacts. In addition to conservation concerns there are also considerable animal welfare concerns. The proposed means by which to address welfare concerns are impractical and unenforceable — and will be increasingly so when numbers hunted increase as is the intention in the future. It is therefore inevitable that considerable cruelty will occur, which is no basis for a modern commercial enterprise.

Claims have been made that the safari hunts will provide Indigenous landholders with significant benefits in the forms of hunting fees and accommodation expenses. Instead the NT Government should focus on promoting eco-tourism to these same areas. This is a rapidly expanding industry which would provide equal if not more sustainable revenue for Indigenous landholders and provide an economic incentive to protect not only crocodiles but the broader habitat in which they live, thus maintaining Australia’s reputation as an eco-tourism destination of choice.

HSI is opposing the safari hunting of saltwater crocodiles in the Northern Territory as part of our wider objections to the management program for the saltwater crocodile which continues the take of eggs and adults from the wild for the meat and skin trade, and proposes lethal control of crocodiles in a 50 kilometre exclusion zone around Darwin. Additionally, placing more wildlife products in international trade contributes to the conservation mayhem caused by the unsavoury, primarily illegal and uncontrollable global wildlife trade industry. Allowing exports of trophies from native wildlife would also undermine Australian policies and negotiating positions at many international conservation treaty meetings.

Great white shark. © iStockphoto.com / cbabbitt.

Saltwater crocodile. © iStockphoto.com / Veni.

15

TECHNICAL BULLETIN Issue 14 2009

The Australian Government has suspended its election commitment to challenge Japan’s scientific whaling program in the international courts, preferring, as did the Howard Government, to negotiate with Japan through diplomatic channels including the ongoing negotiations at the International Whaling Commission.

The problem with the diplomatic route at the IWC is that, despite Australia’s strenuous efforts, it is in danger of either ending up with a compromise with pro-whaling countries that would weaken the moratorium on commercial whaling, or it will deliver more of the same — a continuation of the abuses of the moratorium by Japan, Norway and Iceland which have proved impervious to diplomatic pressure over the past two decades.

Negotiations for a compromise will dominate the agenda at the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting in Madeira in June. The Small Working Group of IWC countries tasked with negotiating ‘the future of the IWC’ and finding a way out of the impasse between the whalers and the conservationist countries, has led to a ‘non paper’ from the current IWC Chair (that would see Japan being issued with a commercial quota for ‘coastal whaling’ in return for a promise that Japan would reduce (not even cease) scientific whaling). Korea has since put on notice that if new quotas for coastal whaling are going to be handed out it would like to receive one too — highlighting just one danger with this deeply flawed proposal.

At a secret pre IWC meeting in San Francisco at the end of April, Japan made it abundantly clear that it will not be giving up scientific whaling and they are only prepared to reduce their hunt to 650 minke whales. This will surely make a compromise less likely.

HSI is assured that the Australian Government will not accept a compromise over commercial whaling and, as ever, we will be relying on them to help us persuade other countries against this folly in Madeira. (And we are grateful to the Australians for setting out a future for the IWC that does not involve compromising the moratorium and instead following a strong conservation agenda through the development of conservation management plans for threatened cetacean species). HSI has also been furiously lobbying the Obama Administration in Washington to instruct the US delegation to IWC to resist a compromise and withdraw the one being touted by their Bush appointed Commissioner.

As the status quo is obviously not satisfactory either, HSI still feels the best way to persuade Japan to give up its scientific whaling program — and also preserve the moratorium — is to challenge it in the international courts. We are keen to know at what point the Australian Government will accept that the diplomatic route, while hopefully making some gains for the conservation of whales, will not achieve Australia’s long held objective for a permanent end to all commercial and scientific whaling, any quicker than it did for the Howard Government and fulfill its election promise to take the matter to the international courts.

Japan remains recalcitrant over whaling Reminder note: election commitments for whales

Eighteen months in and this is what Peter Garrett’s “to do list” on whales must look like:

• TakeJapantointernationalcourtssuchastheInternationalCourtof Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to end the slaughter of whales. On hold.

• MakeformalrepresentationstotheJapaneseauthorities—atbilateraland multilateral meetings — about its practice of whaling. Done and ongoing.

• EnforceAustralian law thatbans theslaughterofwhales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Broken promise.

• MonitorwhalingvesselsoperatinginAustralianwaters,andintercept vessels operating illegally. Monitoring happened 2007/8 but Japanese whaling vessels operating illegally were not intercepted. Whaling vessels in Australian waters were not monitored in 08/09.

• Establishanationalnetworkofwhaleanddolphinsanctuaries.Still to be done.

Commitments taken from Australian Labor Party Election 07 FACT SHEET Climate Change and Environment Federal Labor’s Commitment to Environmental Protection.

Protection for school shark and eastern gemfishHSI has succeeded in getting long-awaited protection for school shark and eastern gemfish under Australia’s Environment Protection and Bio-diversity Conservation Act (EPBC), bringing an end to 6 years of delays.

Disappointingly, although both species are caught in commercial fisheries which has led to the severe population declines, the Minister has listed them as “conservation dependent”, the lowest level of protection available for a threatened species under the EPBC Act, which allows commercial exploitation to continue.

The conservation advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee notes that the declines in both species from commercial over-fishing are so serious, that they qualify for listing in the “endangered” category. Yet a loophole made possible by amendments

to the EPBC Act in 2006 has legislated for down-grading the protection of commercial fish species. Instead of being listed in the threat category for which they qualify, these species can now be listed as “conservation dependent”, meaning that they can still be fished, and their recovery is dependent on fisheries management plans.

Populations of eastern gemfish declined by 95% between the 1960s and 2002 following historic overfishing, and they remain at only 14% of pre-exploitation levels. Similarly, school shark is likely to be at a mere 9-14% of pre-exploitation levels. While the government says that these species are only caught as by-catch, it continues to allow their sale, thereby creating an incentive for their continued capture. If the government is serious about protecting these species, it must act decisively to bring a clear end to their commercial exploitation.

Indonesia rejects Japanese whaling vessel

This summer the Japanese whaling operation in Antarctica suffered a major blow when one of its ‘catcher’ vessels needed repair. Prohibited from entering ports in Australia or New Zealand, and fearing arrest in Australia for being in contempt of the HSI obtained Federal Court order, the ship travelled all the way to Surabaya in Indonesia in the hope of being repaired. When HSI was alerted to this by Jakarta Animal Aid Network and the Sea Shepherd Foundation we immediately wrote a letter to the Indonesian authorities explaining the legal situation surrounding the whaling vessel. This briefing helped persuade the Indonesian authorities to decide against repairing the ship.

However, it is not clear if this decision was taken after the ship had already received assistance — as Japan has claimed in the media. Nevertheless, with one catcher vessel out of operation for such a long time, the whalers were not able to slaughter as many whales as planned. They killed 679 minke whales out of a quota of 935 and 1 fin whale from a quota of 50. Japanese authorities are blam- ing the reduced catch on the weather and disruptions from the Sea Shepherd Foundation. HSI is confident that should repairs be needed in the future, the whalers will not be able to look to Indonesia for repairs, making the logistics of maintaining their whaling operations in Antarctica all the more difficult.

16

Graphic design and layout by Lithium Innovation Pty Limited • www.lithium.net.au

Humane Society International Inc. ABN 63 510 927 032 PO Box 439 Avalon NSW 2107 AustraliaTelephone (02) 9973 1728 • Facsimile (02) 9973 1729 Email admin@hsi.org.au • www.hsi.org.auISBN 978-0-9804183-4-7

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

The conservation status of many shark species in Australia is deteriorating and yet demand for shark products is increasing. HSI is concerned the policy to deal with this situation is inadequate and has called on the Government to take decisive action before the problem worsens and becomes harder to reverse. HSI has set out in its shark policy the need for the strengthening of legislation and policies for shark conservation and the adoption of a policy to end targeted shark fishing in Australia. This would allow efforts to be focussed on bycatch mitigation, conservation and recovery of depleted species.

To end targeted fishing and allow a focus on conservation and recovery, we believe that the Government needs to use a suite of measures. One such measure is listing under the EPBC Act to protect all shark species identified as threatened by the IUCN, with particular urgency given to those that are being actively targeted in Australian fisheries.

In line with this approach, HSI and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, have submitted threatened species nominations for four species: the shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), the longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus), the great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran), and the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus).

These species have been proposed as populations of these shark are subject to continuing threats and are in decline both in Australia and around the world. Pressures on these species include both directed fishing for their high value meat and fins, and by-catch in longline fisheries directed at pelagic species such as tuna and swordfish.

As a result of these significant population declines, IUCN are in the process of listing the mako and dusky sharks as vulnerable, and the great hammerhead as endangered. The Australian Government now has an opportunity to take a leadership role in shark conservation by listing the species above under the EPBC Act as well as undertaking a thorough assessment of all the shark species targeted in Australia that have been identified by IUCN as at risk. HSI will continue to prepare nominations for additional species which we believe qualify for listing under the EPBC Act, including tiger and bull sharks, and also seek state listings as appropriate.

EPBC shark listings required

In March 2009 the N ew S o u t h Wa l e s Government released its report into the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program — the ‘SMP’. This report was the first substantive review of the SMP since 1972. It follows a summer during which there have been three shark attacks in Sydney, none of which were fatal but all involving serious injury. This sparked media hysteria, with calls from commercial fishermen to increase shark catch quotas,

their suggestion being that the shark population had increased exponentially. Given the biological impossibility of this claim and the lack of any evidence, HSI has been working to ensure increased protection for sharks.

The report provides a detailed history of unprovoked shark attacks since the SMP began in 1937, assesses the program’s effect on both target and non-target species and provides a number of recommendations. As a result of these recommendations, draft management agreements between NSW’s Department for Primary Industries (DPI) and Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) have been drawn up, and responsibility for oversight of the program delegated to the Fisheries Scientific Committee and the Scientific Committee. A draft management plan has also been published for public comment.

The report provides details of the thousands of sharks that have been captured in the nets. It states that between 1950 and 2007/08 over 16,000 animals were caught in the shark nets. Of these: nearly 260 were dolphins, turtles, whales, dugongs, seals and penguins; nearly 600 were the protected great white shark, and nearly 400 were the critically endangered grey nurse shark. The report admits that protected species have been significantly affected by the program, and with large numbers of other non-target species also captured, it is likely that the program continues to perpetuate the decline of many species. Despite this evidence, the review rejects any calls to remove the shark nets stating that neither the number nor the location of nets will be changing as a result of the review.

HSI has long been campaigning for the removal of shark control nets, due to the unacceptable threat they pose both to protected species such as the great white and grey nurse sharks as well as many other non-target species. In 2003, following an HSI nomination, NSW’s Shark Meshing Program was listed as a Key Threatening Process under NSW law (Fisheries Management Act 1994 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) in recognition of the program’s adverse impact on the great white and grey nurse sharks, both of which are protected species.

NSW reviews Shark Meshing Program

Despite our objection to the SMP, HSI has submitted a response outlining further improvements that could be made to the program. Whilst we welcome some of the recommendations, such as more frequent checking of the nets, and the identification of trigger points which would instigate a review of the SMP, we believe that much can still be done to improve the management plan. We continue to believe that the use of shark control nets is an outdated practice and that a program with such a high ecological cost far outweighs the likely risk of shark attack.

We hope that the proposed strategic research and monitoring program will lead to a significant increase in the amount of data obtained from the SMP, which to date has been woefully inadequate compared with similar shark control programs overseas. This lack of biological and ecological data from the SMP has meant that there has been little scientific evidence collected of the effect the program has on both target and non-target species. The proposed scientifically-based shark attack risk assessment should provide further evidence of the inappropriateness of the SMP in light of the risk. This, in turn with the more transparent reporting arrangements, proposed in the joint management agreements, will allow us to regularly assess the program and highlight issues of concern. It is our hope that this will lead to the build-up of sufficient scientific evidence to ensure the removal of shark nets as a bather protection mechanism, in favour of more appropriate methods.

Shark caught in net. Image courtesy of EcoDivers.