Chinese biodiversity

I've got in trouble before commenting on Chinese attitudes to nature and non-human life but, to return to a theme, many Chinese attitudes are, from a Western perspective, appallingly destructive despite official Chinese ideological claims about the need to live in 'balance with nature'.  Historically many of the forests of China were cleared in the 'great deforestation' and animal and plant species are often seen in Chinese culture purely in instrumental terms as things that can 'serve' people in the narrow sense of providing food or material products or caged amusements.  This has had dramatic consequences for the environmental history of China. China has also long been intensively cropped rather than ranched - an activity particularly inimical to biodiversity.

Marine and aquatic environments have been subject to particular damage. The probable extinction of the Yangtze River Dolphin was a notable loss. Historically Chairman Mao's policy of wiping out bird species because they ate grain was a supreme example of short-sightedness since a disasterous locust plague immediately followed as well as an errie bird-free silence in many Chinese cities.

China has high intrinsic biodiversity - for example 1329 bird species out of a global total of about 9000 - but a biodiversity which is under severe threat from rapid Chinese economic development, harvesting and pollution.  This affects non-Chinese because existence values on biodiversity are global. Non-Chinese experience discomfit when biodiversity is wiped out in China. In a more immediate  sense the conversion of mudflats and wetlands into commercial sites is endangering bird species that migrate between the northern and southern hemispheres along the East Asian-Australian Flyway.

A colleague working on conservation issues in the Flyway told me how angry he got when fellow Chinese 'conservationists' immediately discarded into the environment any litter they had generated - this view of the environment as an inexhaustible sink is clearly inappropriate in a Chinese setting.  I winced when he told me that the migratory waders the Chinese collect as food are attracted into nets by posting captured birds in wetlands with their eyes stitched together so they do not make alarm calls. OK these practises do reflect different values but, for sure, Chinese attitudes towards nature, create external costs for many non-Chinese.

This article on the critically-endangered Chinese crested tern (pictured above) sets out the issues well in terms of issues surrounding the conservation of an individual species. It is a good general read.

Things are improving in China due to official government policies but I question whether the improvements will offset the pace of so-called 'progress'.  It is pointless for the Chinese people to seek to become rich by living in a barren rubbish dump.

Policies for conserving biodiversity when we are ignorant of likely effects of climate change

The website of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has interesting postings on the implications of climate change for the National Reserve System (NRS) for conserving biodiversity. Jennifer Marohasy’s blog has a scornful critique of the Rudd Government’s proposal*to expand the reserve system apparently seeing solutions lying in private sector activity. It seems to be a strange comment given that almost none of the externalities associated with climate change and biodiversity have been priced – private sector incentives are unlikely to work here. In addition private reserves are in the NRS.

The CSIRO report on adaptations to climate change by expanding the reserve system is a thoughtful document that deserves a more intensive read than I can give it at the moment.

It makes points that I have made in my own work – that making nature reserves more connected will facilitate the movement of species but can have undesirable effects including spreading fire and unwanted pest species. But it takes this point to its logical conclusion – we should also protect isolated reserves for the same reason. This is a strong argument in my view and supports the national action plan's emphasis on strengthening existing reserves as well as promoting greater connectedness.

The report also argues that the key objectives of conservation will shift toward species loss minimisation by both facilitating natural relocations and strengthening existing conservation efforts.

Much of the report is taken up with thinking about how we should manage our ignorance and deal with the unexpected. It shows a good deal of intelligence in doing this and in warning of the dangers of relying on narrow modelling and conceptualisations.

* Peter Garrett has stated the government will give $180 million to expand the system.

Macquarie Island again

I get pessimistic about the sorts of biodiversity conservation concerns I hold strongly. I felt sad this week when I read of a couple of drunken Western Force rugby players being convicted of 'hammer-throwing' endangered Quokkas on Rottnest Island near Perth. The Quokkas are a macropod that basically survives on two offshore islands that are free from foxes – but not humans. One of the footballers was fined $11,000.

The Quokkas are friendly animals that show no fear of humans - they would have been an easy target for these morons.

Earlier this year I posted on the lack of biodiversity conservation effort on Macquarie Island – the island, a World Heritage area about halfway between Australia and Antarctica, is home to 3.5 million seabirds and 80,000 elephant seals and is one of the few breeding sites in the Pacific section of the Southern Ocean. The Age today includes an article and an editorial on the urgency of this issue. Essentially feral cats were wiped out on the island on 2002/03 leading to an explosion of rabbit and rat numbers. Subsequent disputes between Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments over who would foot the repair bill have led to nothing being done. The Age article provides a devastating picture of destruction on this great wilderness area. It concludes:

The feral destruction of the island's native vegetation is akin to Ayers Rock being taken over by 100,000 clowns with jackhammers or the Great Barrier Reef being used as torpedo practice.

Politically the area is part of Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government has finally – after a devastating report by WWF - agreed to put up its share of the bill (half of $26 million) and will initiate a program of using baits to kill rats and hunting dogs trained to kill rabbits but not nesting penguins and albatrosses. The question is whether action has been left too late. King penguins – pictured - have been killed in landslides on slopes destroyed by rabbit foraging. Gassing rabbit warrens and using sharpshooters would reduce the pressure imposed by overwhelming rabbit numbers and give other instruments for control more time to work.

Australian National Botanical Gardens

Damien Eldridge sent me this link to the parlous state of Canberra's Australian National Botanical Gardens. Jobs are being cut - 30% have disappeared over the past 20 years - and solvency is threatened by mounting water bills ($600,000 annually) and increased electricity charges. The claim is that the gardens are being poorly maintained.

These gardens are a unique Australian institution and the largest collection of native Australian plants - about 1/3 of all species - in the world. There is an enormous range of species covering a wide range of habitat types - rainforest gully plants and dry country plants within a short distance of each other. I am surprised at how few academics from the Australian National University use the gardens as it is within walking distance of the campus.

The article suggests that too much use of the gardens is being made for recreational purposes. I don't see that. I am a regular visitor to the gardens when I am in Canberra. Its an obviously important place to look at flora (and avifauna!) but also a pleasant place to meet up with friends to have a coffee. I cannot see much conflict between these roles - investing in garden beds to provide paying customers should be one way of cross-subsidising the important conservation and scientific work the gardens provide.

It would be a national tragedy if this unique national asset was damaged or lost for what seems to be a fairly paltry amount of money.

Less hunting => poorer conservation?

I am not a big fan of recreational animal killing (= hunting). But this story from the United States is interesting. It does offer possible policy insights for Australia.

In the US the decline in hunting and the consequent decline in hunting licence fees that fund increasingly costly conservation efforts is creating a threat for US wildlife. How to protect the endangered hunter?

The number of hunters has slid from a peak of 19.1 million in 1975 to 12.5 million last year, while states generated $724 million last year through hunting licenses and fees for wildlife management and conservation; taxes on guns and ammunition added another $267 million, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Sportsmen pay the bills, especially east of the Mississippi," says Rob Sexton, vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, a hunters advocacy group in Columbus, Ohio. "A vast majority of the public land where people go for walks, wildlife viewing or mountain biking, the vast majority is bought by sportsmen."

To stem the loss, states have been altering hunting laws to get people into the woods.
Since 2004, 18 states have changed their laws to loosen restrictions on when children can hunt with parents, and to allow novice adult hunters to try hunting without a license, Sexton says. The effort has shown signs of working, Sexton says: The states have seen an additional 35,000 people apply for hunting licenses since 2004.

The decrease in hunters appears to be a result of modern living, says Nicholas Throckmorton, Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman. He says fewer Americans hunt because they are spending more time on work and organized sports for their children. Most Americans now live farther from wildlife areas than in the past, says Throckmorton, whose agency conducts a national survey of Americans' outdoor activities every five years.

Officials are changing state laws because they are "trying to tear down the barrier for recruitment of new hunters," Throckmorton says.

Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, a research firm focusing on outdoor recreation, says the modest increase in the hunter population has been good news. He says the vanishing hunters are "a long-term concern."

"At some point, there's going to be less dollars if current trends continue," Duda says. "Is it a good thing for fewer and fewer people to be funding all wildlife conservation … protecting national resources enjoyed by 97% of the people?"

Among steps being taken:

•Kentucky allows new hunters to hunt for a year with a legal hunter before taking a hunter-safety course. Since July, 1,159 new permits have been issued.
•Oregon has a Mentored Youth Hunter Program that allows unlicensed children ages 9 to 13 to receive one-on-one hunting experience and training.
•Arizona implemented an online hunter-safety course that can be completed in three hours, instead of the standard 16. Big game, such as deer, are reserved for hunters 10 and up.

More hunters also help states save money on certain expenditures, such as those linked to damage by foragers that are too plentiful, such as the Canada goose and whitetail deer.

"Rather than paying professional hunters to cull the herd, sportsmen would be happy to pay a fee to do it themselves," Sexton says.

Some say the focus on hunter retention is not the way to go.

"The number of people who hunt has declined in recent decades, and the number of people who enjoy wildlife in other ways, like wildlife watching or bird-watching, continues to expand," says Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

"Efforts to reverse these trends are futile."

Rachel Brittin, spokeswoman for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, says hunters are a great source of revenue, but they can't do it alone.

U.S. wildlife is threatened by more issues than ever: increasing urbanization, invasive species, climate change and new diseases. States receive $1.5 billion a year but need an additional $1 billion annually to accomplish goals, Brittin says.

Efforts to raise enough elsewhere have failed, says Dave Chadwick of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Lawmakers came up with a plan to buy land with $350 million a year in offshore oil and gas revenue, he says. Environmental groups squawked about taking money from the oil and gas industry, and property rights advocates balked at the land acquisitions, Chadwick says. The effort died in 2000. (my bold, how incredible!)

Nest Egg

I spent today around Albury-Wodonga getting informed about an interesting trial of a new auction system for purchasing conservation land from farmers. It is called Nest Egg.

The idea is that conservation scientists do a careful tabulation of the conservation benefits achievable from sites nominated by farmers (the farmer is not told this value) and farmers then bid, via a sealed bid auction, to supply conservation services. Sites are selected according to the highest ratio of benefits/bid subject to the conservation authority budget. In this latter respect the approach is similar to the BushTender scheme practised in Victoria. Both schemes are largely based on encouraging the provision of conservation inputs (e.g. fencing, feral proofing) but Nest Egg alone provides bonuses if conservation objectives and species appearances are achieved. It thus targets outputs as well as inputs.

Although I was sceptical of the scheme initially I came away impressed with its possibilities. Farmers with land that is highly biodiversity productive effectively get paid a stewardship payment for maintaining that biodiversity. Those areas which have with land that can be converted to becoming a biodiversity rich resource at low opportunity cost are also supported. Conservation programs that maintain or enhance biodiversity at minimum cost are thereby realised.

I was particularly interested in variants of the scheme which emphasise connectedness and developing corridors for species to relocate in response to climate change. Locally these can assist attitudinal relocations as temperatures increase. In an interesting two-stage auction design, farmers are initially asked to bid to supply land areas. Once these bids are made, a map of candidate areas is re-presented to the farmers who are then encouraged to form connected habitat corridors and the bid process begins anew. It is very neat.

The species being targeted in NSW are the Plains Wanderer, the Bush Stone Curlew (above) and the Brolga. The Plains Wanderer is a unique species that faces very severe threats. A nice touch to the afternoon was seeing a Bush Stone Curlew in a remnant patch of vegetation north of Albury. These are quite common birds in north eastern Australia but very rare down south. These are flagship species but the intention is to conserve environmental systems as a whole using these as indicators and as a means of gaining publicity and public acceptance.

There are questions about the application of these auctioning systems. Does putting a price on conservation reduce supply by cutting into ‘good citizenship’ motives for conservation? This is analogous to the argument that pricing blood supplies can reduce not increase such supplies because benevolent motivations for donating are destroyed. Also the contracts awarded to farmers last only three years – what happens when they end? Will farmers fail to exercise care of resources they are used to being paid to maintain? Do payments corrupt moral incentives?

My guess is that these problems are minor and that the auction systems developed will play a small, though important, part in maintaining Australia’s threatened biodiversity. I think we still need to drastically expand our public reserve system.

I am in the process of getting informed about these sorts of auction systems – in Victoria they are almost old hat so I am a bit behind the times – and I will post again when I am better informed.

Californian condor

Its mainly just a great photo. There are only 300 left in the wild. A number recently died after feeding on the carcasses of animals that had been shot using lead bullets. The Californian senate has responded by banning the use of lead bullets in hunting. Good.

The pet economy & biophilia

I could barely believe parts of this story. According to this week's Business Week Americans spend $41 billion on their pets which is more than the GDP of all but 64 countries. This is mainly spent on 88 million cats and 75 million dogs. Pets increasingly substitute for human companionship – 42% of dogs now sleep on the same bed as their owners.

The issue of whether things are getting out of hand is firmly resolved by the existence of Neuticles, ‘ a patented testicular implant that sells for up to $919 a pair. The idea, says inventor Gregg A. Miller, is to "let people restore their pets to anatomical preciseness" after neutering, thereby allowing them to retain their natural look and self-esteem. ... "Neutering is creepy. But with Neuticles, it's like nothing has changed." Nothing, except there's a fake body part where a real one used to be.

I don’t have data on the Australian expenditures (I'd be interested if anyone has any!) but notice that nearly a whole isle of most modern supermarkets is taken up with animal feeds and a high proportion of Australian households have that 'wet doggie' odor in their living rooms.

My personal preference is to scrap the high opportunity cost of maintaining enormous cat, dog and caged bird populations and invest the lot in restoring and conserving native biodiversity.

We need non-human life and nature for our survival as a species and to make our lives more pleasant, attractive and interesting. Some have even conjectured that being surrounded by nature improves human genetic fitness.

Edward Wilson advanced the biophilia hypothesis that humans have an ‘innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes”. There is seen to be a human dependence or need for nature that extends far beyond needs for material sustenance to encompass, as well, human cravings for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and even spiritual meaning and sustenance. Biophilia is seen to be:

• Biologically-based and inherent. Evolution has produced genetically based responses to biological and other environmental phenomena.
• Associated with long-term human competitive advantage, genetic fitness.
• Associated with current possibilities for enhancing personal achievement.
• A self-interested basis for conservation of biodiversity.

These ideas are difficult-to-test and suggest biophilia might be an attempt to ‘promote a romantic idealization of nature’ (Kellert & Wilson (1997)). In this sense biophilia might be a reaction to anxieties generated by technological and political change. As a rationale for conservation and respect for nature, biophilia is essentially utilitarian.

This general demand for nature might in part explain the specific demand for pets - its biophilia accompanied by the need to live in large cities where nature is almost eliminated.

Kellert & Wilson examine theoretical and empirical evidence to support biophilia. They portray biophilia as a set of learning rules that fall along various instinctive spectra from attraction to aversion (biophobia), from awe to indifference but that are driven by millions of years of evolutionary logic. For example, the constant exposure through evolutionary time to the malign influence of snakes results in an aversion to but fascination with snakes. Wilson suggests we do not need to rely on Freudian theory to account for this fascination. Large numbers of such influences combine to help establish human identity and personal fulfillment.

There is some experimental, and other, evidence supporting this view. Some of this evidence relates to the way we learn to be averse or to favor certain natural experiences (animal or landscape). Further evidence includes the large demands for ‘pets’ in industrial societies as discussed.

Habitat selection can be understood as a biophilic response. It answers the question what is a ‘good place’? This can be reflected in landscape aesthetics and experimentally through the effects of natural settings (or paintings of such or aquaria) in reducing stress and even improving health and creativity.

There is even evidence that positive attitudes to nature indicate lack of conduct disorders in children. Certainly children seem to learn much about the world through species recognition. Thus the principal nouns of interest to small children are body parts and animals.

Adults see animals as important symbols: the honeybee (‘wisdom and sensitivity’), the pig (‘lustful and lazy’) and the bat (‘denizens of the underworld’). This is important because information is processed by means of symbols.

Evidence on the behaviour of hunters is also relevant since, as anthropologists point out, for most of human history humans have been hunter gathers. This evidence suggests both intense knowledge and respect for nature as a whole coupled with a (sometimes) savage utilitarianism.

All of these types of values might need to be accounted for in valuing the potential destruction of nature. There seems however to be no evidence that responding positively to nature has a partly genetic basis.

I get positive benefits from enjoying living in natural surroundings and observing nature. The benefits are amplified if occasionally I can do this alone - I find my own company wonderful at times - where I can, without inhibition, allow my curiosity to roam. I don’t want or need dogs, cats or caged birds to be my 'friends' or to get a sense of nature and/or a biophilia blast.

Farmers kill endangered species & destroy wetlands of international significance

Two firms producing almonds and two almond plantation workers were charged over the shooting of more than 40 rare Regent parrots in Victoria's northwest late last year. The birds were shot near Robinvale, on the Murray River 470km northwest of Melbourne. The regent parrot is a nationally-threatened species. The Eastern subspecies killed by these workers is endangered. Only about 2400 are left in the wild. The birds are protected under Victoria's Wildlife Act.

The maximum penalty for killing a single bird protected under the legislation is a $5350 fine and six months' jail, with additional fines for each subsequent bird killed. Yesterday the workers were fined a total of $740 each. This works out at $37 per bird killed. The case against the firms involved has been adjourned until next month.

As a fine this is a total joke and shows the courts are not serious about conserving endangered species. Maybe the workers were acting on the instructions of the firms. Even so the fines seem absurdly low. I’ll watch to see what happens when the firms go to Court – if they directed the workers to carry out the killings they should be slugged with heavy fines and penalties and forced to contribute to restoration of the species in the wild.

Meanwhile a NSW farmer has cleared 750 hectares (about 750 football fields) of the Gwydir wetlands in what is regarded as one of the worst examples of illegal land clearing in Australian. It was a wetland of international significance and was Ramsar-listed – it is now a ruin which will take decades to regenerate. The site had thousands of birds nesting there.

The farmer faces a $1 million fine although the NSW’s Government’s record of prosecuting such incidents is woeful. In my view, again, a $1 million fine is woefully inadequate for this scale of destruction! The law should again target massive fines and seek the fullest possible farmer-funded environmental restoration.

Many farmers are ardent conservationists who have an affinity for the environment. Some are socially irresponsible vandals who destroy Australia’s valuable biodiversity heritage.

Restoration ecology & the 'field of dreams'

Several restoration ecologists I have met recently have referred to the ‘Field of Dreams’ hypothesis* in relation to biodiversity conservation.

This is the notion that you can rebuild or reestablish a natural ecosystem replanting trees and so on whence the natural system will reestablish itself as organisms naturally re-colonize leading to ‘normal’ community structure and biological function. The ecologists counter that habitats will not reestablish because crucial ingredients are omitted from the reestablished mix so that key features of an ecosystem are irreversibly lost.

We value many things for their authenticity or genuineness. Most of us prefer a real diamond to a zirconium imitation, we prefer the original of a great painting to even a masterly prepared print. The same ethic runs through biodiversity conservation – those of us with a green bent have a strong preference for original, pristine habitats such as old growth forests rather than restored habitats.

Three comments are in order:

(i) There are some claims that many environmental systems can reestablished themselves. For example, NewScientist this week comments on destroyed tropical forest landscapes. Many of these that have been destroyed by forestry can be expected to regenerate with most species returning.

(ii) It is difficult to define what we mean by 'authentic' or 'pristine'. Environmental history suggests such terms are ambiguous since almost all habitats have been affected by human activities and it is difficult to decide how far we should look back.

By studying changing attitudes to nature and nature conservation over history we gain a better ability to appreciate how attitudes in the future might be unstable and change. In addition, understanding the history of the environment helps us to focus on the crucial issue of what aspects of the current natural environment we might wish to conserve. For example:

“When we talk about conservation of the Australian environment what are we really talking about? Do we mean conserving the environment as it was in 1788 –an environment which was created as a result of interaction with aboriginal people –or do we mean conserving the environment as it develops in the absence of regular, routine, low intensity burning; or do we mean conserving it in the absence of the dingo; or in the absence of foxes or feral cats; or in the absence of the rabbit, the goat, the pig, the camel and the donkey; or do we mean conserving it without any human impact whatsoever –by excluding people altogether from national parks?” (Kohen (1997, p. 128))

(iii) Generally we should seek ‘fields of dreams’ but not be disappointed should we fail. The issue is not whether authenticity can be achieved but whether at least some positive conservation outcomes can be achieved. We should be ‘satisfisers’ if restorations are inevitably inauthentic. The gloom of writers such as Stephen Meyer ('The End of the Wild') should be rejected as pointless defeatism.

(*) The notion of a Field of Dreams comes from the interesting 1989 movie of the same title starring Kevin Costner which I hadn’t watched but which I viewed this evening. ‘If you build it he will come’ is the central myth which gives rise to the key restoration hypothesis.

Biodiversity adaptation policies to climate change without probability information

I have been thinking about policies for dealing with the biodiversity consequences of climate change when, as seems realistic, a policy-maker has poor (or non-existent) probability information.

One approach is to use some classical decision theory which eschews use of probability information.

Suppose one is thinking about a potential biodiversity conservation problem that may be associated with climate change and one seeks some anticipatory adaptation response to possibly limit the damage. There are three policy-relevant states of the world:

S1 = when a disaster occurs as a consequence of climate change which is successfully dealt with by policy,
S2 = when no disaster occurs
S3 = when a disaster occurs even though policy actions have been taken.

If the cost of the disaster is L and the cost of dealing with it is C then the minimax payoff matrix can be constructed for the two policy options (i) Take action, (ii) Don't take action. According to the minimax criterion of trying to eliminate the worst possible eventuality it is best in this situation to take no policy action because, with S3 a possible state of the world, this avoids the chance of incurring cost C and at the same time the loss L. The payoff matrix (where taking action and dealing with the problem successfully is given base utility 0) is illustrated.

Another possibility is to use the minimax regret policy criterion - now one seeks to minimise the regrets future generations will experience through the current generation not taking action. The minimax regret payoff matrix is illustrated above. This gives the more sensible result that one seeks to minimise the regret experienced one will take action to avoid the threat if L-C > C or if L > 2C.

Thus, sensibly, one must weigh up the climate induced losses against the cost of policy. In particular, take action if - as seems sensible - C is small relative to L. This will be the case if the policy choosen is a 'no regrets', 'all weather' policy that yields some return even if the climate change disaster does not occur or if it does occur when the policy proves useless in offsetting it.

For example, biodiversity conservation policies in the face of climate change that involve tree planting or limiting clearing will reduce salinity problems. This is an 'all-weather' policy that might be advanced to improve the resiliance of biodiversity conservation but which also has spin-off benefits to agriculture.

Moreover, one can intuit arguments for policy promptness by thinking about 'no regrets' policies in a 'real options' framework. Here there are traditionally two 'irreversibility' forces that drag a policymaker in opposite directions with respect to the timing and intensity of greenhouse gas adaptation policy. Sunk-cost effects make one want to delay action (and to reduce the intensity of initial actions when taken) because the policy-maker can learn about the future. Other irreversibilities (such as species extinctions) make the policy-maker want to bring actions forward (and increase the initial intensity of actions). The net effect of these opposing forces on the timing an intensity of policy is an indeterminate mess.

But 'no regrets' options reduce the sunk cost effects here - they reduce sunk costs because they offer a payoff irrespective of the state of the world that eventuates. Hence they lead to more weight being placed on those irreversibilities that involve a case for prompt action. This overturns the bias others have deduced for waiting and motivates a prompt response.

One extension would be to allow different types of 'all weather' policies. Another would be to explicitly model agricultural sector benefits B(C) as a spillover consequence of spending C in addrtessing climate change. Then, I think, the minimax case for not taking action is weakened to B(C) less than C while the minimax regret argument for taking policy action is strengthened to L less than 2C -B.

Further extensions would allow for biodiversity and protection against climate change to be joint stochastic outputs contingent on investment in adaptation. This might suggest something about the desired overall scale of the adaptation intervention. I'll pursue these arguments in future posts.

Copyright H. Clarke.

Irrigation effects on ecosystems in the Murray-Darling Basin

The Murray-Darling Basin provides about 40% of Australia's agricultural output by value. As I posted yesterday irrigators in the MDB face immediate difficulties because water allocations might be set at zero over the current year unless dramatic rains occur over the next 8 weeks.

I now comment on issues of water management in the MDB in relation to ecological concerns - specifically to the promotion of the second major class of outputs in the MDB, biodiversity outputs.

Most of these comments I base on an unpublished article by Terry Hillman, ‘Ecological Requirements: Creating a Working River in the Murray-Darling Basin’ (to be published later this year in L. Crase (ed) ‘Water Policy in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty’).

I found Hillman's article of considerable value in trying to understand water resource management implications for ecology.

Hillman is concerned with the relationship between ‘working rivers’ – river ecosystems supporting a water resource used by humans. Natural resource managers have a duty of care with respect to such ecosystems if the water resource is to be maintained in a productive condition.

The MDB covers 14% of Australia but because the continent is so dry it is a ‘small’ river system in terms of water flows. Diverting water to agriculture reduces the average supply of water to the river system. Volumes of water flowing to the sea are now less than 30% of those under natural conditions. This has put pressure on the complex estuarine/freshwater ecosystems of the Corrong and the decline of River Redgum sites in the Chowilla area.

Water flows are also naturally highly erratic and unpredictable – left unregulated the Murray-Darling Rivers can be expected to cease flowing several times per century. There is also high seasonal variability in water supplies. This has meant that native flora and fauna in the MDB have developed capacities to adapt (and even to depend on) unpredictable hydrological outcomes. Hillman argues that it is these effects rather than volume effects which do most damage to ecosystems.

Irrigators need water and they particularly need water when it would be naturally scarce namely in the hot dry months. The diversion of water to human use and the smoothing of supplies are drivers for ecological change. Thus floodplains contain a mosaic of biodiversity types that reflect hydraulic heterogeneity which creates distributary channels, backwaters, billabongs, wet meadows and hence a variety of plant and animal communities. Hillman emphasises this perspective by reversing the standard view that the MDB’s primary role is to deliver maximise values for irrigators and to look instead at how well modern river management serves ecosystems.

Seven effects of smoothing the availability of water supplies:

1. Inter-Basin transfers. Not common in the MDB with the exception of water diversions from east-flowing rivers to the Murray and Murrumbidgee. Potentially there are ecological effects of such transfers and damage to the Snowy system has been one well-recognised effect of this arrangement.

2. Physical barriers. Weirs and dams are used to smooth seasonal water availability but the implied barriers prevent native fish and other marine invertebrates from migrating either seasonally or in response to flow conditions. The disruption of natural flow also restricts species dispersal creating significant spaces between population and hence habitat fragmentation. Sediment movements downstream are also inhibited. Reduced longitudinal connectivity limits the capacity of biological systems to adapt to such things as climate change.

3. Depressed summer temperatures. In deeper water bodies, during summer months, a stratification occurs whereby deeper layers get colder and lose oxygen content. When dams release water from low levels these effects can be detected for hundreds of kilometres downstream. This can inhibit or prevent fish and insect breeding. Reaches of the river system where temperatures are depressed problem depend on tributaries to maintain viable populations.

4. Inverted seasonal flow. Ironing out seasonal variability to synchronise water delivery with crop demand is achieved by capturing runoff in winter and early spring and releasing it during the hotter months. This inverts seasonal flows in areas downstream of major storages but upstream of major irrigation diversions. In conjunction with long periods of constant flow, high summer flows suppress the establishment of riparian plants and thereby pose a serious threat to bank stability. These damages are exacerbated by cattle grazing and turbidity.

5. Modified short-term flows. Loss of daily short-term river flow variation reduces a river’s productivity by reducing the zone through which sunlight can penetrate thereby limiting photosynthesis and diversity in this community - the biofilm. Constant water flow also concentrates water action at one stratum creating erosion notches resulting in bank slumping.

6. Removal of a flow class. Smoothing out very high and very low water flows and diverting excess flows into off-river storage for irrigation has important ecological effects. Maintaining stable low flows can create bank notching while diverting ‘excess’ flows limits inundations of floodplains damaging species dependent on such events. Periodic inputs of organic litter from floodplains help to restock the fertility of a river system. Reducing lateral connectivity between the river and its adjacent floodplains reduces the ecological productivity of a river system.

7. Changes in the frequency of significant flow events. A number of ecological processes (fish migration, water bird breeding) are cued by high water flow events and the timing of such events is made less frequent by the current water management regime. The lifespan of some bird species which depend on extreme flow events to induce breeding is now less than the interval between maximum flow events.

The effects of these interventions on biota can be classified into four groups:

1. Fish. There are about 40 species of native fish in the Murray/Darling although in catchments surveyed less than 50% of these species are being sighted. Overall fish numbers are 10-12% of their pre-1750 numbers. The reduction in numbers is due to in-stream barriers, depressed temperatures, seasonal shift of high flows and reduced frequency of high flow events. Some species are cued to migrate and breed by high flow events while others depend on high flow for successful movement. Alien species have impacted on numbers but poor flow management compromises the resilience of native fish populations.

2. Waterbirds. Waterbird rookeries occur throughout the MDB in non-permanent floodplain water bodies. Most have significantly declined over the past 50-100 years. Some wetlands must fill up and then remain full for long periods while others need to be fed from adjacent rivers. If these requirements are not met breeding success will be low. Increased modification of flows will reduce such successes.

3. River Redgum. This is the major floodplain tree along the Murray. It sets deep tap roots that reach into the groundwater and even where this water is quite saline the tree can survive for years. Flowering and seed set however require fresh water to feeding roots and this requires periodic inundation in an appropriate season. Lack of such flooding through stream-flow smoothing or continuous inundation will kill the tree. Reducing the frequency of flooding also allows competition from species such as Black Box.

4. Aquatic plants. These plants live under varying degrees of water cover – from totally submerged to emergent but capable of surviving for periods without water. They provide habitats for fish and invertebrates as well as protection from the erosive effects of river flow. Seasonal inversions and constant flow patterns have a negative effect on the extent and diversity of plant communities – particularly in conjunction with high turbidity.

Consequences for management.

1. One aspect of improving the ecological productivity and resilience of a working river is to reduce the direct human uses of water from the system. Another source of improvements is just to change the way the river system is managed without changing the quantity of water supplied.

2. Fish ladders can improve longitudinal connectivity by improving upstream migration opportunities. Other connectivity failures will not be addressed by such moves.

3. Lateral connectivity can be improved by periodically directing water supplies to floodplain areas.

4. Temperature changes induced by drawing water from the bottom of reservoirs can be dealt with by expensive retrofitting which allows for water to be drawn from other levels.

5. Seasonally inverted flows are damaging particularly when combined with inter-basin transfers such as in the Tumut River. These damages can be offset by fitting regulators to billabongs and larger floodplains to restore their ecological function.

6. Retiring water from human productive use is a last resort and should be achieved by increased efficiency if possible. Such efficiencies might involve agriculture or support for the environment. Allocations to improve the ecology require an investment in achieving good ecological knowledge.

7. Ecological allocations will need to be adaptive, strategic and flexible. Fixed rules won’t work though environmental reserves should be maintained. Management protocols need to direct water saved for ecological purposes to its best uses.

Given the likelihood that water availability will fall and temperatures will rise in the MDB over the next 20 years, due to climate change, the case for the policies suggested by Hillman will presumably intensify.

For the most part they are 'strengthening resiliance' policies although it would be interesting to contemplate policies that specifically address climate change concerns and which account for complementarities with agriculture. For example addressing salinity issues dirtectly promotes both agricultural and biodiversity outcomes and has a direct link with water supply policies.

Gondwana Link

One of my favourite places to visit in Australia is the southwest corner of the country. It has a fantastic variety of rare and interesting avifauna and some of the best natural wildflower displays I have seen. The area around Albany and particularly Two Peoples Bay interest me but the whole south west is a great place to visit.

Gondwana Link is an ambitious ecological program in southwest Western Australia that seeks to protect, manage and restore bushland in a 1000 kilometre long pathway, from the wet forests of the Australia's south west corner to the woodlands and mallee bordering the Nullarbor Plain. As part of this program Bush Heritage, Greening Australia and The Nature Conservancy have been raising funds, buying strategic properties, managing the bushland and re-vegetating large areas of cleared land. The idea is to increase ecological resilience to such events as climate change by providing a connected corridor of habitat that permits animal and plant relocations.

South-western Western Australia (SWWA) is (following the classification of Norman Myers) Australia’s single biodiversity hotspot. To qualify as a hotspot, a region must meet two criteria: it must contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants (> 0.5% of the world’s total) as endemics, and it has to have lost at least 70% of its original habitat. In fact this area contains more than 10,000 plant and animal species – many of them endemic to this region. A great deal of native vegetation has been lost to land clearing and even fertile agricultural land is being lost to salinity. The promise is that improved conservation of landscapes will help conserve species and improve agricultural productivity.

The project itself commenced in 2002 and when complete will link 146,000 square kilometres of reconnected and restored land. Yesterday the Australian Government announced the 946 hectare Monjebup Creek Reserve would join the Peniup, Nowanup, Chereninup Creek and Yarrabee Westfarmers Reserves as part of the Gondwana Link project.

The southwest region as a whole is vulnerable to climate change. It is under significant stress due to poor land management. Land clearing has created salinity problems and impacted on the region’s biodiversity. These stresses have increased the region’s sensitivity to further climate–related changes: See Allen Consulting Group (2005).

Furthermore, SWWA has already experienced climate changes. This region has seen a 10-20 per cent decrease in its winter rainfall over the last 30 years and in tandem with this, temperatures have also increased substantially over the last half century.

Studies by the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI) have indicated that the decrease in rainfall has been accompanied, and been associated with a change in the large scale global atmospheric circulation, which is consistent with changes projected by global climate models incorporating anthropogenic forcing. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the enhanced greenhouse effect alone is responsible for the shift in rainfall levels and temperature patterns. Most likely, the climate changes are a function of both natural variability and anthropogenic change. Nevertheless, these climate pressures remain, and science suggests that they are likely to continue into the future as on overlay on ‘natural’ occurrences.

In work that I am now undertaking I will look at the implications of the Gondwana Link project in terms of its capacity for assisting in dealing with climate change. If the main relocation consequences of global warming are to encourage species south to cooler climates then species in the northern extremity of the project area will head south or south east. One difficulty is that numerous endangered species in this zone lie on its southern extremity and they cannot relocate into the ocean. For example, heathland systems in this area exhibit high levels of biodiversity and are already under pressure from habitat fragmentation and salinity. They are trapped from further southward migration as temperatures warm. Of course connecting up areas of disjoint native habitat by means of corridors will improve environmental resilience generally but this latter concern is a real one.

Some useful links: Official website; Bush Heritage News and here; The Nature Consultancy and Greening Australia. The Western Australian Greenhouse Strategy.

It is worth noting that Bush Heritage is also developing a Kosciuszko-to-coast (K2C) project in Southern NSW that will connect the Australian Alps with remnant bushland on the coastal ranges to the east. Scottsdale Reserve has already been purchased by Bush Heritage. It covers 1328 hectares of the Murrumbidgee River valley 12 kilometres north of Bredbo in New South Wales, a 45-minute drive south of Canberra. It rises in elevation from a large fertile grassy valley with rich alluvial soils, through dry sclerophyll woodlands and onto a grassy woodland plateau. This plateau drops steeply into the Murrumbidgee River itself.

Conservation on Macquarie Island

An interesting article in The Age today claims that Tasmanian and Federal Governments are squabbling while the biodiversity-rich Macquarie Island is threatened by a rat and, particularly, a rabbit plague. Macquarie is halfway between Australia and Antarctica and is part of Tasmania.

Macquarie is classified as a world heritage site - partly for geological reasons but also because of the plants and species there. It is an important habitat for marine mammals and about 3.5 million seabirds arrive annually there to breed. Many are penguins - it is an important roosting habitat for King penguins - but there are also pelagic rarities - the Light-mantled sooty albatross (pictured above) is one. The Age article describes the LMSA as threatened with extinction - this is an exaggeration - though its numbers have come under intense pressure because of predation of chicks by ferals and because of long-line fishing.

The World Heritage Bureau is investigating Australia's management of the island.

The sad story of Macquarie is due first to the initial daft decision to introduce pest species there and then by a well-intentioned, though mistaken, decision to eliminate only one of the introduced species - the despicable common cat (Felis catus). With the cats gone there was an explosion in the rat and rabbit population. Yes, conservation biology is complicated - recall the cane toad story!

Who was responsible? Well the Commonwealth Government claimed credit for the cat elimination program which it funded from 1997- 2001. This does seem to implicate them a bit. They have offered half the $16.9 million required to address the rat/rabbit program but the Tasmanian Government refuses to put in the other half so nothing is being done. Really the impass makes you wonder why such important issues are being decided by State politicians.

The WWF has organised a online petition here to persuade the giovernmernt to take decisive action. Please consider signing it.

Hat tip to Michael Norris at the Birding-Aus website for the story.

Climate change & species extinctions

A severe environmental consequence of climate change is likely to be an ensuing wave of species extinctions and the consequent destruction of biodiversity value.

Plants and animals face difficulties in migrating away from changed climatic conditions, even with gradual global warming, because of human fragmentation of vulnerable ecosystems. If the change is abrupt – for example over a period of around 50-100 years – then effects will be much more severe. In Australia the Climate Change Network identify at least 90 Australian species at risk from climate change.

Consider for example:

1. A species such as the Mountain pigmy possum which lives in the Australian Alps. This exists in a narrow ‘temperature envelope’ - Brereton et al. (1995) show it disappears with an increased temperature of 1 degree C.

2. A habitat such as Southwest Western Australia (Australia’s key biological ‘hotspot’) which accommodates many of the 92 unique Dryandra plant species. These could again be seriously threatened by a temperature rise of as little as 1 degree C. See Pouliquen-Young and Newman (2000). The best of the Australian banksias is endemic to this region (B. coccinea) – my favourite Australian wildflower!

At the global level there are still more pessimistic forecasts. Thomas et al. in a letter to Nature (and here) forecast that between 13-37% of all species will be wiped out by climate change by 2050 without comprehensive measures to address global warming. A comprehensive review, by Camille Parmesan, of relevant scientific literature reaches similar conclusions (here).

I recently came across a 2004 report from the Australian Department of Environment and Heritage which addresses biodiversity conservation concerns for Australia from the perspective of designing policies that will ameliorate the effects of climate change. The presumption is the very reasonable one that climate change is already occurring. The objective is to devise an ‘action plan’ for addressing it. This action plan will:

• Identify research areas to better understand impacts.
• Adapt existing conservation strategies.
• Improve communication between researchers and biodiversity managers.
• Increase community awareness of the issues.

The policy mix includes reducing climate change impacts, promoting natural adaptation to change by facilitating ecological connectivity to aid migration and dispersal of species, protecting refugees and creating specific management zones around important habitats. A 3-year plan was proposed for 2004-2007 with a revised plan to be drawn up in 2007.

What is our climatic future? Most of Australia will warm from 1-6 degrees C over the next 100 years with annual rainfall likely to fall in the south and east – where evaporation will also increase. Some eastern and coastal areas will have moister summers. Extreme rainfall and tropical cyclones could become more intense. A detailed picture is here.

The implication for certain species is severe since many can survive only in limited climatic ranges and will be threatened if they cannot migrate because of clearing or environmental differences.

Areas of concern include the Australian Alps, the wet tropics, the coral reefs, arid and semi-arid habitats, freshwater wetlands and riverine environments. See Howden et al (2003) and Hughes (2003).

The effects of climate change will include a reduction in the geographic range of many species, changes to their reproductive lifecycles, changes in their population dynamics and survival with higher extinction probabilities for species already threatened. Many species will seek to move either south or towards higher elevations. There will also be increased pressure from invasive species such as weeds and pest species as native communities are exposed to stress. There will also be increased fire risks. Finally, there will be specific problems for coastal and estuarine habitats (mangroves, coastal wetlands, seagrass) due to rising sea levels.

Many components of the program involve conservation biology – improve capacities to respond to climate change, minimising climate impacts on key terrestrial and marine ecosystems, minimising invasive species impacts and so on.

But a crucial objective of the action plan is to improve understanding of climate change impacts and here there is a key role for economics is to identify the potential economic costs and benefits of climate change impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem processes, functions and services. This includes undertaking social cost/benefit analyses of possible biodiversity adaptation processes including doing nothing – tasks that were to be initiated in 2006.

There is also the task of incorporating climate change impacts into natural resource and land-use planning and the rationale for this is primarily economic. Adapting existing programs is likely to be the most cost effective way of dealing with climate change since these programs already have infrastructure and are in place. These existing programs can be undermined by climate change – for example through the increasing spread of invasive species. Thus a review of existing programs is called for particularly with respect to the conservation of protected areas.

The economic questions that occur to me are:

1. What is the assumption about the policy response to global warming.

2. If we take a pessimistic assessment of the likely success of climate change measures what insurance policies can be adopt to prevent extinctions. The report simply assumes that captive breeding and other strategies will be relatively expensive compared to adapting current conservation policies. They may however make sense as insurance options.

3. How can the national reserve systems be linked to provide corridors for species migrations in the face of warming? How can such measures be linked to agricultural land reclamation programs? What are the cost and benefit implications of such programs?

4. What, if anything, are the twists to species conservation economics that are posed by climate change issues?

References

R. Brereton, S. Bennett & I. Mansergh, ‘Enhanced Greenhouse Climate Change and its Potential Effect on Selected Fauna of South-Eastern Australia: A Trend Analysis’, Biological Conservation, 72, 1995, 39-354.

L. Hughes, Climate Change in Australia: Trends, Projections and Impacts, Australian Ecology, 28, 2003, 423-443.

O. Pouliquen-Young & P. Newman, The Implications of Climate Change for Land-Based Nature Conservation Strategies, Final Report 96/1306. Australian Greenhouse Office, 2000.