I got off a flight from Albury to Melbourne on Tuesday morning, turned on mobile phone and there was a message from a journalist asking for comment on claims by Professor Norman Myer that we were losing biodiversity at an alarming rate. My first question was, who is Norman Myer? And my second question was, is he talking about Australia? The ABC radio journalist couldn't answer either question.
When I turned on my computer I found this story at ABC Online:
"Scientists say Earth is experiencing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.
Environmental scientist Professor Norman Myers says the loss of species is more severe than the five mass extinctions of the geological past.
"In the lifetime of many [television news] viewers we could lose half of all those 10 million species around the world," he said.
There are 33 extinction hotspots around the world. The Australia Museum's Frank Howarth says two are in Australia and up to 80 per cent of the crucial habitat has been wiped out.
"One [is] north Queensland rainforest, the other is in south-western Australia but in Australian terms we have a lot of areas where we have real competition between endemic animals that are found nowhere else," Mr Howarth said.
Green groups say current measures to protect sensitive habitats are not effective. "The Australian Government is investing a lot of money in biodiversity but it's not being invested in the most responsible way," Nicola Beynon, from the Humane Society International, said.
Professor Myers says if governments do not do more, the planet will continue to lose 50 species per day compared to the natural extinction rate of one species every five years."
Can anyone name me some of the 50 species that are going extinct every day?
Anyway, I emailed the link to a few readers of this blog for comment. I am starting with this response from Neil Hewett who lives in a north Queensland rainforest:
"Hi Jen,
Biodiversity hotspots are areas that are deemed BOTH rich in plant and animal species, particularly with many endemic species AND ALSO under immediate threat from impacts such as land clearing, development pressures, salinity, weeds and feral animals.
Along with Madagascar and New Caledonia, the rainforests of north Queensland including the Daintree are recognised as one of three centres of global endemism. They contain an extraordinary biodiversity; the majority of species which are classified as either rare or threatened with extinction, and undisputedly conform with the first-mentioned criterion as a Biodiversity hotspot.
But are they under immediate threat from impacts such as land clearing, development pressures, salinity, weeds and feral animals?
According to Cafnec, The Wilderness Society, Queensland Conservation Council and The Greens readers would almost certainly think so.
And yet, the Australian Government's Threatened Species Scientific Committee, with input from recognised experts in the field of biodiversity conservation from each Australian State and Territory, determined otherwise.
In respect to the contemporary popularity of tree-frogs, which are recognised as early indicators of environmental stress, I am advised from time to time that certain endemic species are thought to have become extinct, whilst others are disappearing.
The above image of a green-eyed tree-frog is one of the latter. I found one during the day, some time ago, when I coincidentally took balance from a tree and registered a cold, wet sensation under my grip.
Upon meticulous scrutiny and after several minutes, I finally recognised the curvature of the eye. Its camouflage was superb.
I have the very great privilege of scrutinising the central Cooper Creek portion of the ancient Daintree rainforest, on a nightly basis and have done so for over twelve consecutive years. Indeed, I believe that I have familiarised myself with the nocturnal landscape of the Daintree more thoroughly than any other person in human history. On those exceptionally wet and rare nights when conditions are suitable for green-eyed tree-frogs to congregate for communal mating events, I might encounter 2000 frogs in two hours and yet I have never seen a research scientist crossing the flooded watercourses to get into the real action.
The politics of places like the Daintree are as dark and complex and densely interwoven as the jungle understorey itself. I suspect that the exclusion from the country's biodiversity hotspots reflects the federal coalition government's contempt for the Queensland and local government's popularist land-grab mentality.
Neil Hewett."
---------------
If you would like to send me information about one or more of the "50 species we are losing" every day and/or one of the 'biodiveristy hotspots' and/or a species of plant or animal that you consider vulnerable to extinction and/or that you believe has been incorrectly listed as rare, threatened or vulnerable to extinction, please email me at jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com.
An interesting point, Neil. There was a case in Brisbane where an assumed extinct species showed up on the creek bank of a Dairy Farm near the Logan motorway. Austromertus gonoclada was subsequently found in a number of other spots around the city but most of the population, especially the mature stems, was on Mr Murrays property on land that was first cleared in the 1880's.
So in theory, Mr Murray had been presented with a Wollemi Pine type opportunity to market seedlings from his trees and develop the commercial potential. But no such luck. The species was declared and any rights he had to even collect seeds from his trees was taken away.
The commercial rights to the sale of seedlings was put out to tender but the successful bidder was loaded up with so much paperwork (he had to account for each seed, whether it germinated, each seedling, when it was sold and to whom etc) that the break even price, on top of his winning bid price, made them distinctly non-commercial.
After all the added costs, the nurseryman had no budget for marketing even if there was scope left in the pricing structure for cost recovery.
All this was done under the Threatened Species Recovery Plan for Austromertus gonoclada which also came with a budget of about $90,000. And for this $90,000 the relevant team, drawn from the local council, Logan City, and the usual bunch of green advisors, managed to do the odd veg survey, workshops etc, and got a princely total of 140 plants in the ground, mostly in local schools. This worked out at $642 for each new plant.
The nurseryman is so disgusted by the process that he no longer even collects the seed. The landowner, Mr Murray, regards them as nothing more than a nuisance that attracts an endless supply of additional nuisances, in the form of veg and planning people who all need to visit the site on a regular basis.
When myself and a few old forestry types took a look at the place the first thing we noticed was that the young trees had established themselves in exposed soil that had been disturbed by cattle on the creek bank. These areas had since been fenced off by the council to "protect" them and, predictably, no new seedlings can be seen outside the fenced area.
Mr Murray has, in my opinion, been defrauded of his rights to collect seed from his own trees and enjoy the full range of commercial opportunites that would have followed. A single pass with a plough along the top of his creek bank could have seen more than 10,000 stems growing on almost a kilometre of creek line. And he would have done so for much less than $90,000.
But due to the total bungling of the entire threat abatement policy and practice, particularly the fact that once established on his land he would be compelled to exclude stock and operate a private plant sanctuary at his own cost, the species remains on the threatened list.
One member of Logan United Citizens Inc (LUCI) had the temerity to suggest that this species could be planted on the numerous traffic islands and roundabouts in the city as part of the existing vegetation mix but this sort of multiple use of a budget item was ruled out immediately.
And one can only wonder how many other 'recovery plans' have been bungled like this one.
I couldn't find a reference to establish protection of the state interest in stem cell research (perhaps someone else may be able to assist), but there seemed to me to be a greater emphasis establishing corporate structures to embrace the economic potential of stem cell research, than the research itself (as if an economically valuable medical breakthrough might not realise its full commercial capacity).
Likewise, bioprospecting was largely held in abeyance pending the enactment of the Queensland Biodiscovery Act 2004, whose purpose is to:
(a) to facilitate access by biodiscovery entities to minimal quantities of native biological resources on or in State land or Queensland waters (State native biological resources) for biodiscovery; and
(b) to encourage the development, in the State, of value added biodiscovery; and
(c) to ensure the State, for the benefit of all persons in the State, obtains a fair and equitable share in the benefits of biodiscovery; and
(d) to ensure biodiscovery enhances knowledge of the State’s biological diversity, promoting conservation and sustainable use of native biological resources.
As a consequence, bioprospecting entities would prefer to discover a cure for a disease from biological resources collected from privately owned lands to at least evade the magnitude of the conditional sharing of royalties.
The natural capital of biodiversity for its pharmacological potential is now being contested in the rainforests of the Daintree, with the state majority landholder via the aforementioned Act and through the Commonwealth Govt's Australian Rainforest Foundation, which is targeting highest biodiversity properties for voluntary acquisition and then seeking corporate investment from international bioprospectors for the royalty advantages.
No Neil, can you kindly elaborate on your last sentence?