We are all aware of trees being chopped down and poisoned in order to facilitate development (subdivision) or views. The grind of chain saws and mulching machines can be heard every week. How do we know if the tree removal is legal? Ku-ring-gai Council has a tree preservation order but only occasionally is there publicity about this regulation being breached and a paltry fine being issued.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 April, Ku-ring-gai’s tree canopy cover declined by 2.4% over the 7 years 2013 to 2020. By contrast the draft Urban Forest Strategy aims to increase cover in residential areas from 35.6 to 40% over the next 10 years. Much of the reduction has come from building new houses that occupy most of the block and leave no room for trees. The complying development code that is controlled by the state government overrides many of the council provisions aimed at keeping tree canopy. This should be an issue at the state election next March.

At the last meeting council passed a resolution that we hope will help make a difference. The aim is:

…to enhance current measures for pursuing investigations and preventing illegal tree/vegetation removal through community education.

The decisions made are:

• to write to the Minister for Planning and Environment to lobby for an increase in penalties
• to mandate the display of tree application permits at the front of the subject property whilst works are being undertaken
• to increase community education regarding illegal tree work, council’s online approval portal and the significance of the visibility of tree application permits
• to increase contractor education regarding council’s Tree and Vegetation Preservation Development Control Plan
• to continue to seek legal advice to issue penalty infringement notices for multiple tree breaches on one site

Fungi are poorly known. Of the estimated 3 to 8 million species in existence, only about 120,000 species ever have been named and described. This accounts for only 2 to 5% of the estimated total.

The Australian biota is unique, with many of our plants and animals being found nowhere else. It is very likely that Australian fungi are also unique. However, Australian fungi are often assigned names of Northern Hemisphere species that look similar. This means that Australian fungi may be even more poorly known.

There are a number of reasons that fungi are under-described. First, fungi spend most of their lives existing as mycelial networks, hidden underground. Second, when we do see fungi, they are the reproductive fruiting bodies (mushrooms, toadstools etc). These are mostly small and ephemeral. And, these fruiting bodies often do not have many consistent, distinguishing characteristics.

Despite our lack of knowledge of fungal diversity, we do know that they perform essential roles in ecosystems. They have diverse roles, including as pathogens (causing disease to plants or animals), saprotrophs (breaking down dead animal and plant material) and mutualists (supporting the growth of plants). Almost all land plants form beneficial associations with fungi, as mycorrhizae (fungus root), so conservation of plant communities must also include conservation of their fungal partners.

There are two ways to approach fungal identification. Traditionally, people have used culturing of fungi and surveys of above-ground fruiting bodies. More recently, DNA-based methods have been used to directly survey fungal species in soil. However, a compromise approach combines field surveys with DNA-barcoding. This allows us to identify fungal fruiting bodies, initially to the genus level, and potentially the species level if the species has previously been formally described and then characterised using DNA. We have used this combination approach to identify club and coral fungi in the Lane Cove Valley.

We chose to investigate the club and coral fungi because they exhibit all the characteristics that contribute to fungi being poorly described. The fruiting bodies are small and have few distinguishing characteristics. They are often cryptic, and from our initial observations, seemed to include a range of undescribed species.

To plan our field work, we used John Martyn’s STEP maps to identify track segments of 1 to 2 km which we could survey in a single trip (fungal surveys move very slowly!). Over 2020–22, we have walked every track on the STEP maps multiple times during our fungal explorations of the Lane Cove Valley. We collected some thousands of specimens under our scientific permit issued by the Department of Planning, Industries and Environment. We are now in the process of extracting DNA to sequence and characterise local species.

Our study is far from complete, but we can already report some general observations. Many species in the Lane Cove Valley are undescribed, with up to 30 to 40% of specimens being new species. Club and coral fungi are not distributed evenly through the valley. These types of fungi are mainly found along creek lines, particularly those dominated by coachwood. Our observations suggest that the sides of creeks where sewer lines have been laid host lower fungal diversity and abundance than their corresponding sewer-free creek-sides. Creeks with no sewer lines are often rich in fungal species.

We have also noticed that areas dominated by weedy vegetation have different fungal communities. These areas have generally depauperate communities, with fewer fungal species and fewer fruiting bodies. When areas of weedy bushland are regenerated, this does not appear to be accompanied by recovery of the fungal diversity that is found in more pristine areas. We can often identify regenerated areas through their altered fungal species types and abundance, and refer to the fungi in these areas as fungal ‘weeds’.

In less disturbed areas of bushland, we have documented significant fungal hotspots. In these areas, there is elevated fungal diversity and abundance. There are three outstanding locations for fungal diversity in the Upper Lane Cove Valley. These are Rofe Park/Sheldon Forest, Browns Field, and Coups Creek. All these areas are sheltered valleys that face southwest, and all are likely to be nutrient rich. We think that these locations contain important remnant populations of native fungi that are worthy of conservation, similar to Lane Cove Bushland Park, a reserve dedicated to the conservation of endangered waxcap fungi. Notably, these areas are not within the boundaries of the national park.

Although our results are still preliminary, we can already see some potential implications for conservation and environmental protection. If bush regeneration schemes are not accompanied by natural fungal regeneration, we might need to use inoculum from known fungal hotspots to reintroduce the fungi that are missing from regenerated areas. Reintroduction of native fungi into these plant communities should improve their stability and resilience. Understanding the role of soil fungal diversity in regeneration and restoration of natural bushland areas could be key to the long-term success of conservation and preservation efforts.

Finally, there are clearly many new species of fungi in our region. The formal process of naming these will take many years, but is important for understanding and monitoring fungal ecology. During our surveys, there are some fungi that we have only ever seen once or twice. Since we have also seen multiple examples of extremely rare species of plants and animals during these trips, we think that these fungi are also rare and possibly endangered. There is certainly much more to be done to understand the fungi and their roles in ecosystems.

References and further reading

D.L. Hawksworth and R. Lücking (2017) Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. Microbiology Spectrum 5(4)

R. Kearney and E. Kearney (2015) Conservation of fungi in Lane Cove Bushland Park. Australian Network for Plant Conservation 24

On 28 June 2022 Vanessa McPherson and Prof Michael Gillings gave STEP a fascinating talk about fungi and their important contribution to ecosystem. They have kindy provided a summary of the talk. They work with the School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University. (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

The first State of the Environment (SoE) report for Australia was produced in 1996 by a team led by Prof Ian Lowe. The latest report was released on 19 July after being sat on by the Morrison government since last December. The lead author this time is Prof Emma Johnson. Both these leading ecologists have presented a lecture to STEP members, Ian Lowe in 2012 and Emma in 2014.

These are important documents. Each state may produce a similar environment report but state boundaries tend to hide data of cumulative effects.

The 2021 report highlights the most important areas where action is urgent. As the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Tania Plibersek stated this ‘shocking report’ told ‘a story of crisis and decline in Australia’s environment, and of a decade of government inaction and wilful ignorance.’ She promised: ‘I won’t be putting my head in the sand … the environment is back on the priority list’.

Some major points to note

More threatened species have been listed and existing populations are becoming more threatened. The number of plant and animal species listed as threatened in June 2021 was 1,918, up from 1,774 in 2016. The previous issue of STEP Matters has a detailed summary of the state of Australia’s biodiversity.

Land clearing – the EPBC Act is totally ineffective. 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species was cleared between 2000 and 2017 (for context, Tasmania is 6.8 million hectares). Much of the clearing occurred in small increments. Over 93% of land clearing was not referred to the Australian government for assessment, meaning the loss was not scrutinised under the EPBC Act. This highlights cumulative impacts, one of the factors that the Samuel Review called for inclusion in development assessments.

Climate change is exacerbating pressures on every Australian ecosystem. Many Australian ecosystems have evolved to rebound from extreme ‘natural’ events such as bushfires. But the frequency, intensity, and compounding nature of recent events are greater than they’ve experienced throughout their recent evolutionary history. Climate change is compounding ongoing and past stresses from human impact so we have to expect more species extinctions over the next decades.

Inland water and marine environments – our nearshore reefs are in overall poor condition due to poor water quality, invasive species and marine heatwaves. We are all aware of the harm being done to the Great Barrier Reef by bleaching events. Inland water systems, including in the Murray Darling Basin, are under increasing pressure. By the time the Morrison Government left office, they had only delivered two of the promised 450 GL of environmental water and they had no plan to find the extra 448 GL by 2024, when it’s due.

Urban expansion – we’re reducing the quantity and quality of native habitat outside protected areas through, for instance, urban expansion on land and over-harvesting in the sea. However there is no acknowledgement of the need to limit population growth.

Some reasons for optimism

Indigenous knowledge – traditional fire management is being recognised as vital knowledge by land management organisations and government but progress and funding are slow. Work must still be done to empower Indigenous communities and enable Indigenous knowledge systems to improve environmental and social outcomes.

Biodiversity restoration –there are many programs for improving our biodiversity but Australia is increasingly relying on costly ways to conserve biodiversity. This includes restoration of habitat, reintroducing threatened species, translocation (moving a species from a threatened habitat to a safer one), and ex situ conservation (protecting species in a zoo, botanical garden or by preserving genetic material). On the positive side individuals, non-government organisations and businesses are increasingly 7 purchasing and managing significant tracts of land for conservation.

What the new government is doing – in the speech to the National Press Club when she released the SoE report, Environment and Water Minister, Tania Plibersek stated that the update of the EPBC Act is a priority. The response to the Samuel Review will be completed by the end of this year and the government will aim to develop new legislation for 2023. They have promised a new Environmental Protection Agency with power to enforce the legislation.

The Government will set a national goal of protecting 30% of our land and 30% of our oceans by 2030. Only 16% (13 of 84) of Australia’s nationally listed threatened ecological communities meet a 30% minimum protection standard in the national reserve system.

The goal for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has already been approved. There will also be a review of the carbon offset market that has been roundly criticised – see STEP Matters Issue 215. Conversely coal and gas projects are still being approved.

Decisions need to be built on good data. The government has promised to restore funding for the Environment Department that was cut by 40% by the Morrison government.

In August the NSW Environment Minister, James Griffin, announced a project, dubbed the Seabirds to Seascapes project that aims to restore Sydney Harbour by bringing back lost biodiversity, improving water quality and increasing carbon storage. The project will restore habitats for some of our iconic species such as penguins, seals, seahorses and turtles

This project includes three elements:

• restoring Sydney Harbour's marine ecosystems by installing living seawalls, and replanting seagrass meadows and kelp forests
• supporting the future of little penguins by conducting the first ever state-wide little penguin census to better understand their population size and how they're responding to threats such as climate change, along with the restoration of seagrass meadows and kelp where they thrive
• helping fur seals thrive as a species by conducting a seal survey to identify their preferred habitat, breeding grounds, diet and key threats – seal numbers are growing, as evidenced by more sightings around the harbour and along the coast

The NSW Environmental Trust is granting $6.6m to the project, with partners contributing a further $2.5m in kind. The project is being led by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, in partnership with the Sydney Institute of Marine Science (SIMS – see note below), Taronga Conservation Society Australia and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Note:    SIMS is a collaborative marine science hub between UNSW Sydney, UTS, University of Sydney and Macquarie University. SIMS has more than 100 scientists and graduate students associated with the Institute, representing a broad diversity of skills in marine science.

Living Seawalls, an award-winning innovation

The world has been experiencing a construction boom in our seas. Globally, the area of the seafloor impacted by built infrastructure is greater than the area of the world’s mangrove and seagrass forests. Structures such as seawalls, pilings, pontoons and marinas are built for diverse purposes such as shoreline protection, recreational activities and energy generation, but lack the complexity required for a biodiverse marine environment. In particular, the flat and featureless surfaces of marine constructions provide little space for marine plants and animals to live, and few protective refuges from predators and environmental stressors, driving this reduced diversity and favouring the presence of pest species.

By blending ecological concepts and engineering in creative design, a team from SIMS is reviving our increasingly urbanised oceans through the development of affordable, adaptable and scalable methods of ecologically enhancing structures. Living Seawalls has shown that, despite marine construction being a large part of the problem, it can also be part of the solution.

The addition of living seawalls creates surface texture and microhabitats for organisms like shellfish, mussels and algae, which can regrow significantly in a year.

Living seawalls will be installed across nine locations in the harbour, where hundreds of kilometres of smooth harbour walls have made it difficult for organisms to take hold.

The Living Seawalls project (www.livingseawalls.com.au) has won the 2022 Banksia Foundation Award for Biodiversity. They have been installed in Singapore, Europe and two other locations in Australia. See.

Seagrass meadows, a vital habitat

Seagrasses (Posidonia australis) provide critical habitat for conservation icons like seahorses, as well as acting as nursery grounds for many fish species. They are very effective at capturing carbon as they can store carbon at up to 40 times faster than terrestrial forests.

These marine plants grow in shallow estuary waters. They have become severely threatened by human activities like coastal development, boat anchorages, pollution and sedimentation. The decline in these meadows has been so severe that six meadows have been formally listed as endangered under the Commonwealth Government (EPBC Act) and the NSW government.

Part of the replanting program involves asking local communities to collect shoots that naturally become detached after large storms.

Kelp forests

Crayweed (Phyllospora comosa) is a golden seaweed that forms extensive underwater forests and promotes biodiversity by providing habitat, food and shelter for hundreds of species, including crayfish and abalone. They also act as underwater forests, capturing carbon and creating oxygen.

However, crayweed completely disappeared from the Sydney metropolitan region from Palm Beach to Cronulla in the 1980s due to pollution and has never returned.

While Ku-ring-gai Council was in caretaker mode in December 2021, Mayor Cedric Spencer signed the documents giving the go-ahead for the project to install synthetic turf at Norman Griffiths Oval in West Pymble. This was despite the considerable community opposition and the fact that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) had not been completed. The opponents were assured that the project would not go ahead if the REF proved that the impacts could not be satisfactorily managed. We have already written about our concerns with this project.

The main concerns relate to chemical pollution and cork infill run-off from the field into Quarry Creek that runs into Lane Cove National Park and changes in hydrology that could danger the surrounding Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest vegetation.

There is considerable frustration about the lack of information about progress over the past 9 months in the design of the project and the analysis of environmental impacts. It appears that members of the West Pymble Soccer Association have been privy to information provided in meetings with council staff. STEP and the local bushcare volunteers were promised that a community reference group would be set up to inform them about the project as well as the soccer club.

This situation has led to one of the volunteer bushcarers, Bronwen Hanna, resigning as convenor of the Quarry Creek group. Here is her letter.

Re: Resignation as KMC Coordinator: Quarry Creek and Little Yanko Bushcare Sites

It is with great regret that I inform you of my decision to resign as Ku-ring-gai Council’s Bushcare Co-ordinator for Quarry Creek and Little Yanko sites. Given the hours of effort that myself and other volunteers have put into the site, I am disappointed in the way that council staff have treated our attempts to ensure the site continues to flourish.

Firstly, KMC staff have declined all requests to meet and discuss questions around mitigation strategies which would allay concerns about impacts of a synthetic field upstream which have recently raised by the NSW Chief Scientist. What has made this more difficult for me is it appears that West Pymble soccer club and the NSSA – who potentially stand to gain financially from this development through reduced soccer fees – have been furnished with information that should also be made available to our group as affected stakeholders.

It may be that council’s plans will mitigate any impacts that have occurred in other projects. If this is the case, I find it hard to comprehend why staff would not be happy to meet with volunteers with valid concerns. Unfortunately, volunteers have been forced to seek information through GIPA requests – requests that have taken up a great deal of time. We have had to pay for information which I believe should be freely available to residents who are working for the public interest.

Secondly, council appears to have rejected our requests for independent expert monitoring of Quarry Creek before and after the field’s construction (which we asked for in our original submission on the project). This is hard to understand given previous substantial investment through grants funding and rehabilitating the creek through rain gardens, vegetated swales and Lofberg Oval stormwater harvesting, as is the rationale that council cannot afford to undertake water/microplastic monitoring given council is spending $3.6m on the project.

I note also that council have not responded to NSW National Parks concerns about the project, nor abided by its own resolution to keep National Parks informed about the project as it progressed.

WildThings NSW is a local not-for-profit organisation with a goal to promote, protect and enhance urban wildlife and their habitats in Ku-ring-gai and NSW. Their projects have included research into the Eastern Pigmy possum habitats and measures to improve feed sources and install nest hollows. They have obtained grants for funding installation of native animal nest boxes, planting native bird habitat, native bee hives and insect hotels. They work with Ku-ring-gai Council in developing these projects to improve biodiversity.

WildThings NSW initiated the 2022 WildThings NSW Virtual Welded Art Biodiversity Photographic Exhibition and Digital Collection of biodiversity-related photographic exhibits from around the world.

A key objective was to raise awareness worldwide of the need to protect the world’s life supporting biodiversity. They requested organisations and individuals around the world to promote the concept of welded art to encourage the strengthening of biodiversity.

The project has been highly successful with more than 30 exhibits from eight countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, UK and USA.

At last we have some good news to report. The country is breathing a sigh of relief following the defeat of the Morrison government, even expressing whoops of joy.

The major areas relating to the environment where we are hoping for big new effective policy change are outline below.

Energy

The new Albanese government has been thrown in the deep end with a crisis in energy supply. Gas and petrol prices have soared because of the war in Ukraine. Electricity has been in short supply because of the failure of several coal-fired power stations, the need to use expensive gas and the rise in demand in response to the cold snap. All these factors highlight the abysmal management and policies of the Morrison government.

At last we will see some real action with rapid expansion of the transmission grid to facilitate the use of renewable energy and more support for these projects. There is more positive action proposed to support the transition to use of electric vehicles. These actions will take time to be effective but 2030 is not far away!

The emissions reduction target will be improved to a 43% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030. This is still viewed as inadequate by the Climate Council and the ‘teal’ candidates. Labor is still not strong enough on closing down coal mines and stopping new projects.

A review will be held of Australia’s controversial carbon offset programs, to be conducted independently of government departments and agencies. This is vital for the effectiveness of plans to reach net zero emissions – see the previous STEP Matters.

Land clearing

Labor has promised to set a domestic target to protect 30% of land and 30% of sea areas by 2030.

Great Barrier Reef

Labor has promised to increase funding to tackle agricultural pollution, more sustainable fishing practices and research into thermal tolerant corals. But the really meaningful solution is rapid reduction in carbon emissions

Murray–Darling Basin

After years of the Nationals favouring big irrigators and undermining the Murray– Darling Basin Plan, the new government has a chance to restore more natural flows to the rivers of the Murray–Darling Basin, establish integrity and transparency for water management, and get the plan to revive our rivers back on track.

The review of the Murray–Darling Basin Plan will occur during this term of parliament, so there is the possibility of increasing water recovery targets towards what the science says is necessary for healthy rivers, wetlands and floodplains.

Biodiversity

The previous environment minister, Sussan Ley, refused to release the State of the Environment Report that was finalised last December. The new Minister for Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek has indicated that it tells an ‘alarming story’ of decline, native species extinction and cultural heritage loss. She will release the report in a speech to the National Press Club on 19 July.

Labor has promised to create a federal Environmental Protection Agency to improve environmental compliance, information and analysis. We hope this agency will be genuinely independent and have real teeth.

Furthermore, there’s been a failure to address one of the most egregious failings of our system which is to evaluate cumulative impacts of projects on the environment as opposed to a license by license approach.

Australia is losing more biodiversity than any other developed nation. Already this year the charismatic and once abundant gang gang cockatoo has been added to our national threatened species list, the koala has been listed as endangered and the Great Barrier Reef suffered another mass bleaching event.

The Australian public consistently rates the loss of our unique plants and animals as a key concern. Indeed, in a recent poll of 10,000 readers of The Conversation, 'the environment' was identified as the second-biggest issue affecting their lives, behind climate change at number one.

The Coalition has been in government since 2013. So what has it done about the biodiversity crisis? Unfortunately, the state of Australia’s plants, animals and ecological communities suggests the answer is - not nearly enough.

In fact, as the extinction crisis has escalated, protection and recovery for threatened species has declined. Poor decisions are contributing to the problem, rather than solving it.

The sorry state of Australia’s biodiversity

Australia has formally acknowledged the extinction of 104 native species since European colonisation, but the true number is likely much higher.

Threatened bird, mammal and plant populations have, on average, halved or worse since 1985. Species recently thought to be safe – such as the bogong moth, gang gang cockatoos, and even the iconic koala – are being added to the global and national threatened species lists following drought, catastrophic fires and habitat destruction.

Today, 19 ecosystems show clear signs of collapse. This includes the Great Barrier Reef, savannas, mangroves, tropical rainforests, and tall mountain ash forests. These losses have profound ramifications for clean air and water, productive agriculture, pollination, and well-being.

Biodiversity is a crucial part of Australia’s national identity and Aboriginal culture. It delivers billions of dollars in tourism revenue and underpins most sectors of our economy.

It’s important for our health, too. COVID lockdowns recently brought the critical role of nature to our well-being into sharp focus, with thriving biodiversity shown to deliver avoided costs to the healthcare system.

Ignoring key recommendations

A 2018 Senate inquiry into the extinction crisis of Australian animals (fauna) concluded that native fauna was declining. It found biodiversity protection was under-resourced and failing, and Australia urgently needs an independent environmental regulator.

In 2022, the federal Auditor-General reviewed the government’s implementation of Australia’s threatened species legislation, finding:

limited evidence that desired outcomes are being achieved, due to the department’s lack of monitoring, reporting and support for the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans.

The national Threatened Species Strategy focuses on 100 species and a few iconic places. But more than 1,800 species and ecosystems are threatened with extinction.

And economic analyses indicate we currently spend about around 7% of the targeted A$1.6 billion per year required to halt species loss and recover nationally listed threatened species.

These findings were reinforced in 2020 by a major independent review of Australia’s environment law – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

The review by Professor Graeme Samuel made 38 recommendations, but almost none have been implemented. They include establishing an Environment Assurance Commissioner, rigorous national environmental standards and resourcing compliance and enforcement of environmental regulations.

Failure to protect what we have

Land clearing is a key threat to Australian wildlife, yet the government has not made meaningful progress to halt it.

The hectares cleared in New South Wales over the last decade have tripled, and a staggering 2.5 million hectares have been cleared in Queensland between 2000 and 2018.

Worryingly, more than 7.7 million hectares of threatened species habitat have been cleared since the EPBC Act came into force (between 2000 and 2017), including 1 million hectares of koala habitat.

Invasive species – such as cats, foxes, rabbits, deer and buffel grass – continue to wreak havoc on many of our most endangered species.

Cats alone kill 1.7 billion native animals each year and threaten at least 120 species with extinction. While feral predator control has received some focus, the effort still falls well short of what’s required.

Lack of transparency and accountability

Official reviews have consistently found the federal government’s approach to protecting biodiversity lacks transparency and accountability.

Questions have also been raised about the federal government’s delay in releasing its five-yearly State of the Environment Report ahead of the election.

And investigations have raised serious concerns about how the government handled decisions regarding grasslands illegally destroyed by a company part-owned by a government minister.

A key advisor to the government recently labelled a major scheme to promote forest restoration as carbon credits as environmental and taxpayer 'fraud'.

A federal integrity commission, if it existed, could have explored these cases.

The government also continues to back activities that cause damage to biodiversity, including the fossil fuel and forestry industries.

On agriculture, the government is pursuing a 'biodiversity stewardship' policy, to financially reward farmers for protecting wildlife.

But ongoing approval of unsustainable land management practices, particularly land clearing (of which agriculture is responsible for the lion’s share) will likely overshadow any stewardship gains.

So what’s needed to prevent future extinctions?

Labor has not yet revealed its full suite of environment policies. This week it told Guardian Australia it will release more details before the election, and has called on the government to release the State of the Environment report.

So what policies are needed to reverse the biodiversity crisis? The answer is: spend more and destroy less.

Just two days of Coalition election promises (estimated at $833 million per day) would fund recovery for Australia’s entire list of threatened species for a year.

Systems for protecting biodiversity need stronger legal mandates and less discretion for ministers to override decisions about project approvals, species listing and other matters.

Biodiversity should be integrated into key aspects of government practice. For example, it makes no sense to invest in protecting koalas while simultaneously approving koala habitat clearing.

And we need investment in every threatened species, not just a hand-picked few.

Finally, transformative policies are needed to support the substantial opportunities to enhance and restore biodiversity. This includes:

• using nature to help mitigate climate change
• green recovery of the economy post-COVID
• finding ways to farm profitably while enhancing biodiversity
• designing cities where people and nature can both flourish.

The fate of nature underpins our economy and health. Yet in the election campaign to date, there’s been a deafening silence about it.

Sarah Bekessy, Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, Leader, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group (ICON Science), RMIT University and Brendan Wintle, Professor in Conservation Ecology, School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, The University of Melbourne

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

On 10 May 2022 Chantelle Doyle gave our members a presentation on her extensive PhD work on conserving Hibbertia spanantha. Her work is also investigating threatened species conservation through the practice of translocation. Unfortunately it is inevitable that rare plants are destroyed when a development site is cleared unless they can be moved to a suitable site elsewhere.

H. spanantha was originally known from only four populations in the Sydney Basin Bioregion and is on the Threatened Species Recovery Hub Hottest 100 list of plants most at risk of extinction.

Chantelle’s talk described her analysis of:

• What are the best methods for vegetative and seed propagation of H. spanantha?
• What are the best soil and pre planting treatments?
• What post planting maintenance is required?

This information together can inform the key factors to consider when implementing conservation actions and identify challenges to following best practice translocation guidelines.

The recent issue of the Friends of Lane Cove National Park newsletter, Regenavitis reports on the work of park staff and volunteers in helping with the Ryde planting near the crematorium. They will help care for the plants in the long term through weed suppression and, potentially, ecological burns to facilitate a self-sustaining population through natural recruitment.

Annual research grant

STEP has awarded our annual research grant to Chantelle to assist her with her work. Funds from STEP will enable ongoing monitoring of the three translocated populations (ex situ population at Hornsby and augmentations at Ryde and Cheltenham).

Trees play an important role in defining the character of Ku-ring-gai. Council has been going through a process to develop a new strategy for managing forest over two years. The starting point was an Urban Forest Policy that is a short statement of principles and objectives.

During 2021 feedback was collected from the community and advice sought from expert consultants that have informed a draft Urban Forest Strategy which will define how council manages and improves our urban forest for current and future generations.

Council is now publicly exhibiting the draft document and gathering ideas about how the strategy can be successfully implemented. Have your say now. The closing date is 5 pm on Friday 8 July.

The strategy will cover trees and vegetation in:

• public parks, streets and commercial areas
• private gardens, schools and other developments
• council managed bushland and reserves

The management of the urban forest needs to take into account the whole ecosystem that supports the trees and plants, including the soil and fauna that are essential for the health of the vegetation plus the availability of a water supply.

Ku-ring-gai Council has described the municipality as the ‘green heart’ of Sydney. This creates an attractive environment for residents. Trees also provide many other environmental benefits that are described in the strategy.

The draft Strategy includes ambitious goals to increase the tree canopy coverage. However the urban forest needs to be looked after by all residents. There are pressures that will work against the goals for improving the health and extent of the urban forest such as climate change, development and preferences changing towards very tidy easy-care gardens.

Tradescantia fluminensis, commonly known as wandering trad is one of the worst weeds in Sydney’s bushland and home gardens. This highly invasive weed rapidly takes over the ground layer in gullies and temporary watercourses, forming a thick blanket of leaves that excludes light and warmth. Trad aggressively smothers low plants and seedlings and cools the soil, preventing native plant germination and regeneration.

This plant spreads vegetatively, no seed is produced. Garden refuse dumped in bushland is a common form of spread. Stem fragments and roots readily wash down waterways or spread in mud from vehicles. Trying to remove trad is a very time-consuming process. Repeated follow up is required because a tiny stem or leaf left behind can regrow.

But now there is hope of a solution, a leaf-smut fungus called Kordyana brasiliensis. This agent was discovered on wandering trad during surveys in Brazil performed by researchers at the Universidade Federal de Viçosa. This exploratory research was part of the biocontrol program for this weed in New Zealand, led by Landcare Research.

After years of testing in Brazil, in New Zealand and in the CSIRO containment facility in Australia, researchers applied for approval to release the leaf smut fungus. They were granted approval by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in December 2018.

Researchers first released the leaf smut fungus at ‘nursery sites’ in the Dandenong Ranges during the cooler months of 2019. Nursery sites are areas where our staff will monitor the progress of the biocontrol agent to ensure it can survive and spread in the local area and is having a damaging effect on the wandering trad.

A new project from July 2020 to June 2023, co-funded by CSIRO and the NSW government through its Environmental Trust, is facilitating stakeholders’ releases of the fungus across the range of wandering trad in NSW. The project will also monitor the impact of the fungus on the weed and flow-on indirect impact on other vegetation at several sites during that period.

Ku-ring-gai Council is participating in the project and has released infected trad plants in several sites. It has been spreading rapidly in some sites such as the Gordon Flying Fox Reserve. The very damp conditions experienced over the past few months may be a factor. In other sites the spread has been fairly slow.

How it works

The leaf smut fungus (K. brasiliensis) spreads through spores, and it needs wandering trad leaves to survive. This pathogen enters wandering trad through the leave’s air holes (stomata), and slowly uses the weed’s energy for its own fungal growth. After two to three weeks, the leaves begin to develop yellow spots, caused by a lack of chlorophyll. Eventually the fungal infection is so severe that the wandering trad leaves die. The sick plant becomes less competitive against neighbouring native plants, giving them an advantage, and the opportunity to grow.

Don't worry, it's not another cane toad. It has been carefully tested by the CSIRO and only infects trad and not its close native relative Commelina which has blue flowers. The fungus needs the leaves of the wandering trad to survive – if there is no wandering trad to infect, the fungus dies.

Benefits of biocontrol agents

Biological control is the practice of managing a weed by deliberately using one or more of its natural enemies (biocontrol agents) to suppress it.

Specialised fungi, like the leaf smut, have specific genes that enable them to successfully infect and cause disease only on single or a narrow range of plant species. Testing involved looking at plants that are related to wandering trad including native plants to make sure the fungus will only infect the weed.

CSIRO field biologist Dr Ben Gooden, who is coordinating the rollout of the biocontrol program across Australia, said highly targeted and tested biocontrol agents like the fungus were a more environmentally sustainable option than other available tools. Scientifically tested biocontrol agents like this fungus provide a longer term, environmentally sustainable way of controlling weeds like wandering trad, without harming Australian plants or animals.

Thanks to the Facebook page of the Pittwater Natural Heritage Association and CSIROscope for some of this information.

In November 2021 the NSW government announced the creation of the Gardens of Stone State Conservation Area. This means this iconic area will be protected to some extent. The risk of further damage from coal mining has been averted but there is the prospect of over-reach with tourist development that could spoil the unique pagoda landscape. See our article on the history of the long campaign to protect this area.

A draft master plan and plan of management have now been released for submission.

The organisation that has been leading the campaign for the protection of this area is the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, now called Wilderness Australia. Click here for details of their many concerns about the proposals and a submission guide.

The closing date is 5 July. Send submissions to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Manager, NPWS Planning and Assessment, Locked Bag 5022, Parramatta, NSW 2124.

Potential features of the reserve

The Gardens of Stone State Conservation Area should become one of the best reserves in NSW. The diversity and rarity of its scenery and native flora, and its Aboriginal cultural heritage should be enjoyed by thousands. Lithgow could benefit from the increase in demand for accommodation and visitor facilities.

Wilderness Australia needs your help to ensure that happens, and that its values are not desecrated. Tourism needn’t cut the eyes out of the scenery with a muddle of disconnected and counterproductive proposals.

There are two separate documents under the consultation. A plan of management is statutory and cannot be changed without public consultation. The accompanying draft master plan for visitor management creates a parallel process that has no legal force and can be changed at the will of government. The two drafts do not work cohesively together.

The master plan’s list of intentions is more ambitious than the reserve’s visitor management budget can fund, so it provides no clarity on which park facilities will be built.

Major issues

The major concerns are:

• The main focus should be on nature-focused basic facilities like campgrounds, walking tracks, carparks and lookouts built on already disturbed land and serviced by good 2WD roads that everyone can use. The area is ideal for multi-day walking tracks with basic overnight campsites.
• There should be an emphasis on a 2WD park, with minor provision of 4WD trails where they can be managed sustainably. Instead, there is proposed exclusive 4WD vehicle access to iconic sites, such as Wolgan Falls and the Temple of Doom.
• It is proposed to locate the adventure tourism facilities, the zipline, via ferrata and 4WD access road, in the middle of the Lost City. This will cause a visual blight at Lithgow’s best scenic asset. It should be relocated to State Mine gully and encourage visitation to the State Mine and Railway Museum.
• The draft plan of management for the reserve is vague. Except for pest management strategies, it has few details on nature conservation action. There are no restoration management actions, apart from studies, to spend the very large biodiversity offset fund available for this work.
• Little is said about aboriginal community involvement in reserve management, including through economic opportunities and employment.
• There is too much emphasis on opportunities for private interests, such as private consultation with interest groups on facilities such as additional approved access routes for vehicles, horse and bike riders and up to four glamping accommodation hubs that are subject to secret lease negotiations. It seems the Wollemi Great Walk is being determined in secret by confidential contracts and leases negotiated for private ventures.

A revised, re-published and re-exhibited draft plan of management is required that defines the location and extent of proposed visitor facilities and access on a map, with criteria set out that ensure this work is done in a sustainable manner.

The role of the draft master plan must be to identify, through the public consultation, a set of visitor management actions to be published in a completely revised draft plan of management.

In May 2021 the NSW government announced that the Gardens of Stone will be declared a State Conservation Area. This means this iconic area will be protected to some extent. The risk of further damage from coal mining has been averted but there is the prospect of overreach with tourist development that could spoil the unique pagoda landscape. See STEP Matters, Issue 213 for the history of the long campaign to protect this area.

A draft Master Plan and Plan of Management have been released for submissions. The organisation that has been leading the campaign for the establishment of this national park is the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, now called Wilderness Australia. Click here for details of their many concerns about the proposals and a submission guide.

The closing date is 5 July. Send submissions to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Manager, NPWS Planning and Assessment, Locked Bag 5022, Parramatta, NSW 2124.

Potential features of the reserve

The Gardens of Stone State Conservation Area should become one of the best reserves in NSW. The diversity and rarity of its scenery and native flora, and its Aboriginal cultural heritage should be enjoyed by thousands. Lithgow could benefit from the increase in demand for accommodation and visitor facilities.

Wilderness Australia needs your help to ensure that happens, and that its values are not desecrated. Tourism needn’t cut the eyes out of the scenery with a muddle of disconnected and counterproductive proposals.

There are two separate documents under the consultation. A Plan of Management is statutory and cannot be changed without public consultation. The accompanying draft Master Plan for visitor management creates a parallel process that has no legal force and can be changed at the will of government. The two drafts do not work cohesively together.

The Master Plan’s list of intentions is more ambitious than the reserve’s visitor management budget can fund, so it provides no clarity on which park facilities will be built.

Major issues

The major concerns are:

• The main focus should be on nature-focused basic facilities like campgrounds, walking tracks, carparks and lookouts built on already disturbed land and serviced by good 2WD roads that everyone can use. The area is ideal for multi-day walking tracks with basic overnight campsites.
• There should be an emphasis on a 2WD park, with minor provision of 4WD trails where they can be managed sustainably. Instead, there is proposed exclusive 4WD vehicle access to iconic sites, such as Wolgan Falls and the Temple of Doom.
• It is proposed to locate the adventure tourism facilities, the zipline, via ferrata and 4WD access road, in the middle of the Lost City. This will cause a visual blight at Lithgow’s best scenic asset. It should be relocated to State Mine gully and encourage visitation to the State Mine and Railway Museum.
• The draft plan of management for the reserve is vague. Except for pest management strategies, it has few details on nature conservation action. There are no restoration management actions, apart from studies, to spend the very large biodiversity offset fund available for this work.
• Little is said about aboriginal community involvement in reserve management, including through economic opportunities and employment.
• There is too much emphasis on opportunities for private interests, such as private consultation with interest groups on facilities such as additional approved access routes for vehicles, horse and bike riders and up to four glamping accommodation hubs that are subject to secret lease negotiations. It seems the Wollemi Great Walk is being determined in secret by confidential contracts and leases negotiated for private ventures.

A revised, re-published and re-exhibited draft Plan of Management is required that defines the location and extent of proposed visitor facilities and access on a map, with criteria set out that ensure this work is done in a sustainable manner.

The role of the draft Master Plan must be to identify, through the public consultation, a set of visitor management actions to be published in a completely revised draft Plan of Management.

In Issue 211 of STEP Matters we wrote about the review being undertaken by Hornsby Council of the planning controls in the Byles Creek area. Local residents have been fighting for years to have the zoning of some large undeveloped lots changed so they cannot be sub-divided into smaller lots leading to clearing of high quality bush that is a wildlife corridor and essential habitat for several threatened species.

The good news is that at the May 2022 meeting Hornsby councillors voted unanimously in favour of implementation of all of the Byles Creek Planning Study recommendations without any changes as below:

• rezone the R2 land within the study area to E4 Environmental Living
• increase the minimum lot size for land to be zoned E4 Environmental Living to 40 hectares
• strengthen the wording of the objectives for minimum lot size, clause 4.1 of the Hornsby Local Environment Plan to protect and enhance existing bushland and significant vegetation
• insert a new Local Provision Clause for Riparian Land into the Hornsby LEP 2013 and provide supporting riparian corridor mapping
• increase community engagement programs targeting the study area

Although there will be more steps along the way with the formal planning proposal etc requiring public comments before it becomes legislation, this has ensured the process will begin.

There are still large lots that will only be protected if they are acquired and conserved. The Byles Creek Valley Union is continuing to meet with our state member, Premier Perrottet to make this happen as promised. However, implementing the study recommendations will improve the level of protection for the rest of the Byles Creek catchment.

Dr Holly Parsons and the Powerful Owl team from Birdlife Australia, with financial assistance from a Ku-ring-gai environmental levy grant, have written a fascinating Powerful Owl feather identification guide.

Here is a taste of the information in the guide.

Identifying a species by a single feather can be very challenging. This guide has been designed by the Powerful Owl Project to help you determine if you have found a Powerful Owl feather. We have also included images of other species whose feathers look similar. The guide focuses mostly on wing and tail feathers as they are most often found but we have provided examples of other feathers where available

A feather found on the ground can tell us a lot of useful information. It can pinpoint locations that are important to birds, inform us of movement patterns and can even be used for genetic testing. A simple feather can help direct important conservation efforts!

Feather anatomy

Feathers are remarkably light and strong. They are composed of keratin, which is the same protein that makes up our hair and nails, as well as the scales of reptiles. A feather consists of a central hollow shaft, called a rachis, rather like a tree trunk. The feather shaft has two vanes, flattened parts of the feather attached on either side of the rachis. The vanes are formed by barbs that branch from the rachis like the branches of a tree. These barbs bear barbules that radiate, like the smaller branches of a tree. Tiny hooks on the barbules connect the barbs together to form the flat plane of the feather vane.

When birds preen, they run the length of the feather through their bills, which engages the barbules and shapes the barbs into a vane, making the feather work as one continuous unit. This helps birds to fly, stay warm and repel water.

Collecting feathers (or rather, not)

While it is very tempting to collect feathers that you find, every state and territory in Australia actually has rules and regulations around the collection of bird feathers. In NSW it is illegal to retain a bird specimen or parts of it (including feathers) without the appropriate permission from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

There is also a very small, but real risk of infection from a number of diseases when coming into contact with wild birds, their secretions, droppings and feathers. So rather than collecting feathers (or other bird parts), simply admire it, take a photo, and leave it in place (unless you are part of a project with the appropriate scientific licence). If you do touch feathers, be sure to wash and sanitise your hands afterwards.

If you find a Powerful Owl feather, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and include a photo and other relevant information such as the date and location.

In June 2021 NSW introduced a Plastics Action Plan. The most visible action is the plan to reduce harmful plastic in the environment. Bans on single use plastics are being introduced but phased in over a longer period compared to many other states.

From 1 June single use lightweight plastic bags are banned. Then from November other single use items are banned such as straws, stirrers, cutlery, plates and bowls, cotton bud sticks and polystyrene trays.

So-called compostable plastic will also be banned. They don't biodegrade unless they're treated in an industrial composting facility. Often, they break down into useless little pieces.

South Australia has led the way in most categories of single-use plastic bans, followed closely by Queensland and the ACT, and now other states are making ground – especially Western Australia, where regulations ban the heavyweight (commonly 15 cent) plastic supermarket bags and helium balloon releases are banned. Queensland was the first to ban polystyrene food ware and plates, cups and bowls (if not enclosed with a lid) and ACT will be the first to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds (from July 2022).

At this stage it looks like the only thing where NSW may blaze a trail is banning those annoying plastic fruit stickers – if South Australia doesn’t get there first. They are thinking about it!

Another major item is takeaway coffee cups. Only WA is considering a ban at this stage.

NSW is also providing funding for research into improving the recyclability or re-usability of plastic products.

The biggest source of litter – cigarette butts

Despite the significant progress made in reducing smoking in Australia, nearly 18 billion cigarettes are smoked per year and up to half end up as litter. Cigarette butts can end up in our waterways and oceans and leach toxic materials. Butts have been found in the stomachs of birds, turtles, whales and fish, affecting their digestion and potentially leading to poisoning or starvation.

Current efforts to minimise cigarette pollution in Australia have largely focused on solutions directed at the individual smoker, such as disposal infrastructure and education. Continuing this approach would see little or no reduction in butt litter, according to a report commissioned by WWF.

The report says a levy of $0.004 (less than half a cent) per cigarette could raise $71 million per year to fund the product stewardship scheme. Alternatively, tobacco companies could be required to directly fund the scheme. It could boost collection, recovery and reprocessing of cigarette butts, support research and development to potentially ‘design out’ plastic filters, and improve public awareness of the impacts of cigarette pollution. Most people are unaware that butts contain plastic.

The NSW government will investigate a new extended producer responsibility scheme that will make tobacco companies take responsibility for the litter impacts of their products. For example, they may set mandatory litter reduction targets that those companies must meet through a range of approved activities. This work will align with the Australian government’s recently announced taskforce on cigarette butt litter.

In great news for the circular economy, the Thornleigh Community Recycling Centre is now able to accept hard plastics! This centre is available for Ku-ring-gai residents as well as Hornsby. Unwanted plastic buckets, crates, washing baskets, bottle caps and lids, toys, DVD and CD cases, plastic plant pots and plastic storage containers are among the plastic items that are presently not accepted in your home yellow-lid recycling bin but can now be taken to the centre where they will find a new life as a bollard, post or pallet.

The plastic items have to meet certain conditions:

• completely made from plastic and contain no metal parts, batteries or electronic components
• less than 20 kg in weight
• less than 1.5 m in length

The centre is at 29 Sefton Road, Thornleigh, is open Tuesday to Friday from 8.30 am to 4 pm and Saturday from 8.30 am to 12 pm.

As reported in Regenavitus (newsletter of the Friends of Lane Cove NP), the botanical name of the pesky weed known as Turkey rhubarb has changed from Acetosa sagititta to Rumex sagitittus based on DNA research. Not another name change! Actually it has returned to its original name.

It has always been a mystery as to why this weed has been called Turkey rhubarb. Has it been mixed up with Rheum species that include the edible rhubarb?

According to Wikipedia the first known species is Rheum palmatum. It originated from western China, Tibet and Mongolia. During Islamic times, it was imported along the Silk Road, reaching Europe in the 14th century through the ports of Aleppo and Smyrna, where it became known as ‘Turkish rhubarb’ and also ‘Russian rhubarb’ and ‘Indian rhubarb’.

Its leaves are large, jagged and hand-shaped, growing in width to two feet. It can grow up to 2.5 m tall. So it is nothing like our ‘Turkey rhubarb’ except the flowers a vaguely similar. They didn’t have DNA analysis back in the 14th century. The flowers may be the answer?

It is primarily used in traditional medicine, and as an ornamental subject in the garden. The root of R. palmatum is known for its purported purging effects and suppressing fever. In ancient China, rhubarb root was taken to try to cure stomach ailments and as a ‘cathartic’ (an agent used to relieve constipation) and used as a poultice for ‘fevers and edema’ (swelling caused by fluid retention in the body tissues.

Do those large rhizomes that have to be dug up in order to remove our version of Turkey rhubarb also have medicinal qualities?

The NSW and Australian governments still want a rapid increase in population This will place great pressure on new outer suburbs and areas near public transport that have been earmarked to accommodate the demand for new housing.

There was optimism that a directive issued by former Planning Minister, Rob Stokes of planning principles would have made new suburbs more pleasant places to live. They might have had more parks and street trees that would reduce the ambient heat and buildings designed with sustainability principles. They would help NSW meet the ambition of net zero by 2050 considering that buildings account for 25% of emissions.

The principles also provided that resilience and risk management from climate change be key considerations so that development in floodplains or close to bushland would be controlled. These principles would be applied throughout all NSW cities and towns. Recent events have demonstrated their importance.

The details for the implementation of the principles are set out in a draft Design and Place State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP). It has been developed by the Department of Planning in collaboration with architects, planning experts and researchers.

In a shock announcement, the new NSW Planning Minister, Anthony Roberts, has decided to bow to the developer lobby and revoke the principles and the Design and Place SEPP. What happens now is unclear.

Increase in density

The draft policy was not all good. It included an Urban Design Guide that established objectives for quality urban spaces. It was intended to advise applicants and their design teams, who prepare development proposals, on expectations and to assist in assessment of proposals (by local or state government).

There is a sting in the tail of the list of objectives. They include a blanket increase in density to 30 dwellings per hectare in areas within 5 min walk to local shops or near to public transport and 15 dwellings per hectare everywhere else. The latter equates to 666 m² average area per dwelling including space for roads, parking, parks etc. Implementation can occur by mixing apartment buildings into low density areas.

The reasoning stated in the guide is the creation of more vibrant urban areas. That seems highly unlikely. Current LEPs would be ignored. Character and heritage would be lost in the process if the developments that have sprung up all over Sydney are anything to go by.

Push for spot rezonings

In another backward move the government has issued a discussion paper about a proposal to allow developers to request spot rezonings. Councils would have a limited time to assess these applications.

The authority of councils and community wishes determined by strategic plans would be overtaken by developers making these requests. This goes against the objective that ensures strategic planning is the foundation for all decisions about potential land-use changes. The pressure to assess applications within a fixed time frame will compromise the ability of councils to assess how a proposal fits into the area’s strategic framework and take into account other developments in the process of construction or under assessment.

The planning system is more flawed than ever. More details of these changes are described in FOKE’s March 2022 newsletter.

This important discussion paper on population and climate change by Ian Lowe, Jane O’Sullivan and Peter Cook was published in February 2022 by Sustainable Population Australia. Here is their summary.

The relationship between population and climate change is complex. At a basic level, for a given lifestyle (consumption pattern), emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change are directly proportional to the size of the population. For example, if Australia’s recent population growth rate of about 1.5% per year were to continue, in less than 50 years we would double our demands for energy, food, water and all natural resources. All else being equal, we would double our carbon footprint also. On the other hand, in a hypothetical world where we achieve lifestyles entirely free from greenhouse gas generation, how many of us there were would make no difference to the climate. But even if this were achievable, which is questionable, we could decarbonise our lifestyles more rapidly if population growth was not constantly adding to the demand for energy and resources. Hence, the rate of population growth will make a considerable difference to the cumulative emissions generated during the transition. Furthermore, population growth greatly increases our vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

The population issue has had a controversial history which has led to the development of a ‘taboo’ against talking about population as a policy-relevant factor. This paper calls for a new level of maturity in discussing the population issue. It should no longer be acceptable for unfounded accusations of racism to be used to silence respectful and thoughtful discussions about population growth. It should no longer be acceptable – at an epochal moment of existential risk for human civilisation – for climate policy prescriptions to conspicuously exclude population-related actions in the face of abundant evidence (as reported in this paper) that such measures are feasible, effective and consistent with human rights and democratic values. Ending global population growth more swiftly and at a lower peak is a necessary but not sufficient condition for overcoming the climate crisis.

Population and consumption work together

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says:

Globally, economic and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of increases in CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

But these are not independent contributors to emissions; they multiply each other. Most emissions are attributable to the richest billion people, but their economic growth since 1970 has not increased their average emissions per person. The growth in emissions has come from lifting multitudes of poor people to a modest middle-class lifestyle in places like China and India.

It is futile to ‘blame’ past emissions on either population or consumption patterns when they are the product of both. What should be of more interest to us is the extent to which the future challenges of climate change, including emissions reduction and adaptation, can be lessened by giving due attention to population growth. This paper argues that our climate change response can’t afford to ignore the potential to minimise further population growth.

Slow-response actions are no less urgent

Nobody expects addressing population growth alone to solve climate change. There is no intention to deflect attention from high- emissions consumption patterns, nor to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich. Demographic inertia means that even concerted efforts to slow population growth are unlikely to have significant impact on the timescale demanded by the climate crisis. Measures to decarbonise our energy system and reverse the loss of vegetation and biodiversity are needed urgently in this decade, if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change. Measures to reduce childbirth will take decades to make an appreciable difference to greenhouse gas emissions and human demands on nature.

Nevertheless, how well we do in the second half of this century will depend more on what we do about population growth this decade than on any actions that will remain available to us in 2050. If the successful efforts to promote voluntary family planning adoption in the 1970s and ’80s had not been abandoned in the 1990s, the global population might now be on track to peak below 9 billion. Because of decisions made in the 1990s, we’re heading for 11 billion or more. But if we renew family planning efforts now, a peak below 10 billion is possible and we could end this century with fewer than 8 billion people. If we wait until 2050, 11+ billion would be locked in.

A slow fruition does not make population action any less urgent. As the proverb says, ‘The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.’ So it is with addressing global population. The climate crisis is largely a product of the short- sightedness of political responses decades ago. Those who say that reducing birth rates is too slow to be relevant to the climate change response are suffering the same short-sightedness that created the problem they seek to fix.

In rich countries, fewer people means lower emissions and fewer vulnerabilities

Any increase of population in the more affluent countries will add to those countries’ use of resources and their greenhouse gas emissions. In a rich country, having fewer children does more to slow climate change than any of the other actions often advocated, such as eating less meat, avoiding air travel or using only renewable energy. If immigration is high enough to cause population growth, it also increases a country’s emissions, but some people argue that it makes no difference globally. This is untrue: the average migrant to Australia increases their carbon footprint fourfold by adopting Australian lifestyles. While Australians have recently reduced their per capita emissions a little, Australia’s total emissions from energy have risen 49% since 1990 due entirely to population growth of 8.3 million people.

Australia is not only one of the world’s largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, it is also among the countries likely to be most affected, in terms of negative impacts on agriculture, water supply, bushfire threat and extreme weather events. All these threats are intensified by the threat-multiplier of population growth.

The current Australian government policy of encouraging high levels of migration could see the 2060 population approaching 40 million and continuing to grow rapidly. That scale of increase would significantly magnify the task of producing enough clean energy to meet our material needs within a responsible carbon budget. Australian agriculture is unlikely to feed that number during increasingly frequent and severe droughts, and water security will depend on costly and energy-intensive desalination or recycling. These serious vulnerabilities are entirely avoidable if we choose population stabilisation.

In poor countries, smaller families are essential for adaptation

Population growth heightens vulnerability to climate change to a much greater extent in poor, high-fertility countries. For most of these countries, population growth itself is a greater threat to security and wellbeing than climate change is. Saying this does not in any way diminish the serious impacts of climate change. However, if a projected 11–25% reduction in crop yields this century due to climate change is considered a crisis, it is absurd to claim, as many people do, that population growth in high-fertility countries is not important when it will diminish the available water and agricultural land per person by a factor of three or more, while ensuring high levels of unemployment and poor infrastructure provision. While family size should be considered part of emissions reduction efforts in rich countries, it should be integral to adaptation efforts in poor countries. Nevertheless, the emissions caused by growing numbers of the poor are not insignificant. Deforestation is particularly vulnerable to population pressure.

Currently, family planning services are badly underfunded, denying many women access to safe and reliable contraception. As a result, the fall in birth rates has been much slower than was anticipated a generation ago, unemployment is rampant and hunger is once more on the rise.

Many of the beneficial impacts of lower birth rates are enjoyed much more rapidly than their effect on carbon emissions. These benefits include greater autonomy of women, health of infants, food security of families, protection of biodiversity, employment prospects for youth and economic development of nations. If climate adaptation is dominating the agenda for international aid, it makes sense that family planning should be included as an adaptation measure.

Climate change will affect world population

The other side of the coin is the impact climate change is projected to have on population, through greater loss of life. The frequency of extreme heat events, floods and crop-destroying droughts is projected to increase substantially. Some Pacific islands and low-lying coastal areas will become uninhabitable, causing either loss of life or relocation of whole populations. Mass migrations could possibly in turn lead to conflict between the displaced people and those whose traditional lands they enter. However, responses to climate change can have some beneficial health impacts. Urban air pollution and indoor smoke exposure are both major causes of premature deaths, and might be substantially reduced by electrification of energy systems. It is difficult to anticipate the net effect on population trends.

Only low-population scenarios can keep warming below 2°C

The most compelling reason to include population in the climate change response is that climate mitigation models are only able to achieve sufficient emissions reduction if their scenarios assume a rapid peak and decline in global population. These assumptions are not readily visible: they are hidden under the labelling of scenarios such as ‘SSP1’ or ‘SSP2’. Without making these assumptions explicit, and discussing the actions that could help achieve the required birth reductions in a way that elevates people’s rights and freedoms, these scenarios can’t become reality.

Addressing population growth alone can’t solve climate change, but not addressing it will ensure we fail.

The EPA released the three-yearly State of the Environment Report (SoE) in February. There are some pluses but mostly it paints a sorry picture. It boils down to the human impact from climate change and population growth.

The Australian SoE was sent to the Minister for the Environment, Susan Ley, in December. But it is has not been made public yet. The minister is required to table the report in parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it. Parliament has sat only briefly this year so the government is not legally required to release it until the next parliament forms. What is she trying to hide?

For a change the NSW report does acknowledge the significance of population growth ‘population growth is the main driver of environmental issues’.

Yet, the NSW government’s top bureaucrats have urged the premier, Dominic Perrottet, to take a national leadership position and advocate a temporary five-year doubling of the pre-pandemic migration rate, which would increase the NSW population by about 2 million in 5 years. The argument is that this would rebuild the economy and address labour shortages.

The economy seems to be doing all right, thank you! Labour shortages seem to be a perpetual issue despite high immigration for most of this century. Perhaps it is more to do with wages being too low in the affected sectors of the economy. In 2018, Gladys Berejiklian, called for a pause to enable the state’s infrastructure to catch up. This still hasn’t happened.

Some pluses in this SoE report include:

• Air and urban water quality are generally good but the state’s major inland river systems continue to be affected by water extraction, altered river flows, loss of connectivity and catchment changes such as altered land use and vegetation clearing.
• Greenhouse gases are declining having fallen by 17% since 2005. Renewable energy sources have grown but they are still only 19% of electricity power in 2020. But, unlike the federal government, there is actually a plan to get to net zero by 2050.
• About 9.6% of NSW is conserved in the public reserve system. The rate of new reservations has increased markedly, with around 305,000 ha being added to reserves since 2018.

What about biodiversity?

The story on biodiversity is very different. Much loss can be attributed to the Black Summer bushfires but the downward trend has accelerated due to climate change and land clearing.

Improvements have been made through the Saving our Species program. $175 million has been allocated to the program for the 10 years to 2026, and $240 million has been allocated over five years to support a greater commitment to long-term conservation of biodiversity on private land.

Land clearing is the greatest threat to biodiversity. Land clearing and logging of native forests continue at record levels (54,500 hectares in 2019). Unrealistic logging contracts are driving the rates of tree felling which is crazy when several reports have shown that the government is losing money on logging operations. Land clearing is now so bad that in February the koala was declared an endangered species under the Commonwealth EPBC Act.

Money is going into saving species but the amount of land clearing is likely to be creating more threatened species. Invasive species are also a major threat. The regulatory framework under the Biodiversity Conservation Act is failing as was predicted by environment groups and the EDO.