The Clarke Medal is awarded each year for distinguished research in the natural sciences conducted in Australia and its territories. The fields of geology, botany and zoology are considered in rotation.

In 2020 it was the turn for botany and the award winner is Distinguished Professor Michelle Leishman. Michelle was STEP president during the periods 1997–99 and 2000–06.

Her studies at the Macquarie University’s School of Biological Sciences are currently directed towards greening urban spaces through the Which Plant Where program such as cooling school environments, studying plant responses and adaptation to climate change and understanding invasive plant pathogens. We congratulate her for the significant initiatives that respond to the need to adapt to the long-term outlook for the natural world

Welcome to the annual report on the 42^nd year of operation of STEP Inc. Believe it or not, 2020 has been a positive year for STEP. Our membership total has increased significantly and our publications have become very popular. I will explain the reasons for this later in this report.

Sadly, the past year, as we all know, has been very bad for the environment, especially bushland and wildlife. The long-term impacts of the catastrophic bushfires will only be revealed by detailed scientific research. The bleak situation with government policy at the federal level has not improved but at the local and state government level there has been mixed performance.

Activities

The restrictions on group activities imposed to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus have meant that we have not had any talks since March 2020.

AGM

It wasn’t COVID that curtailed participation at the 2019 Annual General Meeting on 12 November. Instead a small bushfire in South Turramurra on a catastrophic bushfire risk day ended up with a lockdown of the area in the late afternoon. Enough brave souls turned up to make a quorum so that the meeting could proceed.

Talks

Talks have been placed on hold since March. We managed to fit in one talk by Dr Ian Percival on Cliefden Caves, a spectacular fossil site in western NSW.

The speaker lined up for the AGM was to speak in April. Professor Culum Brown was to give us some insights into the behaviours of sharks. We hope that talks can be resumed in 2021.

Walks

We ran walks (Two Creeks and the STEP Track) before cancelling our walks program in April. Walks resumed in July with local walks led by Peter Clarke in the areas of Blackbutt Creek, the Wildflower Garden and the Darri Track. John Martyn led a walk in Strickland Forest on the Central Coast in September showing a great diversity of trees and flowers.

We have limited numbers to about 15 to comply with the COVID-19 requirements. Requests for walks in particular areas, provided they are not too far from our local area, are welcome

Publications

We are currently offering free membership for a year to compensate for the lack of activities. Also, anyone who buys a book or map is offered a year’s free membership. There has been a good response to this offer.

As a result of these initiatives our membership is now over 500.

With many people working from home and many types of outdoor activity restricted, taking a break by walking in the bush has become very popular. Sales of our maps have boomed. The South Turramurra Post Office that is close to Lane Cove National Park, has become a successful outlet for map sales.

Committee

The STEP committee has, as always, been a great group of people to work with. We owe a huge thank you for all their efforts. Other individuals have been a great help in specialist areas of our operations.

In particular Helen Wortham has come up with some great ideas that have increased her workload significantly but have led to great boost to our membership and publication sales. There has been a lot of work required by Robin Buchanan and Margery Street in keeping up-to-date and writing submissions on government policies and actions. John Martyn continues to lead walks and add his expertise to all aspects of our work including beautiful photos on Facebook. Peter Clarke continues to be an inspiring walk leader as well as taking on some of the work in putting the newsletter up on the website. Anita Andrew and Jim Wells have kept track of our finances. John Burke and Trish Lynch continue to keep Twitter and Facebook up to date and find lots of interesting items to add on a regular basis.

Accounts

Thanks to the increase in publication sales our net cash balance increased by $4,400 over the year. The Environment Protection Fund balance has reduced as the funds are being applied to the John Martyn Research grant.

Again we thank Allan Donald, Chartered Accountant for his completion of the audit on a pro bono basis.

Newsletter

We are continuing to publish five issues of the newsletter, STEP Matters, each year with most members receiving a pdf version via email. Links to individual topics are also included in the email and are on our website so anyone can pick out particular articles of interest. These articles also have links to previous articles on related topics.

While the newsletter concentrates on local issues and events we also cover broader national environmental issues that affect us all. We aim to be educational but not too technical. I hope they are of interest, but feedback is welcome. Also, contributions from members about local events and developments can be published in the newsletter or on Facebook.

Environment Protection Fund

We continue to maintain the Environment Protection Fund which has Deductible Gift Recipient status so that donations are tax deductible. The Fund’s purpose is to support our environmental objectives. We received a total of $440 in donations in the past financial year.

Due to the uncertainties about restrictions on research processes during the COVID-19 we received a smaller number of applications for the John Martyn Research Grant for 2020. This grant supports student research in an area relating to the conservation of bushland. The award this year went to a University of NSW student who is studying the effects of fire seasonality on seed ecology focussing on the Gymea lily.

Education

STEP is still donating a prize in the Young Scientist Awards run by the NSW Science Teachers Association. We have not done the judging for 2020 yet as the students have been given more time to complete their projects. 

Advocacy

The major concern for 2020 has been the NSW government’s decision to fast track construction projects, overriding the normal review and consultation process. It is very disappointing that the Mirvac development of the IBM site that contains critically endangered forest and Powerful Owl habitat is proceeding despite huge community opposition and Council refusal. We will keeping a close eye on the details of the development.

Other local areas of focus have been the rehabilitation of Hornsby Quarry, synthetic turf on playing fields and the perennial problem of illegal mountain bike track construction.

There are several common issues that affect all areas of urban bushland. We are currently working with other groups to compile a database of research on these impacts such as bird strike on high rise glass walls, use of synthetic turf and light pollution. This should speed up the process of preparing submissions.

Conclusion

A community group like STEP works best with many lines of communication. We enjoy a good relationship with other community groups and local council staff. Information sharing is an important part of our work. To that end we appreciate feedback from our members and reports on local issues that we may not be aware of. It is becoming harder to keep track of local developments as the local newspapers have shrunk considerably. Contributions on articles for our newsletter are also welcome – please let us know about events and talks.

Jill Green, President

The Nature Conservation Council held their annual conference on 31 October via Zoom. There were speeches by Matt Kean, the Environment Minister, Cate Faehrmann from the Greens and Kate Washington, Shadow Minister for the Environment.

The good news is the NSW government’s policy of aiming for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and support for renewable energy projects in spite of the federal government’s refusal to make any commitment.

Matt Kean also announced that the goal set last year of declaring 200,000 ha of new national park land had been exceeded. He went on to announce the goal will be extended to adding a total of 400,000 ha by the end of 2024. The Narriearra Caryapundy Swamp National Park, the largest area, in the far north west of the state has now been formally gazetted. Additions have been made to several other national parks such as Capertee (Regent Honeyeater habitat) and Travelling Stock reserves that have already been managed by NPWS.

The speeches demonstrated the obfuscation about koala protection that has been apparent in the Coalition for many months. Matt Kean has announced he wants the koala population to double by 2050 but so much habitat has been destroyed in the bushfires. Any plan is confounded by forest logging and land clearing decisions by other members of the Coalition. The recent Upper House enquiry found that koalas are at risk of functional extinction by 2050.

Loss of Koala Habitat and Land Clearing

1. Cumberland Plain Conservation Plan has recently been subject to consultation. It covers over 15,000 ha in south-western Sydney that is currently rural land but is earmarked for development to allow for population expansion. It aims to provide long-term certainty about areas that will be conserved to avoid piecemeal zoning decisions.
   
   If it goes ahead only about one-third of the area of native vegetation will be conserved. The plan allows for the loss of a further 1,014 ha of critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland to development. There are only 6,400 ha left. The rest will be marked as ‘urban capable’. Large areas that are Sydney’s food bowl could go under concrete as well as more koala habitat.
   
   In this area koala habitat will be protected in the new Georges River National Park but koala conservation groups are very concerned that habitat will be fragmented and essential corridors will be lost or cut off by roads. Of particular concern is the future of the chlamydia free population near Campbelltown.

2. Lend Lease is developing the Gilead Estate, land that is core koala habitat in Appin between the Nepean and Georges Rivers. The Chief Scientist has recommended that habitat corridors be maintained but some of the preservation requirement would encroach on this land. It has been left to Lend Lease to do the right thing!

3. One of the fast-tracking decisions made by the government is for another housing development (280 lots) by Walker Corporation at Appin that is next to 60 ha of critical koala habitat. This development has been knocked back by the local council several times.Then we have the approval by the federal Environment Minister for the Brandy Hill Quarry extension near Port Stephens – 52 ha lost.

4. In rural areas, in particular the north of the state, a Local Land Services Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill proposes changes to the regulatory framework applicable to native vegetation and private forestry. The EDO believes that the changes proposed by the bill will remove important protections for koala habitat and will further facilitate excessive and inappropriate land clearing. The Total Environment Centre has dubbed this the Koala Destruction Bill.

5. Then there is the modification made to the Koala SEPP after the threats from the Nationals to leave the Coalition. Councils with koala populations can choose to develop a strategy to manage koalas in their area. But the SEPP does not actually stop koala habitat from being bulldozed if the development is approved by council.

6. Last, but not least, is the latest government proposal to amend the Rural Fires Act that will lead to more land clearing. Property owners will be free to clear all their land that is within 25 m of fencing. The landowner on the other side of the fence can be required to do the same. This includes public landowners such as national parks. This was not a recommendation of the bushfire enquiry. It is hard to see the reason for this proposal. It will be introduced by regulation. Is it aimed at reducing the cost of replacing fencing after a fire? In this case it is not a fire protection measure at all. The detail has not been released.
   
   It will lead to broad-scale clearing of endangered forest and habitat for grazing and other purposes unrelated to hazard. In metropolitan rural areas where blocks are small this regulation could allow the total block to be cleared, a lovely invitation for developers to move in.

What we need is a Great Koala National Park to be formed out of key state forests in the north. Some of these forests are being logged but this has to stop if a resilient population of koalas is to survive.

Ku-ring-gai Council is currently developing plans for conversion of two existing sporting fields to synthetic turf. Both could have impacts on critically endangered ecological communities and, potentially, neighbouring national parks.

The community has only seen aerial diagrams of concept plans and detailed plans are still to be completed so there is no information about tree removal, earthworks drainage systems, etc.

Naturally the sporting groups are all in favour. In both cases the local MPs are promoting the projects and large grants are coming from government sources.

In both cases Council has resolved to proceed with the detailed plans. They are going through the approval process based on Part V of the EPAA Act which means the infrastructure can be built without consent, which means that Council does its own assessment. However, before a project can proceed Council has to prepare a detailed environmental assessment, a review of environmental factors (REF).

The REF examines the significance of likely environmental impacts of a proposal and the measures required to mitigate any adverse impacts. The preliminary reviews completed in both cases conclude that there will be no impacts serious enough to stop the project proceeding.

Norman Griffiths Oval

Following the decision not to proceed with the plan for artificial turf on Mimosa Oval (see STEP Matters, Issue 204) attention has returned to Norman Griffiths Oval. The original proposal for artificial turf on this oval was knocked back because of the high cost of stormwater management. The oval currently acts as a detention basin for water coming from the upper reaches of Quarry Creek and higher parts of Bicentennial Park.

Bank above Norman Griffiths Oval

The cost of installing the turf is currently $1.4m, $500,000 of which has come from the state government with the remainder from Council ($511,000) and various sporting organisations. The extra cost of the recommended stormwater detention system is estimated at $1.25m to be funded from money previously allocated for the indoor sports centre on the old nursery site near the St Ives Wildflower Garden that has been abandoned.

STEP’s main concerns about the project that may be addressed in the detailed design are:

• Disturbance to the moisture levels of the bank above the oval where some 30 native plants including 7 orchids have been found, with some uncommon species.
• The grassed area above the oval should be retained as this is frequently used as a source of food by birds.
• The concept plan shows that parts of the surrounding Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest vegetation will be removed to provide pedestrian pathways. These should be changed.
• The flood reports show that there will still be overflows from detention system in a severe storm and additional measures may be needed to prevent erosion and ensure ecosystem health along Quarry Creek.
• There could be pollutants in the runoff from the synthetic surface depending on the materials chosen.

Council, bushcare groups and NPWS have invested considerable effort into the health and regeneration of the Quarry Creek area over the last 20 years. The creek water quality has been significantly improved and there has been incredible regeneration of the surrounding bushlands. We don’t want to see this work being jeopardised.

Council has commissioned a separate flood risk report that covers areas below the oval. Bicentennial Park covers a large area that is the catchment for Quarry Creek that flows down under Yanko Road and into Lane Cove National Park. In a one in 50 year storm event Yanko Road could be flooded. Mitigation measures will be expensive but are a separate consideration.

Barra Brui Sportsground

Barra Brui is surrounded by endangered ecological communities, Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Duffy’s Forest on three sides and, on the eastern side, Garigal National Park is below the site with the land falling away steeply. A creek flows on the northern side of the ground and down into the valley.

Barra Brui Oval with magnificent Angophora in flower

This ground has been considered for conversion to synthetic hockey field since 2018. In this case the field will be a wet field. The ground is sprayed with water to control the ball speed and reduce the surface temperature. Therefore tanks are needed to store the water as well as gutters to control the flow of water.

The ground is currently used for cricket and soccer as well as being the local community play area and off-leash dog park. It is not clear whether cricket and soccer matches would continue to be possible. The clubhouse and parking would also be improved. The aim is to have 100 car parking spaces.

The cost is substantial, a total estimate of $4.1m: $2.25m from the Greater Sydney Sports Facility Fund, $500,000 further government funding, $250,000 from the Northern Sydney and Beaches Hockey Association and $1.1m from Council.

At the meeting on 30 June Council decided to engage in preliminary design/scope studies to inform detailed costings and the feasibility of project design options.

In this case the concerns that require more information are:

• Floodlighting is to be improved so the spill of light into the surrounding bushland may be reduced but the field may be used more often.
• How the forest will be affected including 11 important trees that the arborist report states ‘with a high potential to contribute to amenity so any adverse impacts on them should be minimised’.
• The impact of the bushfire Asset Protection Zone on the surrounding endangered ecological communities.
• Water management details are not available including controls of pollutants and stormwater and impacts on the riparian zone next to the field.
• Will the field be a bushfire hazard? There will be plenty of water supply but will there be controls to turn on the water in the case of a fire?
• Clearing required to create the necessary car parking space.

Now our bushfire season has officially started it’s interesting to look at the devastating fires in the western US: still burning, their season apparently with some weeks to go! I got interested through visits to relatives in California and British Columbia, including in the latter case in 2014 when BC had many interior blazes and Vancouver was smoke-hazy, however this article is tempered by my frustrating lack of first-hand knowledge and draws heavily on on-line info.

Although North America's fire-prone latitudes are roughly a mirror image of our own, their fire weather patterns differ in some respects, in California’s case being driven by the late summer–autumn ‘Santa Ana’ winds, essentially high pressure driven easterlies – very strong and very dry, accelerating down from the interior mountain ranges. You may have seen the satellite images of smoke plumes hundreds of kilometres long streaming westwards over the Pacific. Like here, their blazes may be started by lightning, clashing power lines and careless or criminal acts though I haven’t chased up statistics. Quite terrifying dry lightning storms have been a feature of some of the recent outbreaks.

Fires, plant communities and vegetation

What are the vegetation characteristics of the often mountainous western terranes and how do they resemble or differ from ours in surviving, adapting and recovering from fire? Well there’s an abundance of information available on-line with a lot of names and terms new to me, and it’s crazy to go for too much detail, but let’s look at examples of the main plants, communities and their fire issues.

Chapparal is the summer-dry shrubland and heathland interspersed with grassland in southern California and Mexico that most resembles Mediterranean-type plant communities in Australia. Like shrublands of south-west WA and the fynbos of South Africa it is regarded as a biodiversity hotspot. It is fire prone and its low structure provides little resistance to winds like Santa Ana, therefore fire can engulf it extremely swiftly. But not surprisingly, its tough shrubs like Manzanita sprout and regenerate from woody rootstocks – some pictures on the web of green sprouts rising from nests or corrals of burnt sticks are remarkably familiar. Also many seeds of its common species are fire dependant. And like Australia, seeds of plants like Californian fire poppy germinate to create prolific post-fire wildflower displays.

Coniferous forests with many different tree species have gone up in smoke and I was interested to read what their powers of resistance and recovery might be. Do they resprout or merely re-seed?

Ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa is the most widely distributed pine species in North America and a dominant and key one in western forests. It has a distinctive, thick, reddish brown, platy ‘jigsaw puzzle’ bark and been has recorded up to more than 80 m tall. The bark is reasonably fire resistant but its issues with fire have many other interesting aspects. Park-like old growth forests of tall, widely-spaced trees familiar to early settlers and Native Americans, and governed by natural fire regimes and native burning, have been gradually replaced by massive regrowth of multiple, closely-spaced young trees, creating tinder box conditions in hot, dry, windy weather. Abundant saplings can cause a ladder fuel effect with ground fires flaming up and consuming canopies, and thereafter whole forests. The ponderosa fire issue is complex but well researched and if interested I encourage you to read this article. 

We are familiar with seed cones that release seeds by fire, but several other species of conifer have this characteristic, where cones are tightly bound and seeds protected by resin only to burst open and release their seeds. Lodgepole pine is one such species and is notably quick to germinate after fire (see Fig 1).

You’ll be aware of Californian redwoods Sequoia sempervirens especially if you’ve visited memorable Muir Wood near San Francisco or any of the reserves of these giant trees growing within a 750 km long near-coastal zone. Yes, they can and do burn but are quite fire resistant having tough, thick bark and very high crown bases, and they also resprout epicormically quite readily. Often their forests have open floors and this is encouraged in a general movement towards hazard reduction burning of understory where possible. (The Redwood Trees will be Just Fine)

Fig 1. Lodgepole pine post-fire regrowth in Montana, courtesy of Yale School of the Environment website

Some more notes and thoughts

Bark beetle infestations
If you look at some of the pictures of infested dying coniferous forests you’ll be stunned and saddened – whole forests wiped out by one or more of the 600 or so species of bark beetle that burrow into the cambium and interrupt the water and nutrient flow. Such dead and dying forests are obviously particularly fire prone.

Snags
This is a common North American term for standing dead trees, from a variety of causes like fire, lightning, beetle attack, disease or old age. But there is a positive note as they are regarded as key wildlife habitats providing homes, nesting sites and food for wildlife. There are whole forests of snags from recent fires, but there are stories and instances of birds such as woodpeckers going in and feasting on dead and dying grubs and beetles, and the dead and broken trees provide many hollows and nesting sites.

Resprouting
Trees can recover by sprouting from lignotubers. But we are familiar with the abundant fuzzy post-fire epicormic regrowth on eucalypts and many other Australian species, and apart from redwoods I didn’t come up with clear examples from the mountain forests of the US west. But let’s not forget that not all eucalypts do this as a matter of course.

Fig 2 was taken in Thredbo Valley in 2010 and shows a dead forest of alpine ash, Eucalyptus delegatensis, floored by a dark green mini-forest of saplings from the seed bed. Many western US forests pictured on the web show a strongly similar recovery pattern (see Fig 1). However, others may be laid open to invasive species or gradual conversion to shrubland or grassland.

Fig 2. Alpine Ash forest post-fire at Thredbo

Future issues

Donald Trump famously said that poor forest management not climate change had caused the current Californian and Oregon fires. The statement was made in the wrong context from a highly biased viewpoint but surprisingly there’s an element of truth lurking in it. It’s generally regarded that the loss over one and a half centuries of widely spaced, park-like old growth forest and its replacement with dense regrowth has intensified the fire risk, and that human influence is a prime cause. There seems to be a general move favouring closer fire management and hazard reduction burning of ground vegetation and understory that mirrors our own challenging situation, but I’m drifting out of my depth here and I’ll finish on that note. Finally, this link is a good concise read.

Further reading: Struzik, E., 2017, Firestorm. How Wildfire Will Shape Our Future. Island Press

John Martyn has been pondering for some time how forests in the western US resist, react and recover from fire. Do epicormic growth and root sprouting play a role or is it mainly seed based? He decided to do some research and here are his preliminary findings.

It seems good that the cost to students of environmental degrees has been cut but the direct government funding has been cut too. Student costs to take effect from 2021 have been cut from $9,698 to $7,700 per year but the total university income per student will be $24,200 compared to $34,144, a cut of 29%.

Environmental work involves the use of technology (drones, satellites, DNA analysis) as well as field work, all very expensive to provide. No doubt the universities will have to cut the quality of the experience they can provide to students and/or the number of places available. It might be cheaper for students to study, but how ‘job-ready’ will they be? Will the mantra of the government’s university fee changes be achieved that workers will be encouraged into STEM fields?

Australia’s response to climate change already being experienced and planning for the future requires the use of environmental expertise. Even the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increase in human–wildlife interaction following land clearing. New diseases are emerging all the time that have a debilitating effect of people’s health, eg Lyme disease and Ross River virus.

Once again, this government has demonstrated their short-sighted approach to managing our most important asset, a healthy environment.

Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) is an independent not-for-profit organisation. They work on many fronts to encourage informed public debate about how Australia and the world can achieve an ecologically sustainable population.

SPA has recently published a discussion paper titled Silver tsunami or silver lining? Why we should not fear an ageing population by Dr Jane O’Sullivan who is Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland School of Science.

The paper dispels the myths about the need to have high population growth in order to maintain Australia’s economic wellbeing. Fears are often expressed by politicians and economists that an ageing population will make health and aged-care costs unaffordable and we will not have enough workers and tax-payers. The main points from the paper are summarised below. Please read the paper to see the comprehensive discussion of these issues.

Ageing is inevitable but will reach a stable point in the future

Like all developed countries we have been going through a demographic transition since early in the 20^th century. In those days high birth rates were countered by high mortality including at infant ages. Since the increase in life expectancy arising from the development of antibiotics, vaccines and medical technologies, births have been exceeding deaths even though family sizes are now smaller. Now the average age has risen and will continue to rise in line with the increased longevity. This demographic ageing represents the final stage of the inevitable demographic transition that will lead to a stabilisation in the total population numbers and age distribution unless a high level of immigration is added.

The discussion paper includes projections comparing the proportions of the population in the working age bracket as usually chosen by statisticians (age 15 to 64) and those aged 65 and over, now and into the future and then adds the effect of immigration to project the age composition at the stabilisation point. They show that the proportion of people aged 65 and over is likely to be in the range of 30 to 35% but will never outnumber the working age population. Currently Australia’s population aged 65 and over is 16% compared 65% in the age 15 to 64 bracket.

Boosting population growth does not solve ageing, but is ageing a problem anyway?

Immigration, by bringing in more ‘working age’ people, will delay the stabilisation process. The paper goes on to look at the effects of a range of growth levels (natural increase plus net immigration) that are summarised in the table below (copied from the discussion paper). Growth is defined as a percentage of the then current population. For example, recent growth of 1.6% equates to the need to provide housing and services for an extra 400,000 pa. When population grows to 40 million, which could happen by 2050 if growth returns to recent levels, there would be an extra 640,000 people to accommodate.

Fig 3C shows the costs of provision of population based necessities such as health, aged care, education and infrastructure, as a proportion of GDP. This data is the essential part of the paper’s arguments that growth comes with a significant cost.

The cost of population growth exceeds the cost of ageing

As Fig 3C shows, immigration is expensive. The cost of extra infrastructure to support population growth outweighs the small extent to which that population growth could lessen relative pension, health-care and aged-care costs. A figure of $100,000 is quoted as the infrastructure costs of each new resident. Most of this infrastructure cost falls to state and local governments, and private individuals, rather than the federal government. The national interest should not be narrowly defined as achieving a balanced federal budget while the states are having to increase their revenue raising to provide new infrastructure.

The paper concludes that high levels of immigration can slow, but not prevent, population ageing. But the cost of extra infrastructure and education to sustain population growth is greater than the avoided costs of pensions, health care and aged care.

Will we run out of workers and taxpayers to support the non-workers?

One of the main arguments for increased population is the dependency drag on the economy. This ‘dependency ratio’ assumes that those over-65 depend economically on people aged 15-64, and that there will not be enough people of ‘working age’ to perform all the required work.

The paper presents the argument that there is no evidence that boosting the working-age population has increased employment per capita. Instead, Australia’s labour market has been oversupplied, with high immigration contributing to youth underemployment, wage stagnation and rising inequality through increased housing costs.

Many European countries with slow population growth have higher productivity growth and youth unemployment than Australia.

With the same demand for workers but fewer working-age people competing for jobs, there is less unemployment and underemployment. Improved wages and conditions attract more people into the workforce. This is what economic theory expects the labour market to do. But the economic models which predict that ageing will constrain the workforce have ignored these feedbacks.

The paper found no credible evidence that ageing will constrain Australia’s workforce, productivity or GDP. Tax contributions per adult would increase due to higher wages and workforce participation. In contrast to the common claims of a fiscal burden, they anticipate a fiscal dividend.

Health and aged care costs

While aged care and health care will likely increase as a share of national spending, the rise will be much smaller than the rise in number of retirees because older cohorts are getting healthier and better services are extending their independence. The major increases in health costs have been due to new, improved and more services per person. Longevity has deferred, rather than extended, the period over which the elderly need more health care and aged care.

There is not enough room here to summarise the detailed discussion in the paper on issues such as taxation, retirement incomes and intergenerational equity and the myths trotted out by the growth lobby. This lobby, including the likes of demographer Liz Allen from ANU and the Scanlon Foundation are comprehensively debunked by this paper.

Conclusion – silver tsunami or silver lining?

Those with vested interests in population growth have overstated ageing concerns, to make high immigration seem essential. The resulting negative social and environmental impacts continue to accumulate for no net economic gain.

The paper concludes that an older, numerically stable or decreasing population offers many benefits for quality of life, environmental sustainability and economic stability. Depopulation dividends could make us richer, smarter, safer, fairer, greener, healthier and happier.

Fig 3. Elevated population growth rates don’t lessen fiscal costs

In Fig 3, the authors compare five projections that achieve approximately steady population growth rate and age composition. (While these projections are produced by varying immigration, raising birth rates would yield fairly similar results.)

Fig 3B shows that if our population grew at 2% per year (projection E), we could keep the proportions of children, 15-64 year-olds and over-65s roughly the same as we currently have (until we are too overpopulated to keep growing).

But, as Fig 3C shows, the cost of infrastructure and education to support this growth outweighs any benefit from lowering costs related to elderly citizens. On the other hand, if we had no population growth, or even a gentle decline, then there would be a higher proportion of older citizens, but the savings on infrastructure and education would pay for the increase in pensions, health care and old-age care.

New research shows lyrebirds move more litter and soil than any other digging animal

When you think of lyrebirds, what comes to mind may be the sound of camera clicks, chainsaws and the songs of other birds. While the mimicry of lyrebirds is remarkable, it is not the only striking feature of this species.

In research just published, we document the extraordinary changes that lyrebirds make to the ground layer in forests in their role as an ecosystem engineer.

Ecosystem engineers change the environment in ways that impact on other species. Without lyrebirds, eastern Australia’s forests would be vastly different places.

What is an ecosystem engineer?

Ecosystem engineers exist in many environments. By disturbing the soil, they create new habitats or alter existing habitats, in ways that affect other organisms, such as plants and fungi.

A well-known example is the beaver, in North America, which uses logs and mud to dam a stream and create a deep pond. In doing so, it changes the aquatic habitat for many species, including frogs, herons, fish and aquatic plants. Other examples include bandicoots and bettongs.

The Superb Lyrebird acts as an ecosystem engineer by its displacement of leaf litter and soil when foraging for food. Lyrebirds use their powerful claws to rake the forest floor, exposing bare earth and mixing and burying litter, while seeking invertebrate prey such as worms, centipedes and spiders.

To study the role of the lyrebird as an engineer, we carried out a two-year experiment in Victoria’s Central Highlands, with three experimental treatments.

First, a fenced treatment, where lyrebirds were excluded from fenced square plots measuring 3m wide.

Second, an identical fenced plot but in which we simulated lyrebird foraging with a three-pronged hand rake (about the width of a lyrebird’s foot). This mimicked soil disturbance by lyrebirds but without the birds eating the invertebrates that lived there.

The third treatment was an unfenced, open plot (of the same size) in which wild lyrebirds were free to forage as they pleased.

Over a two-year period, we tracked changes in the litter and soil, and measured the amount of soil displaced inside and outside of these plots.

Lyrebirds dig up a lot of dirt

On average, foraging by wild lyrebirds resulted in a staggering 155 tonnes per hectare of litter and soil displaced each year throughout these forests.

To the best of our knowledge, this is more than any other digging vertebrate, worldwide.

To put this in context, most digging vertebrates around the world, such as pocket gophers, moles, bandicoots and bettongs, displace between 10–20 tonnes of material per hectare, per year.

To picture what 155 tonnes of soil looks like, imagine the load carried by five medium-sized 30 tonne dump trucks – and this is just for one hectare!

But how much does an individual lyrebird displace? At one study location we estimated the density of the lyrebird population to be approximately one lyrebird for every 2.3 hectares of forest, thanks to the work of citizen scientists led by the Sherbrooke Lyrebird Study Group.

Based on this estimate, and to use our dump truck analogy, a single lyrebird will displace approximately 11 dump trucks of litter and soil in a single year.

Changes to the ground layer

After two years of lyrebird exclusion, leaf litter in the fenced plots was approximately three times deeper than in the unfenced plots. Soil compaction was also greater in the fenced plots.

Where lyrebirds foraged, the soil easily crumbled and the litter layer never fully recovered to a lyrebird-free state before foraging re-occurred.

This dynamic process of disturbance by lyrebirds has been going on for millennia, profoundly shaping these forests. For organisms such as centipedes, spiders and worms living in the litter and soil, the forest floor under the influence of lyrebirds may provide new opportunities that would not exist in their absence.

An ecosystem ravaged by fire

The Australian megafires of 2019/20 resulted in approximately 40% of the Superb Lyrebird’s entire distribution being incinerated, according to a preliminary analysis by BirdLife Australia.

So great was the extent of these fires that the conservation status of the lyrebird has been thrown into question. That the conservation status has fallen – from “common” to potentially being “threatened” – from a single event is deeply concerning.

Loss of lyrebird populations on this scale will have potentially far-reaching effects on forest ecology.

In the face of climate change and a heightened risk of severe wildfire, understanding the role that species such as the Superb Lyrebird play in ecosystems is more important than ever.

Without lyrebirds, eastern Australia’s forests would be vastly different places, with impacts extending well beyond the absence of their glorious song to other animals who rely on these “ecosystem engineers”.

Alex Maisey, PhD Candidate, La Trobe University and Andrew Bennett, Professor of Ecology, La Trobe University

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

I came across this book through a very positive review in the Weekend Australian. Its author is ecologist Matthew Colloff, Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Fenner School, ANU. Matthew grew up in rural Kent developing a strong allegiance to the natural world, something I immediately related to as it was close to my own experiences growing up in Middle England. He carried this affinity through his 23 years with CSIRO where he spend much time on the complex and highly politicised natural and man-made environments of the Murray Darling Basin. But the book extends far beyond that both geographically, ecologically and conceptually.

How do we as individuals relate to landscapes and nature and how did our early encounters and memories stay with us and colour our views of the natural world? Are there particular holidays, outings, travels and experiences, fishing in a quiet river, listening to the cicadas and sea sounds on a hot afternoon camped in a forest by the beach? Or how do we relate to the interwoven intricacies of bush, parks, suburbs and city? But what of First Nation people whose connection with the landscape stretches back for more than 50,000 years; their sacred and canoe bark trees that have survived in our parks: do we cut them down when they grow old and pose safety risks? And how do the farmers who now occupy their cleared former country cope with and live with the vagaries of drought, floods, bushfires, rising salinity and a warming world.

This book is wide ranging and thoughtful and full of stories and anecdotes, both historical and from his own experiences: like getting bogged alone, far from a main road in mallee country or releasing a captive turtle back into the wild that had been rescued from drought-shrunken pools. The writing style is fluid and readable and hard to put down, but most of all the book is thought provoking and makes you examine your own attitudes, and ponder the future for our country, our biodiversity and the survival of the landscapes that we love.

Matthew Colloff, 330 pages: Thames and Hudson: trade paperback RRP $35

Reviewed by John Martyn

On 6 May the Sydney North Planning Panel conducted a hearing into Hornsby Council’s DA for the works of Hornsby Quarry. Some individuals and community groups made submissions explaining their serious concerns about some aspects of the proposed works.

The panel found that more information is needed and deferred the application so that the following detail can be completed and made public for further consultation:

• biodiversity offsets package, vegetation management plan (VMP) and habitat creation and enhancement plans
• rehabilitation works around the Powerful Owl breeding pair’s roosting tree
• information about extent of the volcanic diatreme rock face exposure when the filling and creation of the lake and wetland in front of the face have been completed

This information has now been published and further submissions could be made up to 21 August. Another panel hearing will be held in due course.

1.   Biodiversity offsets package

The development involves the clearing of some areas and the replanting or restoration of other parts. The development assessment concluded that there will be a residual impact on biodiversity values that need to be offset.

Three options were considered. One option was to use offsets from another site. This is what we were most concerned about. The good news is that priority has been given to offsets that can occur around the quarry and surrounding bushland. This land will be managed as part of the VMP. In-perpetuity protection of the offset areas will be provided by a Voluntary Conservation Agreement which will comprise the offset area and additional lands managed under the VMP.

The Voluntary Conservation Agreement will be co-signed by Hornsby Council and the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust.

There is one concern that funding has not been specifically allocated for the VMP so its sufficiency is not certain.

STEP would like to have seen a VMP that is more progressive in recognising the resilience benefits of selecting plants from nearby areas outside Hornsby Shire with similar soils or more likely to cope with changing climate or could have been present before the quarry area was developed but have since disappeared.

2.   Powerful Owl protection

A staging plan has been completed highlighting earthworks that will not be undertaken within the recommended Powerful Owl exclusion zones if a breeding pair are occupying a nest on site. Post works habitat creation and appropriate vegetation management practises are also stipulated in the VMP.

The Powerful Owl Coalition is concerned that the language in the documents is not strong enough. Words like ‘should’ are used when the particular actions are a ‘must’.

3.   Recognition of the scientific value of the ‘Jurassic’ diatreme rock face

Ian Percival from the Geological Society of Australia toured the site with council officers. In a follow-up letter he explained that the society’s concerns have been addressed. The proposed level of the quarry floor in the redevelopment will be entirely comparable with the exposure more than four decades ago. The letter states:

It is apparent that council now recognises the geoheritage significance of its own ‘Jurassic Park’ (a reference to the known age of the diatreme) which is right in its backyard. As the centrepiece of the redevelopment of the old Hornsby Quarry it will no doubt be a remarkable tourist drawcard if properly protected, allowing public (and restricted research/educational) access with suitable interpretation.

The Powerful Owl Coalition, of which STEP is a member, presented a submission to a Sydney North Planning Panel on 10 June on the proposed development of two high rise apartment buildings on Peats Ferry Road (the old Pacific Highway). The site overlooks Hornsby Park and is close to the Quarry site and Berowra Valley National Park.

As the buildings will be at the top of the ridge their effective height relative to the valley will be similar to the high rises of Chatswood or Parramatta.

The submission highlighted the risks to birdlife from the development, in particular:

• the risk of birds flying into reflective glass
• disturbance to nocturnal birds – a Powerful Owl breeding site is only 900 m away
• light pollution into Hornsby Park and Berowra Valley National Park – biological systems are arguably organised foremost by the daily and seasonal rhythm cycle of light and dark
• interruption to the movement of birds between catchments both north/south and east/west

Sadly, all these issues were ignored by the panel. This is likely to be the first of many more similar developments along the old Pacific Highway that will exacerbate the issues explained above.

On 14 August some good Hornsby Council decisions were made.

Byles Creek Valley

Local residents of the Byles Creek Valley and nearby have been fighting developments along the edges of the valley for many years. They have been calling for parts of the valley, especially near the creek to be protected through changes in zoning from RE1 zoning to E3 to limit the potential for further clearing of trees. They are also asking for an existing informal walking track to upgraded in recognition of its social value from long-term use of the valley for recreation.

The motion passed by council implies that the upgrade will be given priority and that funds could be provided from a reserve that has been set aside from the sale of a church in Cheltenham.

The motion also stated that a councillor workshop be held to review the planning controls to protect environmental qualities of residential properties adjoining open space lands within the Byles Creek catchment.

So there is some hope for improved recognition of this beautiful valley and pristine waterway on the edge of Lane Cove National Park.

Native vegetation mapping

The vegetation mapping that is used to define where clearing must have council approval was reviewed as part of updating the Local Environment Plan. Council approved option 2 that will allow for the protection of all of the significant vegetation as mapped within the shire. This is wonderful news for our tree canopy and our precious forests.

An article in the last issue of STEP Matters explained the bad news that the rezoning of the IBM site was on the list of projects being ‘fast tracked’ by the NSW government. The approval applies to the rezoning required from that of a business park to enable Mirvac to proceed with the construction of 600 apartments.

We did explain that there are some modifications that appeared to address some of the concerns held by local community groups. However, it has since been discovered that there are conditions that may put these improvements in doubt.

The NSW government and Mirvac promised the community that the critically endangered forest on the Mirvac site would be incorporated into the Cumberland State Forest. Residents have found out that Mirvac intends to dedicate the forest to the Minister for Planning only just prior to the issue of the occupation certificate for the final stage of the proposed development. It will be at least five years before this stage will be reached. It seems some hard-nosed bargaining took place.

According to the documents there will be no funding provided by Mirvac for the upkeep of the forest. With no commitment how can it be looked after while it is right next to a construction site?

Mirvac has set up a promotional website that states that:

Mirvac understands the important role the remnant Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest has in providing valuable habitat for local native flora and fauna and we are committed to its protection. Approximately 9 hectares will be committed to the State Government to become an extension to the Cumberland State Forest.

The original plans that were knocked back by Hills Council included a voluntary planning agreement. Mirvac was going to fund the construction of some public recreation space, but that has disappeared from the planning documents. It is estimated that a whopping $46 million worth of local infrastructure has been given up by the NSW government in their haste to push through this development that has been condemned by the local community. Council will have to find the funds to provide the infrastructure needs for an estimated additional 1,200 residents.

The local community groups, Forest in Danger and West Pennant Hills Valley Progress Association will be keeping a close eye on the next stage of approvals that will need to be assessed by council.

The EPBC Act that has been in force since 1999 is required to be reviewed every 10 years. The second review chaired by Prof Gordon Samuel, is currently underway. The interim report that considered close to 30,000 submissions was released in July. The Review is continuing to consult with stakeholders and the final review is due at the end of October.

At the outset, the report recognises the serious environmental crisis we are facing and the deterioration of our natural capital. It recognises that the current Act is failing to address the causes of this decline. The report calls for national leadership and stronger laws that effectively address our greatest environmental challenges.

While the report was being prepared, the auditor general released a report finding 80% of approvals under the EPBC Act and regulations were non-compliant or contained errors.

Federal Labor analysed those findings and concluded that since the coalition came to power, there had been a 510% blowout in the number of environmental approvals delayed beyond time frames indicated in the laws.

The delays came as the government cut funding to the environment department, which Labor said was now 40% lower than it was before the coalition came to power.

Main findings of interim report

The report calls for:

• More streamlined regulation and a reduction in duplication by creating bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and states via national environmental standards whereby most of the assessment and approvals will be carried out by the states.
• The development of national environmental standards that will be essential in enabling this proposed devolution of the Commonwealth's functions. These standards must be legally enforceable that 'set clear rules for decision-making' by the states. They should be outcomes focused and measurable, but with some for flexibility.

Government response

The main response by the government to the review is at odds with the fundamental issues highlighted in the interim report.

In the government’s view the main metric of the success of the review is how quickly approvals can be signed off. The Environment Minister Sussan Ley agreed in principle with most of the recommendations but then has proposed introducing legislation to implement some of them in August before the final report is completed – due in October. This could seriously compromise the effective implementation of the reforms

The report suggests that the development of a robust suite of environmental standards will drive the improved outcomes. On the other hand, the government is intending to pass legislation as soon as possible in parliament to facilitate new bilateral assessment and approval agreements. In the absence of confirmed standards, a set of ‘interim standards’ will be used to fast track the devolving of powers to states and territories. By definition the interim standards will have to be vague such as preventing unacceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance. How can ‘unacceptable’ be defined without a thorough framework of standards?

There is the risk that, once the interim process is in place, the implementation of the more rigorous process will be resisted. How can the accreditation be secure when currently there are states like NSW with laws that cannot even protect koalas and has land clearing laws that facilitate habitat loss? However, once the final standards are in place, if these are mandatory and measurable, they could play a key role in lifting state standards and ensuring environmental outcomes are actually achieved.

Minister does not support independent regulator

Despite the report pointing out the fundamental flaw of the current EPBC Act being that the Environment Department has utterly failed in its implementation, the minister has stated that the government will not implement the recommendation for an independent regulator. She has stated that proponents should still expect a significant increase in compliance and enforcement activity by her department under the EPBC Act.

Other recommendations

Introduce limited merits review – the report clearly rejected the notion of ‘green lawfare’ acting as an obstacle to development while the government is determined to maintain its position that reform is needed.

Consider biodiversity offsets as a last resort – offsetting should be considered only when proponents have exhausted all reasonable options to avoid or mitigate impacts, and that offsets should deliver genuine restoration.

Modify water trigger – Prof Samuel proposes modifying the 'water trigger', which requires the referral and approval of coal seam gas and large coal mining projects that are likely to have significant impacts on water resources.

Promote use of Indigenous knowledge – the interim report concludes that the EPBC Act is not fulfilling its objectives as they relate to the role of Indigenous Australians in protecting and conserving biodiversity and heritage and promoting the respectful use of their knowledge.

The NSW Government Architect has released a draft Greener Places Design Guide that is open for comment until 28 August. It is aimed at providing guidance for the state and local government, developers and the land managers.

The disclaimer is significant. It says:

Implementing the Greener Places Design Guide framework will require new governance arrangements, collaborations, and the identification of roles and responsibilities.

This guide attempts to set out such a framework but it should be noted that all roles and responsibilities, suggestions for ‘interagency’ bodies, and the commitment of resources by State or local government are yet to be agreed and are included for discussion only.

The guide covers three areas:

• open space for recreation
• urban tree canopy
• bushland and waterways

Open space for recreation

Most of the guide is devoted to guidelines for the provision of open space for recreation and sporting fields. It provides details on desirable land areas, accessibility and types of spaces relative to local population size and type of housing. Issues like anticipating additional green space needs when infill development is planned are covered in detail. It emphasises the importance of green space in enhancing the quality of local neighbourhoods.

Of particular interest to STEP are statements like:

Parks should consider adjacent land uses and be adequately buffered from incompatible uses. Solutions may include vegetation corridors, planted mounds, and fencing.

We would add appropriate flood lighting and use of synthetic turf in suburban playing fields.

One concern is the emphasis that is placed on the use of natural areas for bike and walking tracks when planning greenfield development sites.

They offer opportunities for active transport connections and integrated open space planning that support water-sensitive urban design and local habitat conservation, as well as promoting walkable environments for the health and wellbeing of its inhabitants.

Urban tree canopy

A common method for determining the amount of urban tree canopy is to measure the area of canopy as a percentage of total land area. The measures of tree canopy cover rely on aerial surveys. Ground surveys are needed to confirm the adequacy of vegetation cover.

The guide lists the many health, economic (property values) and environmental benefits of urban tree canopy. However, there is no definition of a tree. In local streets many species that are capable of growing to a size large enough to provide shade have been pruned savagely to provide space for powerlines.

The guide outlines indicative targets to improve tree canopy cover in Greater Sydney and regional urban areas including areas of major infrastructure such as transport. This has been the subject of detailed scientific research. Many cities have already adopted new canopy targets. For example, Melbourne aims to increase from 22% (2017) to 40% by 2040 and London from 20% (2008) to 30% by 2050. The indicative targets in the guide are to increase the canopy over Greater Sydney by 2056 to the following levels.

• CBD >15%
• medium to high density residential >25%
• low density residential >40%

The implementation of these targets will require major changes to state and local government planning policies and public recruitment to help look after the trees. We need to overcome the trend to remove all the trees and substantial shrubs when a house is demolished and replaced by a larger dwelling. Usually the well-established garden is replaced with neat hedges, lawn and paving. The bird habitat and connectivity is vanishing.

Bushland and waterways

The section on bushland and waterways defines strategies for improving the quality and quantity of natural habitat in urban areas. There are lists of desirable planning actions that will conserve, restore and create ecosystems as urban areas are planned, constructed and maintained. It is stated that the approach adopted recognises the important role of integrating nature into urban areas and the lives of people, not just protecting selected sites and landscapes. Examples are:

• establish threshold levels for ecological communities beyond which no further development can be considered
• review planning policies that conflict with the provision of urban habitat and corridors, and devise triggers to switch off incompatible policies, or incorporate provisions to avoid incompatible outcomes in core, transition, and corridor areas in consultation with local government
• incorporate consideration of threatened species, endangered ecological communities, locally rare species, core bushland, and strategic linkages to maximise biodiversity conservation

The key recommendation for councils to prepare a strategic urban biodiversity framework is very good but the practicality of applying priority to urban bushland improvement at the same time as meeting the demands for development to meet population growth expectations is challenging.

We are concerned about the emphasis placed in the design guide on the use of bushland for creating linkages. This reflects the unresolved conflict between the demand to use bushland for recreation and the needs of conservation.

Nevertheless the draft design guide sets out a thorough set of principles and actions to ensure that our bushland and native habitats are preserved and improved. Unfortunately, it is not clear that government policies and funding will allow the objectives to be met.

We are all aware of the impact that the use of 1080 poison has had on the local population of feral cats and foxes. We now have a lot more wildlife in the suburbs that may be a delight or may be a nuisance, for example brush turkeys. It is being used extensively in bushfire affected areas to help wildlife recovery. It has the advantage that baits can be dropped into remote areas. It is generally believed that native animals are immune to this poison as it is present in a range of Australian plants.The  has released a report, 1080: A Weighty Ethical Issue that looks at the ethical considerations of using 1080 to control feral animals in Australia and finds that the conservation benefits to native species necessitates its use until an alternative is available

Here is the ISC’s summary from the report.

1080 – sodium monofluoroacetate – is very important for conservation in Australia, used extensively to protect rare native species from foxes, cats, pigs and rabbits. But many people oppose its use because it is regarded as inhumane.

In this report the Invasive Species Council considers the conservation and welfare consequences of 1080 baiting. We do this as an environmental organisation whose mission is to strengthen protection for Australian species from harmful introduced species, but also as people who care about the welfare of animals, whether introduced or native.

Diagnosing pain and distress in animals is difficult, and there is much uncertainty about the welfare impacts of 1080 poisoning, because the extent to which animals are conscious during some of the worst symptoms is unknown. However, it seems highly likely that 1080-poisoned animals suffer pain and distress before they become unconscious, although the extent and duration are highly variable and poorly understood. A 2010 assessment by an independent expert panel in New Zealand concluded that 1080 had severe to extreme impacts on the welfare of the species assessed (including cats, pigs and rabbits) lasting from hours to days.

1080 has been essential for enabling the survival or recovery of many threatened species and their reintroduction to sites where introduced predators have been suppressed or eradicated.

The use of 1080 also has welfare benefits for native animals who are freed from the pressure of heavy predation or competition by introduced animals. A ban on 1080 without an effective replacement would overall result in greater suffering (as well as declines in native species).

As a high priority, we recommend research into effective replacements for 1080 that are more humane. Four new more-humane baits have been approved in Australia since 2016, but they cannot totally replace 1080 due to their nontarget impacts and limited delivery options.

The ISC believes that an ethical approach to the welfare problems of 1080 requires the following:

• Develop and deploy more-humane and effective ways of controlling harmful introduced animals
• Design long-term control programs that minimise the overall extent of killing of introduced animals – for example, by eradicating or substantially suppressing their populations, and by intervening ecologically to help native animals withstand invasive pressures
• Improve monitoring to ascertain whether 1080 baiting (and other methods) achieve conservation goals and are cost effective (it is unethical to kill animals if no conservation benefit is achieved and wrong to waste scarce conservation funds)
• Strive to better understand (where feasible) the welfare consequences of 1080

It has been a bad decade for bats. Prior to the emergence of COVID-19, they were already in severe decline worldwide. Now, they are blamed as the culprids behind one of the costliest pandemics in modern history, even though the source and method of transmission haven’t been identified. Although scientists have an obligation to promptly disclose new threats, premature speculation about bats has been exaggerated in attention-grabbing media headlines. The result has been needless confusion, leading to the demonization, eviction, and slaughtering of bats even where they are most needed.

As of mid-March, ‘patient zero’ for COVID-19 still had not been found, and who or what infected that person remains a mystery. There is even uncertainty about whether the viral jump from an unknown intermediate host to humans occurred in the location initially identified, an animal and seafood market in Wuhan, China. Despite these uncertainties, the media, with no small assistance from scientists, has sensationalized the risks, often without providing perspective, settling on bats as the likely culprit and thus making them targets in a viral witch hunt.

Around the world, bats are feeling the effects of this misinformation. My Malaysian colleague, Sheema Abdul Aziz, has spent years documenting the key role of flying fox bats as essential pollinators of Southeast Asia’s multibillion-dollar-a-year durian crop. Growers were planning to join her in a public education campaign explaining the value of bats, but now they fear a public backlash and are reluctant to support her efforts. A local resort has expressed fear of loss of sales due to a nearby flying fox colony. Fearing her research will trigger a new disease outbreak, private citizens have even asked the government to stop her from handling bats and to support eradication, something already reported in neighboring Indonesia. My colleagues in China are also deeply concerned about the demonization of bats and calls for their eradication.

Even in my home city of Austin, Texas, where we have safely enjoyed sharing a downtown bridge with 1.5 million bats for decades, growing numbers of people are asking about disease risks. Despite warnings from poorly informed health officials that our bats were rabid and dangerous, they’ve yet to transmit a single case of disease. They simply attract millions of tourist dollars each summer and control tons of crop pests each night. Texas bats are worth more than a billion dollars annually. Now bat-lovers are experiencing a backlash against putting up bat houses because neighbors say they fear that attracting bats will bring disease.

But simply telling people that bats are valuable and shouldn’t be killed can’t counter panic. I have personally investigated instances where fearful humans had burned, poisoned, or sealed caves, killing millions of bats at a time. Based on my experience, I have concluded that there is no greater threat than the intolerance and eradication that results from misguided fear.

Exaggerated warnings of bat disease risks aren’t just misguided. They threaten the health of entire ecosystems and economies. Researchers in Indonesia conservatively estimate that bats save cacao growers more than $700 million annually in avoided insect damage. In Mexico, tequila and mescal production worth billions annually relies on bats that pollinate agaves. From Southeast Asia to the Mediterranean, bats provide key pest control for rice growers. In South Africa, macadamia growers benefit from bat control of stink bugs.

Despite a long tradition of being misunderstood and feared, perhaps because of their nocturnal habits and erratic flight, bats have an outstanding record of living safely with humans. Millions living in backyard bat houses, city parks, and bridges have proven to be safe neighbors. I have never been attacked and am still healthy after more than 60 years studying and handling hundreds of species worldwide, sometimes surrounded by millions in caves. Because, like veterinarians, I am occasionally bitten by unfamiliar animals I handle, I’m vaccinated against rabies.

For anyone who simply avoids handling bats, the odds of contracting any disease from one are incalculably small. All diseases attributed to bats are easily avoided, even when bats live in one’s yard.

However, these facts typically go unreported, while risks are often magnified. The March 11 issue of Scientific American provides an excellent example. Its COVID-19 article subhead reads:

Wuhan-based virologist Shi Zhengli has identified dozens of deadly SARS-like viruses in bat caves, and she warns there are more out there.

The use of ‘deadly’ is unjustified speculation.

The article additionally claims that the Wuhan outbreak is the sixth outbreak caused by bats in the past 26 years. In fact, the first four listed (SARS, MERS, Hendra, Ebola) appear to have been transmitted to people by animals other than bats—yet bats still receive primary blame. The fifth, the Nipah virus, which likely is spread to people from flying fox bats, is easily prevented by simply covering collection containers or pasteurizing contaminated palm juice.

Two possible scenarios have been hypothesized for the COVID-19 outbreak. The first is that a new coronavirus entered an intermediate host animal, such as a pangolin, where it evolved over an undetermined period to gradually become a threat to people. Alternatively, the new coronavirus could have been harmless when it first entered humans, but over time evolved to become virulent. Such scenarios would be difficult to predict, and a publication currently under review even points to mice and domestic pigs as possible sources.

So why has the media almost universally blamed bats? In part because scientists have disproportionately focused on sampling them.

Since 2005, when coronaviruses in horseshoe bats were first hypothesized to be the ancestors of the coronavirus that caused SARS, bats have received far more scrutiny than any other group of animals. For example, in the study on which the scariest headlines were based, researchers sampled nearly twice as many bats as rodents, shrews, and nonhuman primates combined and didn’t even include carnivores or ungulates.

Easily blamed, due to their lack of popularity, bats are also the easiest mammals to quickly sample in large numbers. This led to rapid publication of the results, and sensational speculations were deemed more acceptable when focused on already-feared animals.

Not surprisingly, more viruses have been found in bats than in less-surveyed species, so biased speculation has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don’t yet know if bats have more viruses than other animals because we haven’t similarly sampled others. And even if bats do have more, the number of viruses isn’t necessarily indicative of transmission risk. Many viruses are innocuous or possibly even beneficial.

Some virologists have capitalized on the fear of pandemics to promote funding for viral surveys in nature as a possible means of preventing or mitigating these scary events. They convinced the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to budget $4.8 billion in 2019 for surveys searching for potentially high-risk viruses. Referring to the COVID-19 pandemic, long-time surveying proponents now argue that the best way forward is to prevent future outbreaks by beginning with surveys to find and catalog wildlife viruses globally, focusing on what they consider to be high-risk animals, including bats.

However, many leading experts strongly disagree. They argue that such surveys would be extremely costly and have little practical value. Viral-caused outbreaks are exceedingly rare, and their emergence is unpredictable. The evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes and associates note that even if all current viruses could be catalogued, new variants of RNA viruses are constantly evolving. They bluntly warn of arrogance and loss of credibility resulting from promises that viral surveys could prevent or even mitigate pandemics.

To understand why surveying will fail as a strategy, consider the examples of MERS, West Nile, and Zika viruses. MERS jumped to humans from a seemingly unlikely source, camels, in Saudi Arabia, previously believed to be an extremely improbable location for such an incident. Robert Tesh, an expert on emerging viruses, has pointed out that neither West Nile nor Zika viruses are new. They simply spilled over when transported to new areas in incidents that couldn’t have been predicted.

A growing number of leading epidemiologists agree that it isn’t possible to predict the animal origin of the next viral outbreak. Unfortunately, their warnings are seldom covered by public media. When they are, they tend to be de-emphasized.

Finding the true source and means of infection for patient zero in the current outbreak seems far more important than condemning bats or spending billions on searches for potential pathogens. Such public health funds would be much better directed toward improved early detection in humans.

But we humans must also address our own culpability. Caging and slaughtering a wide variety of animals in markets virtually guarantees the spread of viral infections. Blaming already unpopular bats only increases already severe threats to their survival, despite scientific certainty about the enormous benefits they provide to both the environment and societies. Care about bats or not, we should see COVID-19 as a grim reminder that human well-being requires responsible stewardship of nature, not just dominance.

This article was written by Dr Merlin Tuttle, a leading bat researcher who founded and directed Bat Conservation International for 30 years. He now directs Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation and is a research fellow in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin.

Amid the urgent need to slow climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency makes sense. But as Australia’s chief scientist Alan Finkel last week warned, we’re not 'anywhere close to having that nailed'.

Energy efficiency means using less energy to achieve the same outcomes. It’s the cheapest way to cut greenhouse gas emissions and achieve our climate goals. Improving energy efficiency is also vital to achieving so-called 'energy productivity' – getting more economic output, using the same or less energy.

But Australia’s national energy productivity plan, agreed by the nation’s energy ministers in 2015, has gone nowhere.

It set a goal of a 40% improvement in energy productivity by 2030. But my analysis, based on the most recent official data, shows that in the three years to 2017-18, energy productivity increased by a mere 1.1%.

Clearly, there is much work to do. So let’s take a look at the problem and the potential solutions.

Energy efficiency: a low-hanging fruit

Better energy efficiency lowers electricity bills, makes businesses more competitive and helps manage energy demand. Of course, it also means less greenhouse gas emissions, because fewer fossil fuels are burnt for energy.

Business, unions and green groups recognise the benefits. Last month they joined forces to call for a sustainable COVID-19 economic recovery, with energy efficiency at the core, saying:

In Australia, a major drive to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and industry could deliver over 120,000 job-years of employment […] Useful upgrades could be made across Australia’s private and public housing; commercial, community and government buildings; and industrial facilities.

The group said improvements could include:

• more efficient and controllable appliances and equipment, especially for heating and cooling
• improved shading and thermal envelopes (improving the way a building’s walls, ceiling and floors prevent heat transfer)
• smart meters to measure energy use
• distributed energy generation and storage, such as wind and solar backed by batteries
• fuel switching (replacing inefficient fuels with cleaner and economical alternatives)
• equipment, training and advice for better energy management.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has suggested other measures for industry and manufacturing, such as:

• installing more efficient electric motors
• switching from gas to electric heat pumps
• more waste and material recycling.

And in transport, the IEA suggests incentives to get older, less efficient cars off the roads and encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.

Governments’ sleight of hand

In 2018 the IEA observed:

the power sector will be at the heart of Australia’s energy system transformation […] International best practice suggests that both energy efficiency and renewable energy are key drivers of the energy transition.

Since then, renewable energy’s share of the electricity mix has increased. But energy productivity has stalled.

To understand how, we must define a few key terms.

Primary energy refers to energy extracted from the environment, such as coal, crude oil, and electrical energy collected by a wind turbine or solar panel.

Final energy is the energy supplied to a consumer, such as electricity delivered to homes or fuel pumped at a petrol station.

A lot of energy is lost in the process of turning extracted primary fuels into ready-to-use fuels for consumers. For example at coal-fired power stations, on average, one-third of the energy supplied by burning coal is converted to electricity. The remainder is lost as waste heat.

Until 2015, Australia and most other countries used final energy as a measure of how rapidly energy efficiency was improving. But the national productivity plan instead set goals around primary energy productivity – aiming to increase it by 40% between 2015 and 2030.

This has made it possible for governments to hide how badly Australia is travelling on improving energy efficiency. I analysed national accounts figures and energy statistics, to produce the below table. It reveals the governments’ sleight of hand.

Over the three years from 2014-15 to 2017-18, final energy productivity increased by only 1.1%, whereas primary energy productivity increased by 3.5%.

The reduced primary energy consumption is mostly due to a large increase in wind and solar generation. The efficiency of energy used by final consumers has scarcely changed.

A sustainable future

The lack of progress on energy productivity is not surprising, given governments have shown very little interest in the issue.

As Finkel noted in his address, Australia’s energy productivity plan is absent from the list of national climate and energy policies. The plan’s 2019 annual report has not been released. And those released since 2015 have not monitored progress in energy productivity.

What’s more, the plan makes no mention of previous similar agreements, in 2004 and 2009, to accelerate energy efficiency with regulation and financial incentives. Since 2013, almost all Commonwealth programs supporting those agreements have been de-funded or abolished, and many state programs have also been cut back.

The IEA’s sustainable recovery plan, released last week, outlined what a sustainable global economic recovery might look like. In particular, it said better energy efficiency and switching to more efficient electric technologies will deliver triple benefits: increased employment, a more productive economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In this carbon-constrained world, relatively easy and cheap opportunities such as energy efficiency must be seized. And as Australia spends to get its post-pandemic economy back on track, now is the time to act.

Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University

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

On Thursday morning 18 June the Friends of Lane Cove National Park held a special celebration at Carter Creek to celebrate the retirement of Bill Jones and Noela Kirkwoods, as coordinators of the Quarry Creek bushcare site. Bill and Noela have been with Friends from the beginning – in fact from before the beginning. They attended the inaugural bushcare breakfast meetings in 1991, which later led to establishment of Friends of Lane Cove National Park after the 1994 fires.

They both have given so much more to the environment than bushcare. Both helped to educate a generation of new volunteers; Noela through her association with TAFE and Bill with the walks and talks program organised by the Australian Plant Society at Ku-ring-gai Wildflower Garden. They were involved in preserving Wallumatta Nature Reserve, one of the largest remaining areas of Sydney Turpentine Iron Bark Forest as part of Lane Cove National Park. They have been enthusiastic regenerators on Ku-ring-gai Council sites and keenly pursued grants from council to support their work.

Of course, Bill and Noela have been actively involved with STEP since we merged with KUBES (Ku-ring-gai Bushland and Environment Society) in 1998 have a passionate interest in Ku-ring-gai Council’s bushland management. Bill was a committee member from 1998–2001 and has led some of our walks.

Photo is of Noela and Bill at STEP’s 20th anniversary in 1998

In April this year an international citizen science bioblitz event was held. Volunteers from all over the world recorded flora and fauna sightings from their neighbourhood in the City Nature Challenge. This event was organised from the USA so the timing was set for the spring in the northern hemisphere.

But the peak time for nature in the southern hemisphere is spring. So the Australian organisers of the City Nature Challenge are coordinating a Great Southern BioBlitz, or GSB for short, from 25 to 28 September. Countries in the Southern Hemisphere have now joined in. There will be an international period of intense biological surveying in an attempt to record all the living species within several designated areas across the Southern Hemisphere in spring.

The GSB will run through the online citizen science platform iNaturalist. All you need to do is download the iNaturalist AU app and start observing. Recordings are made by uploading photos or sound recordings. It is also possible to record observations via your computer. 

Projects for many areas are being created using the platform. The purpose of area projects is to gather separate data of the numbers of observations and species for different locations. A project has already been set up for the Greater Sydney region. You don’t need to record your sightings under this region. This will happen automatically when you record observations with their geographical location.

Click here for more information.