HSI technical bulletin issue 21 2012

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

TECHNICAL BULLETIN INCORPORATING WILDLIFE LAND TRUST & HUMANE CHOICE NEWS

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists slams Prime Minister’s plans to devolve environmental powers

EXTINCTION

Issue 21 2012

DENIED PROGRAM

HSI gains first protections for hammerhead sharks and giant kelp forests See articles on pages 9 and 34

In September of this year, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists* issued a nine-page statement to the Australian Government which outlined their case against the Commonwealth Government’s intent to hand environmental approval powers to the states and territories, at the insistence of the Business Council of Australia and with the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The opening page of their statement is reproduced below:

Statement on Changes to Commonwealth Powers to Protect Australia’s Environment “The prognosis for the environment at a national level is highly dependent on how seriously the Australian Government takes its leadership role.”

Australian State of the Environment Committee, 20111 In August 2011, COAG agreed on major reform of environmental regulation across all levels of government to “reduce regulatory burden and duplication for business and to deliver better environmental outcomes”.2 This sensible and responsible decision was overturned in April 2012 following lobbying by the Business Council of Australia, with the Commonwealth now agreeing to hand over its environmental approval powers to state governments.3 This action by the Commonwealth, without any prior consultation with the wider community, will take environmental policy in Australia back decades. It will not only damage the environment, it will also result in project delays because of the inevitable opposition to such poor environmental protection.

Since the intervention of the Hawke government in the early 1980s there has been a maturing of environmental policy in Australia. In 1997, COAG agreed to delineate areas of environmental responsibility, with the focus of the Australian Government being on the protection of matters of national environmental significance, including its international treaty obligations such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. 4 This was embedded in law by the Howard government when it introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in 1999.

School of hammerhead sharks. © Shutterstock/Brandelet.

In Defence of the EPBC Earlier this year, Andrew Macintosh of the Australian National University and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute, published a critique of the EPBC Act on Crikey (The greentape slugfest that is the EPBC Act — Crikey 24 May 2012). In response to this piece, HSI’s Alistair Graham and Michael Kennedy developed the following response which was conveyed to Crikey for publishing, but with no luck:

Prof Lesley Hughes, Prof David Karoly, Prof Hugh Possingham FAA, Mr Robert Purves AM, Dr Denis Saunders AM, Prof Bruce Thom AM, Dr John Williams FTSE.

Our view, as professional campaigners who worked under the old Whitlam-era Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, 1974 (EPIP Act) system for 22 years and under the Howard-era EPBC Act system for a subsequent 12 years, is that the latter regime is clearly the superior legal response to environmental management in the federal system that is the Commonwealth of Australia. Pronouncements by Macintosh and Denniss on the effectiveness of the EPBC, we would suggest, are constrained by limited real-world experience, reflected in the obviously academic nature of his assessments, and have little to do with the realities of our day to day campaigning under the opportunities offered by the EPBC Act. As Brendan Sydes at the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) in Melbourne titled his article in response to Macintosh and Denniss on Crikey, “Whoa! Reality check please for Dr Andrew and Dr Richard.”

Continued page 2

Continued page 3

* Mr Peter Cosier, Dr Richard Davis, Prof Tim Flannery, Dr Ronnie Harding,

1

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists slams Prime Minister’s plans to devolve environmental powers

This decision was supported by the leader of the National Party, Mr Warren Truss, who said “the environmental evidence was overwhelming and Mr Garrett had no option but to reject (the) ill-conceived proposal”.12

Continued from page 1

The 2011 State of the Environment Report documents the continuing decline in the health of Australia’s environmental assets: our land, water and marine ecosystems.5 Taxpayers are now contributing tens of billions of dollars each year to repair past damage to our natural capital. A primary role of the EPBC Act is to ensure that future development does not cause further damage to nationally significant environmental assets. Its influence therefore is fundamental to the future health of Australia’s environment.

The Business Council’s paper contains very little evidence to support its claims that the Commonwealth’s environmental approval powers are putting at risk billions of dollars of investment, and that this is having adverse impacts on the Australian economy.6 However, the EPBC Act is only triggered when a development is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance.

As a result of this standard, only 1,022 projects, from across the whole of Australia, have ever required formal Commonwealth approval, and of these only 10 (one a year on average) have been rejected.7 8 Conditions have been placed on a total of 1,773 projects.9 Without conditions, these projects would have likely led to significant adverse impacts on the environment.

The single example used by the Business Council of why state governments should be given Commonwealth approval powers actually serves to demonstrate precisely why they shouldn’t. The Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River was proposed by a Queensland Government corporation and was recommended for approval by the Queensland Coordinator General.10 In 2009 the Commonwealth Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, acted under the EPBC Act to refuse the dam development on the “very clear” scientific evidence that it would cause unacceptable impacts on nationally protected species: the Australian Lungfish, the Mary River Turtle and the Mary River Cod.11

HSI maintains the EPBC rage...

HSI has recently joined forces with more than 30 other environment groups to form the ‘Places You Love’ alliance united in the aim to fight the winding back of our system of environmental laws. Previous Technical Bulletins have outlined HSI’s significant concerns with the proposed reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Subsequently in April 2012 it became clear that there was far more for HSI to be concerned about, when the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) released a communique announcing the Government’s plan to implement damaging changes to Federal and state environmental laws and to fast track such reforms — reforms instigated at the behest of the Business Council of Australia (BCA).

The COAG communique outlined the proposed timeframe, with the framework for bilateral arrangements to be agreed by December 2012, so that they can be finalised and implemented by March 2013.

Given that many other standards (such as the offset standard) have taken years to agree and implement, this fast-tracked process is likely to spell disaster for environmental protection in Australia.

In the face of these multiple threats, the Places You Love campaign alliance was established to demonstrate to Government the extent to which we are concerned about this devastating attack on our national environmental laws and are not willing to accept the proposed changes. HSI is a key and central participant in this alliance.

2

There is no justification for handing Commonwealth approval powers to the states. It puts at risk decades of national environmental reform. Instead, this paper proposes an alternative suite of reforms, drawing on the recommendations of the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act in 2009, to help deliver COAG’s dual goals to “reduce regulatory burden and duplication for business” and at the same time “deliver better environmental outcomes” for Australia.

Go to http://www.wentworthgroup.org/blueprints/changes-to-commonwealthpowers-to-protect-australia-s-environment State of the Environment 2011 Committee (2011) Australia: State of the Environment 2011.

Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra: DSEWPaC, 2011.

1

COAG Communique, COAG meeting of 19 August 2011 COAG Communique, COAG meeting of 13 April 2012 4 COAG (1997) Heads of agreement on Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for 2 3

the environment. November 1997.

As for Note 1.

Business Council of Australia (2012) Discussion paper for the COAG Business Advisory Forum,

5 6

April 2012.

Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011) Annual Report 2010-2011. Canberra. Appendix A 7

As for Note 7. Over the life of the Act, 10 projects have been refused approval under the EPBC Act:

8

the Lauderdale Quay Housing and marina development project in Tasmania; the Christmas Island phosphate mines (later overturned in the Federal Court); a residential development in Townsville; the Traveston Crossing Dam in Queensland; a rezoning of land for residential development in Shoalhaven local government area, New South Wales; the Nobby’s Lighthouse redevelopment in Newcastle; an irrigation water release in Tasmania; a subdivision and development on Kangaroo Island; a residential building on Norfolk Island; and electrocution of spectacled flying foxes to protect an orchard in Queensland.

As for Note 7.

QLD Coordinator-General’s Evaluation Report: Synopsis — Traveston Crossing Dam Stage 1.

9

10

October 2009.

“Traveston Dam gets final no”, Media release, 2 December 2009. Peter Garrett, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/archive/env/2009/ mr20091202a.html 11

“Traveston Crossing Dam Knocked out”, Media Release, 11 November 2009. Warren Truss, Leader of The Nationals. http://www.warrentruss.com/press.php?id=1501 12

Research undertaken by the Places You Love alliance by Economists at Large, the BCA chronically overstated the effects of Federal environment law on business. The Economists at Large analysis found that a paper prepared by the BCA and provided to Government had cherry picked figures and made methodological errors that resulted in significantly overstated costs. The BCA paper also failed to consider the benefits of environmental laws or the potential costs from streamlining them.

A recent poll conducted by Lonergan Research on behalf of the Places You Love alliance has also found that 85 per cent of Australians agree the Federal Government should be able to block or make changes to major projects that could damage the environment.

In August 2012 HSI submitted a Freedom of Information request for the draft standards document, currently being considered by state and territory Governments, to both the Commonwealth and NSW Governments. This request was subsequently refused by the Commonwealth Government, citing Commonwealth-State relations in their response as a reason for non-compliance. HSI is appealing the Commonwealth’s refusal through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and still await a final response from the NSW Government. Meanwhile, the Coalition is supporting the COAG environmental reform agenda (potentially with worse in mind) while the Greens have launched their own “too precious to lose” campaign.

Continued page 3

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

In Defence of the EPBC

Continued from page 1

Does the EPBC have some major weaknesses — most certainly — those of us NGOs most closely involved in its creation only gave it a ‘7/10 — good enough to pass’ rating at the time — but does it remain the most powerful tool ever in the hands of a Federal environment minister — yes, without a shadow of a doubt. Indeed, it’s important to remember that the old EPIP Act vested Federal concerns in the proponent minister, not the environment minister, resulting in rather minimalist and tokenistic environmental oversight (no complaints from the big end of town over that bit of red tape). That the EPBC Act has been able to stop major developments dead in their tracks merely illustrates those latent powers but, more importantly, it is the diffuse influence that the Act’s existence has over the ‘development’ community more broadly that is hard for academics to perceive or appreciate. Tony Windsor was quick to recognise those powers earlier this year, noting that the EPBC Act had the power to stop big mining developments. Some mining proponents and other developers have simply adjusted accordingly while others continue to seek to ‘crash through’.

Unfortunately, it is these latter ‘too big to bother’ proponents who have won the day at COAG — the same ‘big end of town’ threatening the Gillard government with a devastating ‘attack’ advertising campaign in the run-up to the next election if they don’t turn the ALP into as welcoming a door mat as the Coalition. A change of heart on the part of the ALP, under duress or otherwise, that seems to have taken unionists like Paul Howes by surprise.

Ever since the passage of the EPBC Act in 1999, big industry and Howard Cabinets have been gunning for it (and for Senator Hill for having done it).

Some sterling leadership within the Environment Department (who are sadly no longer with us) helped stave off, on a number of occasions, concerted attacks on the Act’s powers and provisions, although the Coalition did partially succeed in knobbling the Act in 2006 (but it could have been much worse). This has been a remorseless, silent war of attrition waged against the Act and its administration by the leadership of the development community, largely unnoticed by journalists, by academics, by environment and community groups and by much of the wider community. These attacks have never lessened and, now, a chronically weak Commonwealth Government is about to cave in completely (with Coalition encouragement).

With such pressures on successive environment ministers, ever more reluctant to use the powers available to them (politically “gutless” as we

Issue 21 2012

once described Peter Garrett — although he was better than most); with a total lack of adequate departmental funding for enforcement, compliance, assessment — and for every other aspect of implementation; with aggressively negative and uncooperative states; and with a conservation movement that, in the early years, failed to effectively engage with the Act and its potential, it is no wonder that there are horror stories to be told. These horror stories are all not attributable to the Act itself, however, but to our failure to marshal sufficient political pressure to get the Federal environment minister of the day to exercise the discretions the Act provides — without the Act, that minister would never have been involved at all! It is the height of ignorance and irrationality to blame the Act for decisions we don’t like — we have to blame ourselves for that — and recognise that we’d better get more organised and grumpier if we don’t want to lose the opportunities the Act provides.

The fact is that we are at severe and immediate risk of losing the most potent national environment legislative framework ever established by a Federal Parliament, and if this occurs, we doubt there will ever be sufficient political will to see another Act proclaimed that gives a Federal environment minister the legislative potential to actually stop developments he or she deems inappropriate. A decade of opportunity would be lost and prudent decision-making set back a generation. That is what we are faced with. Yet Macintosh and Denniss maintain we should be devolving powers to the states and territories! The EPBC Act is not the enemy, it is the prevailing ‘too big to care’ political climate that is driving the Act’s demise — as a potent moderator of the ‘develop at any cost’ lobby’s ambition. For those of us old enough to have worked with and without effective Federal oversight of state government facilitation of development, retaining effective Federal legislation and ministerial decision-making is absolutely crucial. Anyone who thinks that stripping out legal standing for the public to contest decision-making and that reliance on national standards to constrain state agency approvals is OK must have been living on a different planet.

It’s important to remember that the proposed gutting of the EPBC Act would not only allow fast-tracking of mega-projects but also frustrate the capacity of community groups across Australia to effectively participate in planning system decision-making at every level on countless issues. We are facing a major assault on the fundamentals of Australian democracy as well as on the jewels of the Australian environment. Let’s hope the community can wake up before it’s too late and bring the ALP to its senses.

Continued from page 2

HSI has issued some extremely blunt press releases pointing the finger at Prime Minister Gillard, and will continue to vigorously campaign for full public disclosure of the standards, and work to stop the approvals bilateral arrangements being put in place. It is clear that there is strong public support behind this position.

In the meantime, we expect the amendments to the EPBC Act to be introduced into Parliament before the end of the year, while HSI and Places You Love alliance members continue to lobbying Parliamentarians of all persuasions on the evils of environmental deregulation.

In response (we suspect) to HSI’s Freedom of Information request for the draft standards document currently being considered by Commonwealth, state and territory Governments, Minister Burke released the “Draft Framework of Standards for Accreditation of Environmental Approvals under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, and the accompanying “Statement of Environmental and Assurance Outcomes”.

Mountain pygmy possum. © Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.

STOP PRESS: Sir David Attenborough and 32 other United Nations Global 500 Laureates have written to Prime Minister Gillard asking her not to devolve her environmental powers. Go to http://www.hsi.org.au/ ?catID=1244.

3

HSI legislative firsts HSI has expended a great deal of energy since its establishment over 18 years ago, in pursuing new legislation and legal agreements that better protected threatened species and habitats in Australia and globally, and then utilising those new laws and regulations to the greatest extent possible. We have been trying to ensure that those species and habitats that are truly threatened are recognised in law (as well as the threats themselves) subsequently triggering required state and Commonwealth responses, and international as well as NGO actions.

This has been accomplished through campaigns seeking new and progressive biodiversity conservation laws, a broad and scientific species and habitat nomination program and where possible, action in the courts.

We have successfully helped put new national and international legal statutes in place, gained protection for a large number of species and habitats, and attempted to set legal precedents in court. The following selectively highlights a portion of the more notable legislative firsts we have achieved: Playing a key role in development and passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, which for the first time in the history of Australian environmental law, gave the Commonwealth Environment Minister power to intervene in the states and territories to protect all nationally listed species and habitats and all Matters of National Environment Significance.

First listed threatened ecological community under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act (Cumberland Plain Woodland) with ACF. Playing a key role in the development and passage of the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, the first threatened species statute in that state and the most comprehensive of state threatened species laws, incorporating a commitment to the development of a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and listings approved by the Scientific Committee and not the Minister. This work also included the first threatened species provisions to be included in a state fisheries law, the Fisheries Management Act, 1994.

First listed threatened ecological community under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 (Cumberland Plain Woodland) with ACF. Achieving the largest ever single listing for an endangered ecological community (1.3 million hectares — Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

Achieving the largest area of protective listings for a series of nationally threatened ecological communities (nearly 4 million hectares) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

Achieving the listing and protection of the first threatened marine ecological community under the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia).

Playing a key role in passage of the new National Heritage trigger (Matter of National Environmental Significance) amendments in 2003 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, the first new trigger to be added since the passage of the EPBC Act in 1999.

4

First National Heritage listing and protection for an internationally important marine area through public nomination process (Ningaloo Reef) under the heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, helping trigger a successful World Heritage nomination by the Commonwealth.

Played an important role in the National Heritage listing of the largest land-based conservation area ever recognised under Australian environment law, with 19 million hectares of the West Kimberley protected under the heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

First legal recognition of “climate change” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992 (subsequently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999), the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988.

First legal recognition of “land clearing” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992 (subsequently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999), and the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, with Mike Krockenberger and Professor Jamie Kirkpatrick.

First legal recognition of the “Loss of hollow-bearing trees” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

First national legislative listing and protection for a flying fox species (greyheaded flying fox) under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988.

First environmental NGO to take successful action in the Federal court challenging a Commonwealth “Significant impact/referral guidelines for nationally listed species” statement, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (grey-headed flying fox).

First actions in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the New South Wales Administrative Appeals Tribunal on behalf of the grey-headed flying fox.

First action in the Federal Court, under the wildlife trade provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, challenging the importation of a threatened species for primarily commercial purposes (Asian elephants) — with IFAW and the RSPCA. First national listing and protection for a globally threatened albatross species (wandering albatross) under the Endangered Species Act, 1992 (and subsequently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999). The nomination triggered a scientific and legislative review of the status of all albatross species occurring in Australian waters resulting in further listings for a number of albatross listings under Commonwealth and state laws, for example the first state listings under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988 for the wandering albatross. Tasmania and New South Wales also under took such albatross reviews.

First Key Threatening Process (KTP) to be listed through a public nomination process under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992 (Incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations) and implemented under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 and first listing under the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988.

Albatross bycatch reduced approximately tenfold in Australia since.

First National Heritage listings for a biologically important suite of natural areas through a public nomination process (Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, Lion Island, Long Island and Spectacle Island Nature Reserves) under the heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

Achieved the very first listings for critical habitats under the Commonwealth legislative Register of Critical Habitats for all threatened albatross species breeding in Australia under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

First Commonwealth Heritage listing for a biologically important marine area through a public nomination process (Tasmanian Seamounts) under the heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

In playing a key role in development and passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, HSI helped secure the first declaration of an Australian Whale Sanctuary in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone adjoining its Antarctic Territory.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

First environmental NGO to successfully challenge a foreign company for breaching national environmental law in Australia’s Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica (in the Federal Court) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Minke whales).

National protection gained under the Commonwealth’s Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992, and subsequently Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) for the commercially exploited orange roughy.

Achieved the first protective listings for hammerhead sharks (scalloped and great) under the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions).

National protection gained under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 for the commercially exploited eastern gemfish.

The first listing and legal protection gained for the great white shark under the Endangered Species Protection Act, 1992 (and consequently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999), the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions) and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988. HSI was also successful in gaining protection for the species under most other state/territory threatened species or fishery laws.

First protections gained under state and Commonwealth conservation laws for the commercially exploited southern bluefin tuna through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions), and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988.

The first listing gained for the grey nurse shark under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions) and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988. These listings triggered the eventual protection (at varying levels) for grey nurse shark critical habitats in Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales waters.

First recognition and listing of “Death or injury to marine species following capture in shark control programs on ocean beaches” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 and the Victorian Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act, 1988.

First recognition and listing of “Hook and line fishing in areas important for the survival of threatened species” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions).

First recognition and listing of “Incidental catch (bycatch) of Sea Turtle during coastal otter-trawling operations within Australian waters north of 28 degrees south” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

First recognition and listing of “Injury and fatality to vertebrate life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

First legal protection gained for a commercially taken shark species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (school shark).

Vale John Hoyt

The successful listings of the southern bluefin tuna, eastern gemfish, orange roughy and school shark, may, to the best of our knowledge, represent the first listing/listings of commercially exploit marine fish species under threatened species laws anyway in the world.

First conservation NGO venture in the Federal Court challenging the export management plan for a commercially fished species (southern bluefin tuna) under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

First conservation NGO challenge to Australia’s largest commercial fishery in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999, (Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery).

Achieving the first significant large area fishery closures (gillnets) in southern Australia for the protection of the threatened Australian sea lion and dolphins under Commonwealth fisheries laws, the first secured as a result of a legal challenge under the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (by HSI).

Played a key role in achieving the first listings of the great white shark, whale shark and basking shark under global conservation laws (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Convention on the Conservation Migratory Species of Wild Animals — CMS), the first sharks listed globally.

Played a key role in the initiation, development and finalisation of the CMS Memorandum of Understanding on Migratory Sharks, and the first listings of several shark species.

April 15th this year, the announcement of the passing of John Hoyt, a man who served as President and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Humane Society International (HSI) for about half the lifespan of the 58-year-old organisation, was greeted with a great sadness. John Hoyt passed away at his home in Fredericksburg, Virginia, just several weeks after celebrating his 80th birthday.

Hoyt was a true pioneer of animal protection work, coming to The HSUS when it was still a young organisation and helped to shape its numerous national and international campaigns. He worked to build HSUS as an organisation, leading the drive toward a new level of professionalism, development of strong and highly effective advocacy programs, establishment of regional and global offices, and financial stability, to ensure that the work could continue long after his departure.

Hoyt was President of the HSUS from 1970 to 1996, and developed the group into the world’s largest animal protection organisation with nearly 12 million supporters. He also established Humane Society International in 1991, and with Paul Irwin, personally supervised the setting up of HSI Australia in Sydney in 1994. The Directors of HSI Australia will always remain in the debt of this great man, who travelled to Sydney for the launch of the HSI Sydney office, granting us his expertise and trust that we will always endeavour to repay.

Photo HSUS.

John Hoyt quite simply improved the lives of millions of animals around the world and has left a legacy that will continue to protect animals and the environment well into the future. He was a truly remarkable man and we are all richer for having been touched by him.

5

© 2012 Google, INEGI, MapLink, Tele Atlas.

HSUS Wildlife Land Trust sanctuaries.

Why the Wildlife Land Trust?

The operational directors of HSI, Michael Kennedy and Verna Simpson, have had a long-term interest and concern for conservation efforts on private land.

In 1979, with family and friends, Michael Kennedy purchased the 254 hectare Curricabark Wildlife Sanctuary in New South Wales, containing important threatened species and habitats. Curricabark is a member of the Wildlife Land Trust.

While co-directors at the Fund for Animals Ltd Australia, Michael and Verna were keen promoters of private land protection and were able, for example, to help a Victorian member gain one of the very first permanent conservation covenants in Australia, and also worked with the office of the Minister for Environment in NSW to help bring in legislation facilitating the establishment of conservation covenants. As the owner and Managing Editor of Simply Living Magazine, Verna Simpson also used this influential environmental and social comment publication to reinforce the importance of dedicating bush properties for primarily conservation purposes.

Verna Simpson was the fundraiser called in by Bob Brown when he first set up the Australian Bush Heritage Fund (ABHF) in the early ‘90s, where she established a firm financial base for purchasing conservation land across Australia.

Verna spent 10 years as a Director of ABHF helping secure a significant number of highly biodiverse wildlife sanctuaries. Michael Kennedy was a member of the inaugural Scientific Committee of the ABHF. The continuing interest of HSI in conservation on private land led to a two year contract with the Federal Government to manage the Commonwealth’s National Land for Wildlife and National Bush for Wildlife programs. The Land for Wildlife program consists of approximately 12,500 private sanctuaries covering in the region of 2 million hectares around the country.

This program was secured and managed in a cooperative effort with environmental and social consultants Community Solutions (CS) lead by Judy Lambert and Jane Elix. It was undertaken following a proposal CS and HSI put

6

to the then Environment Minister, Robert Hill, to establish a national “Wildlife Refuge Link”, with the project’s formal work program requiring the project team to “link existing habitat management agreement holders not currently in Land for Wildlife networks into a network for ongoing support”. The work program also required the project to “develop ideas for improved support (and ‘club’ membership) for covenant holders”.

The Wildlife Land Trust was established by The Humane Society of the United States (based in Washington DC) in 1993. The WLT now owns and manages over 100 sanctuaries across the United States (see map above), with a Mission that states, “The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust celebrates and protects wild animals by creating permanent sanctuaries, preserving and enhancing natural habitat, and confronting cruelty.” The WLT network globally now links over 800,000 hectares of conservation land.

The combination of the long-term commitment of HSI’s directors to conservation on private land, the desire to at least partially implement the idea of a national ‘Wildlife Refuge Link’, and the success of the Wildlife Land Trust in the United States, convinced HSI to set up the WLT in Australia.

And so, in 2007, HSI Australia established the Wildlife Land Trust. The WLT in Australia currently has 185 registered properties in six states covering approximately 35,000 hectares.

Unlike the WLT in the Unites States, the WLT in Australia is effectively a “club” for like-minded wildlife sanctuary owners who sign a non-binding “letter of agreement” relating to conservation management, and are not owned or purchased by HSI/WLT. The WLT is also developing a MoU with the Office for Environment and Heritage Conservation Partners Program in New South Wales, which aims to “work in partnership on the establishment, monitoring and support of voluntary Conservation Agreement covenants to landholders registered with the Wildlife Land Trust.”

The WLT does own and manage the 120 hectare Warriwillah Wildlife Sanctuary just south of Canberra, gifted to HSI by Garth Dixon, and the WLT has made modest financial contributions to the purchase of important conservation reserves in Tasmania, Queensland and Indonesia.

WLT Australia is also represented on the US Wildlife Land Trust Board of Advisors and the US Wildlife Land Trust Habitat Protection Advisory Committee.

Latest Wildlife Land Trust newsletter available The most recent Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) newsletter, Wildlife Lands Issue 11, is currently available.

This edition features several sanctuary profiles, news on our Threatened Ecological Communities nomination program, updates from WLT collaborations around the world and more.

Download a PDF copy of the newsletter today at www.wildlifelandtrust.org.au, or contact the HSI office to arrange for hard copies to be delivered.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

US WLT Sanctuary Profile — Greensprings Wildlife Sanctuary In September 2010, Faye Weisler donated a conservation easement on her 62 hectare property in Ashland, Oregon, to the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust.

The Greensprings Wildlife Sanctuary, set within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, is now a permanently protected wildlife habitat.

The area is noted for its biodiversity, and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail — which extends some 4,000 kilometres, connecting Canada and Mexico — traverses the sanctuary for two kilometres. Though high-grade logging had taken place on the property before Ms Weisler purchased it, the sweeping views from the summit answered her desire for space and peace, inspiring her to buy the land and give it a chance to recover.

Weisler immediately felt a sense of home on the land, which she has hiked often, and enjoyed encountering hikers on the trail and exchanging stories of wildlife seen along the way. The land is likewise home and a safe travel corridor for wildlife. A coyote (Canis latrans) dens near the pond, black bears (Ursus americanus) pad through the meadow, mountain lions (Puma concolor) yowl at night, while bobcats (Lynx rufus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) use the sanctuary as a land bridge between mountain ranges.

Songbirds, woodpeckers, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), hawks, and great grey owls (Strix nebulosa) flourish on the sanctuary, and a seasonal pond attracts sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). Spring and summer wildflowers such as Douglas’s violets, balsam daisies, wild delphiniums, and calypso orchids sweep over the land in shifting waves of colour and composition, attracting butterflies and hummingbirds.

“I knew in my heart that I wanted to protect the land for wildlife, to know that they would have this refuge forever,” says Weisler, noting that she specifically looked for a land trust that would protect wildlife from hunting and trapping. “There are things for each one of us that rise to a certain level of importance,” she says, “This just wasn’t a choice. This land absolutely had to be protected in perpetuity for the animals, for the hikers, and for the people living close to it.”

Aerial view of Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary. Ron and Sandra Clark.

Australian Wildlife Land Trust Sanctuary Profile — Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary Continuous expansion of the Australian Wildlife Land Trust network has seen an impressive 35 new member sanctuaries arrive since the publication of our last Technical Bulletin, pushing the total amount of land covered to the verge of 35,000 hectares across the country. 42.3 of these hectares make up Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary, a property located in the Tweed Caldera (the biggest erosion caldera in the Southern Hemisphere) and belonging to Ron and Sandra Clark.

As well as being a residence, the refuge is a dedicated wildlife sanctuary consisting of approximately 36.07 hectares of remnant vegetation mapped as very high or high ecological conservation status as per the Tweed Vegetation Management Strategy, 2004, and it is Ron and Sandra’s intent for it to remain solely for habitat and wildlife protection. A diversity of vegetation communities including subtropical rainforest and both wet and dry sclerophyll forests are found on Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary, with constant water sources including a dam and a creek which runs through the property.

Vegetation species known to occur on the refuge of particular note include the veiny lace flower (Archidendron Muellerianum), silver leaf (Argophyllum nullumense), long-leaved tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis newmanii), black walnut (Endiandra globosa), Bennett’s ash (Flindersia bennettiana), umbrella cheese tree (Glochidion sumatranum), fishbone fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia), and thin-leaved condo (Planchonella chartacea). This impressive list is capped off by threatened species such as the Crystal Creek walnut (Endiandra floydii), listed as Endangered under both the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) and NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995 (TSC Act), the red bopple nut (Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia) and durobby (Syzygium moorei), which are listed as Vulnerable under both Acts, and the Gympie stinging tree (Dendrocnide moroides) classified as Endangered under the State legislation.

A wide range of wildlife species, and notably an extensive list of more than 120 bird species, are known to occur on Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary, an excellent example of how a relatively small amount of land can play a significant role in biodiversity conservation.

Examples of present species listed as threatened include the Wompoo (Ptilinopus magnificus), superb (Ptilinopus superbus) and rose-crowned (Ptilinopus regina) fruit-doves, all of which are listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act alongside the glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), little lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), marbled frogmouth (Podargus ocellatus), common planigale (Planigale maculata), and barking (Ninox connivens), sooty (Tyto tenebricosa) and powerful (Ninox strenua) owls.

Further species classified as at a higher level of threat include the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), listed as Vulnerable under both State and Federal environment law, and the red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii), listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act and as a Critically Endangered subspecies under the TSC Act.

Black bear. © Tom Reichner.

Urliup Wildlife Sanctuary is clearly a property with high conservation values, and we warmly welcome it to the Australian Wildlife Land Trust, now boasting in excess of 185 members.

7

Private Land Conservation Grants Program Due to the injection of a significant amount of additional funding by the New South Wales Environmental Trust, acquired and managed by the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife (FNPW), the fifth round of the Private Land Conservation Grants (PLCG) took an altered shape to previous years. More than $300,000 was awarded to some 72 landholders with various forms of conservation agreement this year, in contrast to approximately $99,000 provided for 28 projects in 2011 (overall, $225,000 had been awarded to 91 projects since 2008).

The WLT is a founding partner of this FNPW coordinated venture along with the Paddy Pallin Foundation, Nature Conservation Trust of NSW, Diversicon Environment Foundation and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Conservation Partners Program, while the NSW Catchment Management Authorities and Community Environment Network have recently come on board. Previously open only to NSW landholders with in-perpetuity Conservation Agreements, Trust Agreements or Registered Property Agreements, 2012 saw three different levels of funding available: • Level 1: Identical in structure to previous years of PLCG, with up to $5,000 available per year for up to three years for works to improve biodiversity on the property.

• Level 2: Similar to previous years of PLCG but open to Wildlife Refuges and in-perpetuity Property Vegetation Plans, with up to $1,000 available per year for up to three years for works to improve biodiversity.

• Level 3: Available to NSW members of the Wildlife Land Trust or Land for Wildlife, with up to $2,000 available per year for up to three years for group conservation training.

Three Wildlife Land Trust members were successful in their applications this year: Marie and Raymond Wynan were provided $1,175 under Level 1 of the program to assist with feral species control in an effort to protect the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens endangered ecological community present on their sanctuary, Edala; Peter and Christine Waterhouse were granted $5,000 through Level 1 for weed management and forest restoration at The Knoll; and through Level 3 of the program Patricia Edwards was awarded $2,000 to provide education and training in bush regeneration to WLT and Land for Wildlife members in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area.

The increased funding provided by the NSW Environmental Trust is a positive step for the PLCG, and recognition of the program’s success in delivering on-ground conservation benefits. A full list the successful applicants from this year can be found on the WLT website at www.wildlifelandtrust.org.au under the ‘Member Resources’ tab. Applications for the 2013 round of the program will be opening early next year, with the potential of expansion into another state being investigated.

8

Wildlife Land Trust sanctuary The Knoll.

Biodiversity Fund This year also marked the introduction of the Federal Government’s Biodiversity Fund, a grants program aiming to “help land managers store carbon, enhance biodiversity and build greater environmental resilience across the Australian landscape” with $946 million available over the next six years. Just a fraction of the funding was dedicated to the initial ($36.6 million) and second ($34.6 million) years of the program, indicating that the Biodiversity Fund is likely in a functional testing phase — with the funding available skyrocketing to $249.75 million in year three.

When the list of successful applicants was published for the initial round of funding in May, we were very pleased to find two Wildlife Land Trust members were featured: Mary White of Falls Forest Retreat in NSW was granted $37,500 to cancel a Forestry Joint Venture Agreement made by a previous owner of her WLT sanctuary, with 16.96 hectares of affected forest to be added to the existing 55.77 hectares already protected in-perpetuity under a Voluntary Conservation Agreement — achieving Mary’s goal of all native forest on the property being secured; and Lynn Childs of The Roost in Queensland was provided with $81,500 for a project which will result in the revegetation and stabilisation of severely eroded sand dunes and a turtle rookery site located on her WLT sanctuary, as well as the rehabilitation of coastal riparian vegetation currently severely impacted by invasive weeds.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

Giant Marine Kelp Forests of South East Australia successfully listed Following an HSI/WLT nomination to have the Giant kelp forests of the east and south coasts of Tasmania listed as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) in 2009, we were pleased to receive Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke’s recent announcement that national protection would be given to the renamed Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia as an Endangered ecological community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).

The HSI nomination sought recognition and protection for this highly threatened and critical habitat type due to our concern for its small geographic distribution, numerous demonstrable threats, loss or decline of functionally important species and a reduction in the community’s ecological integrity.

Minister Burke stated that this was a conservation first as the only marine ecological community to ever feature on the EPBC Act list, and that “These are the jungles we cannot see and are among our great natural treasures,”……….“Any actions likely to have a significant impact on the giant kelp marine forests ecological community are now required to be referred for assessment under national environment law.” The Minister noted that, “Giant kelp marine forests are also important carbon sinks. It has been estimated that they may be able to hold over 80,000 tonnes of carbon per square kilometre, more than double that of some terrestrial forests.”

The following TEC description is taken from a fact sheet issued by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) (see link below):

SEWPAC.

Giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) plants are the foundation species of the Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia ecological community (Giant Kelp Marine Forests or ecological community) so much of the description of the ecological community relies on describing their ecology. Other components of the ecological community include a large range of marine algae, reef associated fish and numerous invertebrates that shelter, feed and reproduce within Giant Kelp Marine Forests.

Also known as string kelp, giant kelp is a large brown algae that grows on rocky reefs from the sea floor 8 metres below sea level and deeper. Its fronds grow vertically toward the water surface, in cold temperate waters off south east Australia.

Giant kelp are the largest and fastest growing marine plants.

Their presence on a rocky reef adds vertical structure to the marine environment that creates significant habitat for marine fauna, increasing local marine biodiversity. The large biomass and productivity of the giant kelp plants also provides a range of ecosystem services to the coastal environment.

Giant kelp can be distinguished by its long string-like stalks that have many leafy blades. The base of each blade contains a gas filled flotation bladder that allows giant kelp plants to form a buoyant surface canopy similar to the ways trees form a shady canopy in terrestrial forests.

SEWPAC also notes that “If the extent of occurrence is calculated based solely on the area in which the ecological community may occur (by using the surrogates of rocky substrata and suitable water depth), the ecological community’s likely extent of occurrence is estimated to be 460,000 hectares. The calculated remaining area of occupancy for the ecological community is approximately 525 hectares within Tasmania, although there are no quantitative data available on patch sizes for the ecological community in Victoria or South Australia.”

A fact sheet on the community has been prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities following this listing, and can be accessed at http://www. environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/giant-kelp-marine-forests.html

Kelp forest. © iStockphoto.com/Tammy616.

9

Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains receive national protection The Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains, a Critically Endangered Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) was gazetted on the 8th of September (National Threatened Species Day) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).

inappropriate grazing regimes; inappropriate tree plantings or revegetation works; inappropriate application of chemicals; weed invasion and damage from feral animals, can be strategically targeted for mitigation and protected from significant impact.

Although HSI did not make the most recent nomination for this TEC, we began the process of seeking national protection back in 1999 with our nomination of the Northern Plains Grassland Community — a submission which was initially rejected by the Commonwealth, due to a pending broad-scale assessment of threatened ecological communities of the region in question.

The ecological community spans the three States of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales and subsequently provides habitat for species across a wide geographic range, and it is hoped that the listing will in turn will safeguard habitat for numerous threatened species which utilise the community.

HSI subsequently developed a revised nomination re-named the Murray Valley Grasslands, submitted to the Commonwealth in 2005, and although this nomination was unsuccessful in making the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL) during the two years it was eligible, it did prompt a technical workshop on the community which took place in February 2006. This workshop resulted in a nomination for the Murray Valley Grassland of the Riverina Plains Bioregion which incorporated a significant amount of information from the workshop and HSI’s previous two nominations, leading to the inclusion of Murray Valley Natural Grasslands of the Southern Riverina Bioregion on the 2010 FPAL.

Threatened fauna is similarly represented, with EPBC Act listed species known to occur in remnants including the plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus), growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), and the striped legless lizard (Delma impar).

SEWPAC estimates, “A change in extent from 1,227,000 hectares to only 153,000 to 168,000 ha, a decline of about 86 to 87.5% across its range.”

SEWPAC.

With the September 8 listing this year, the 13 year journey searching for national protection finally came to fruition, and the numerous threats to the long-term survival of this TEC, including: vegetation clearance and conversion to croplands; increasing fragmentation of remnants;

EPBC Act listed flora are abundant throughout the Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains, with the Critically Endangered spiny rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens), Endangered lowly greenhood (Pterostylis despectans), turnip copperburr (Sclerolaena napiformis) and red swainson-pea (Swainsona plagiotropis), and Vulnerable chariot wheels (Maireana cheelii), ridged water-milfoil (Myriophyllum porcatum) and slender darling-pea (Swainsona murrayana) being among the vegetation components.

10

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

Porcupine Grass – Red Mallee – Gum Coolabah hummock grassland. © S. Sass.

Threatened Ecological Communities Strategic Workshop and Priorities The inaugural National Threatened Ecological Communities Strategic Workshop was held in Canberra during March 2012. Hosted by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee and Ecological Communities Section of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC), this National Strategic Workshop brought together some 50 participants including a broad range of technical experts, government agencies, non-government organisations, and other stakeholders to share knowledge and contribute to a national-scale analysis of priorities for the future of the National List of threatened ecological communities (TEC).

As part of the workshop, each of three workshop breakout groups undertook a gaps analysis of terrestrial ecological communities in three specific regions of Australia (the north/west, east, and southeast), while another group looked at aquatic ecological communities. As a result of these breakout group analyses, 76 ecological communities or broader landscape entities or groupings that would benefit from national protection and could be considered as potential nominations for TECs across Australia were suggested, and 33 of these were further amalgamated and/or ranked as a higher priority.

The listing of a TEC under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) provides legislative protection, and national recognition that its long-term survival is under threat. The general aim of having TECs listed is to prevent further decline and to promote and assist recovery through conservation advice, recovery plans and other landholder, agency, and community efforts. By identifying gaps in the National List of terrestrial and aquatic TECs and receiving feedback on the Prioritisation Framework used by the Committee and the Department to assess nominations, the National Strategic Workshop sought to gain a clear understanding of where further focus was required, providing public nominators (such as HSI/WLT) a solid foundation to prioritise future nominations.

It was a major goal of the National Strategic Workshop to have the workshop report available to support future annual calls for nominations under the EPBC Act by assisting prioritisation; starting with the next call for public nominations due to begin in October/November 2012 and closing around March, 2013. The official report based on the findings from the Strategic Workshop is available for download from the SEWPAC website at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ publications/workshop-strategic.html.

To date 58 TECs have been listed under the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance, with the current National List of TECs representing more than 150 ecological communities (or equivalent) recognised as threatened under State and Territory legislation; and over 4.6 million hectares of ‘protected’ environment (with an approximate former extent of 29 million hectares). During the workshop HSI was recognised as a primary contributor of TEC nominations and listings, being involved in the nomination process for a total of 19 of the 58 listed TECs (approximately 33%), as well as a further 10 communities currently being assessed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

With a conscious effort to include significantly threatened regions of Western Australia, nominations which are likely to be completed by HSI/WLT prior to the next submission deadline are: East Coast Floodplains Complex; Banded Ironstone Vegetation Complex of Western Australia; Pilbara Grasslands and Claypans; Northern Lowland Floodplains; Poplar Box / Bimblebox Woodlands of New South Wales and Queensland; and Eucalyptus ovata Woodlands and Forests of Tasmania and Southern Victoria. Preliminary assessments on whether these prioritised nominations meet the EPBC Act TEC nomination criteria are currently being undertaken.

Following our attendance at the workshop, HSI/WLT has been able to take advantage of the discussions and recommendations in determining our own priority nominations for the 2013.

11

HSI/Wildlife Land Trust Threatened Ecological Communities (TEC) nomination program under the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 Nominations currently under assessment Title Cooks River & Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Hunter Valley Remnant Woodlands & Open Forests The Community of Estuarine Species Dependent on Salt-Wedge Estuaries of Southern Australia Posidonia Seagrass Meadows Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Lowland Grassy Woodland & Forest of the NSW Southeast Corner Bioregion Hinterland Sand Flats Forests & Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Lower Murray River and associated wetlands, floodplains & groundwater systems from the junction of the Darling River to the sea Wetlands of the Darling Basin * Finalised Priority Assessment List * The Minister has a statutory obligation to make a decision within 90 business days of this date ** The Minister has further delayed these deadlines until 30/06/2013

Nominated 2012 2012 2011

FPAL* 2012 2012 2012

Assessment Due* 30/09/2014 31/12/2014 30/09/2015

2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2008

2011 2011 2010 2010 2011 2008

31/12/2013 31/12/2013 30/06/2013 31/12/2012 30/09/2013 30/09/2012 **

2008

2009

30/09/2012 **

Nominated communities listed in last two years Title Nominated Status Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains* 2005 Critically Endangered Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia 2009 Endangered Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains & the 2005 Endangered Brigalow Belt South Bioregions New England Peppermint (Eucalyptus nova-anglica) Grassy Woodlands 2000 Critically Endangered Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion* 2000 Endangered * HSI partially responsible for listing after the original four HSI nominations for these two communities were grouped into larger definitions

Gazettal date 08/09/2012 29/08/2012 01/03/2011 01/03/2011 25/11/2011

Nominations currently under preparation for March 2013 deadline Preliminary Title East coast floodplains complex

Location NSW, Victoria & southern Queensland

Banded Ironstone Vegetation Complex of Western Australia Pilbara grasslands and Claypans Northern lowland floodplains

Western Australia Western Australia Northern Territory / northern Western Australia & Queensland Western NSW & southwest Queensland

Poplar box / Bimblebox Woodlands of New South Wales and Queensland Eucalyptus ovata woodlands and forests of Tasmania and southern Victoria

Tasmania & southern Victoria

Main threats Salt water intrusion, coastal development Mining & associated development Mining & associated development Salt water intrusion, invasive flora & fauna, agricultural intensification Mining and past clearance; invasive fauna & flora Small extent; clearing

National Workshop — Managing Threats to Biodiversity In May of this year, HSI attended a national workshop, held by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) on “Managing Threats to Biodiversity”, as part of a Departmental review of the effectiveness of Government approaches to managing threats to biodiversity. The workshop brought together over 40 key stakeholders and SEWPAC staff to examine participants views on existing threat management options and sought their ideas for strategies and actions that could facilitate improvements in the management of threats to biodiversity in Australia. These discussions centred on the listing of Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) and development of Threat

12

Abatement Plans (TAPs) under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).

HSI has had a long and specific interest in the development, listing and implementation of Threat Abatement Plans for individual key threatening processes, achieving recognition of 5 key threatening processes under the EPBC Act, with several others being rejected and 3 currently under review.

The Department will provide the Minister with a report of its “threats to biodiversity review”.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

Benefits of threatened ecological community listings under the EPBC Act HSI/WLT’s heavy involvement in the nominating of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) has been partly determined by our view that the process is one of the most cost effective landscape scale/ecosystem level conservation measures available as a public trigger.

“The listing of TECs under the EPBC Act provides the opportunity for a form of landscape or ecosystem level protection. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee), which provides advice to the Minister on prioritising and assessing TECs, has been increasingly moving to a systems-based approach to defining and protecting TECs under the Act. Examples include the broad-scale listings of woodlands such as White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland, Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands of South-eastern Australia, and Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions, which cover vast areas and ecological systems of inland Australia across several state borders.

Assessment for listing of Australia’s first major river system, the River Murray and associated wetlands, floodplains and groundwater systems, from the junction with the Darling River to the sea ecological community, is also based on such a landscape/systems-based approach.

Listing at the broader, landscape-scale provides for a more efficient and effective approach and complements the listing of single threatened species and other environmental conservation measures such as the national reserve system. It allows for protection of both the biotic components and the ecological functions and services that the TECs provide (for example: shelter for stock, natural management of water and air, habitat for pollinators, carbon storage, etc.).”

National Threatened Ecological Communities Workshop — 2012.

The listing of a TEC under the EPBC Act not only provides legislative protection and national recognition that its long-term survival is under threat by elevating it as Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES), but aims to prevent further decline and to promote and assist recovery through conservation advice, recovery plans and other landholder, agency, and community efforts. The Federal Minister for the Environment is required to first assess and approve/disapprove of any developments that may significantly affect the listed community.

TEC listings also lead to improved awareness, information and education about the community and the threats that may impact on it. A range of associated publications become available through the Departmental website, such as Listing and/or Conservation Advices; Recovery Plans; fact sheets, brochures, and the Department’s online database and EPBC Act Protected Matters search tools. A recent TEC listing resulting from an HSI/WLT nomination was that of Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia, which, since being gazetted in mid-2010, now has an array of information and management advice available relating to its protection.

Two particularly useful publications that have been developed as a result of the listing are, ‘Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia: A guide to the identification, assessment and management of a nationally threatened ecological community’ and ‘Farming and Nationally Protected Grey Box Woodlands and Grasslands.’

The former of these documents is a comprehensive analysis of the ecological community’s components, outlining in detail key species relevant for the TEC and what the listing means for approval authorities, as well as key threats and suggested conservation actions. Alternatively, the latter provides easily understandable information and tips for land managers under sections such as: What does national protection mean for farmers and graziers?; How do I know if the protected woodlands and grasslands are on my property?; What are my responsibilities according to national environment law?; and What farming activities might need consideration?

Grey Box Grassy Woodland. © Elizabeth Donoghue.

Both documents are essential to gain a full understanding of a complex conservation puzzle and thus effectively care for a particular TEC, and can be downloaded from the Department’s website at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/.

Such listings also assist in the prioritisation of conservation funding, predominantly through the National Reserve System (NRS) program and the Environmental Stewardship Program, which provides funding to land managers to protect and rehabilitate targeted MNES on private land. To date listed TECs have been a major target of this program, with HSI/WLT nominated communities such as ‘Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland’ and ‘Weeping Myall Woodlands’ benefiting. The listing of TEC’s can also result in the incorporation into new protected area dedications and many are represented on private lands and protected under in-perpetuity conservation agreements.

The 2011-12 Federal budget saw $82.4 million invested over the next four years of the program after a highly successful initial round, with landholders now able to access 15-year grants to take long-term action on their land to reduce grazing intensity, and control weeds and feral animals. Funding round two, which has recently closed, was conducted in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Northern and Yorke, and South Australian Murray Darling Basin NRM regions of South Australia, and targeted Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia and Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia, both of which are classified as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities. The TECs set to receive funding under the next round of the program are yet to be announced.

TECs provide vital habitat, refuge, and wildlife corridors for many plants and animal species, including those that are threatened themselves or in decline but not yet listed. They provide increased resilience of Australia’s unique biodiversity, particularly in light of a changing climate, as well as a range of ecosystem services such as: the natural management of air, water and soil nutrients; the reduction or control of erosion, salinity and acid sulphate soils; and the storage of carbon. It is imperative that the EPBC Act remains resilient and able to effectively protect these vital threatened ecosystems.

13

Conserving the dingo HSI plans to resubmit its nomination to the Commonwealth seeking the listing of the dingo (Canis vulpinus) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 as an endangered species.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee under the EPBC Act has now rejected HSI’ nomination three times, failing to list the species on the Finalised Assessment Priority List (FPAL) published by Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke.

In late 2011, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) wrote to HSI explaining why the predator had not been prioritised: “Canis lupus dingo: The Committee notes that the dingo is a keystone species and, since European settlement, its range and population size has declined due to ongoing hunting, baiting, hybridisation and establishment of the dog fences. However limited data are available to determine the decline in the species’ total population size and geographic distribution throughout its national extent. Additional population studies and surveys would be required to enable detailed assessment to be undertaken. If the species was eligible for listing, protection of the species across different government jurisdiction would be difficult, given the complex policy and legislative management issues across the species’ national range. Current management plans do not encompass the entire range of the species. The Committee considers that the development and implementation of a National Conservation Plan, encompassing the entire geographic distribution of the dingo, could be an effective management response.” (SEWPAC correspondence, 14/9/11).

While HSI is very supportive of the development of a National Conservation Plan under the EPBC Act for the dingo — an idea we have been promoting for many years — we think that this ought to be a concurrent management activity alongside legislative assessment as an endangered species. We will be encouraging the Minister to do so during the 2013 process for determining the 2013–2014 FPAL, while discussions with the Department suggest that the resources are not available to develop a National Conservation Plan. Similarly, we will be urging the Minister to allocate the resources to the Department so that such work can commence.

Meanwhile, HSI has recently agreed to financially support a biological research project entitled “A time and place for the top dog in conserving Australia’s mammals”, to be undertaken by Aaron Greenville, a PhD student at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Sydney and refereed by Professor Chris Dickman and Professor Glenda Wardle.

The allocation has been made under the Paddy Pallin Science Grants program, in cooperation with the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Extracts from the proposal are reproduced below: “The specific aims of the project are to: 1. Test top-down regulation mechanisms by determining whether dingoes limit fox and cat abundance across space, as predicted from the mesopredator release hypothesis, and if the population phase (boom or bust) of prey species influences this relationship; 2. Investigate bottom-up mechanisms by determining if the phase (boom or bust) of prey species influences individual predator (dingo, fox and cat) daily activity time; 3. Document prey activity time and if it is correlated with predator activity; 4. Quantify how sympatric mammalian predators (dingo, fox and cat) partition their activity time in relation to the abundance and population phase of prey species.

Significance of research: This project will test the mesopredator release hypothesis; if dingoes limit fox or cat populations and how members of a trophic group interact across space and time. It will also test if these interactions are influenced by bottom-up processes, such as changes in prey populations. In doing so, it will identify key times when predators are active so control programs can be targeted and will advance ecological theory.

In doing so, we will use new remote camera technology and apply novel statistical techniques that will be of interest to other conservation managers.

14

Dingo. © Kevin Autret.

Management implications: Currently throughout most of Australia dingoes are considered pests and their numbers suppressed; they are locally extinct in many areas. Investigating if dingoes are important in the control of introduced predators is important to assess the environmental costs of such programs. In addition, this study will identify the peak activity times of introduced predators and the environmental conditions (e.g. during a boom or bust phase of prey populations) during which it is most effective to control red foxes and feral cats”.

World first — HSI ensures all Australian department stores go fur free This year will see the end of the sale of fur in all department stores in Australia. After many years of negotiations the final department store has made the pledge. The department stores involved include Myer, David Jones, Big W, Target, K-Mart and Harris-Scarf.

In 2004, HSI secured the ban of dog and cat fur imports into Australia after our undercover investigation in China revealed a dark and dirty world of illegal dog and cat fur trading. Millions of animals die every year to feed this horrific trade.

Although HSI secured the ban in 2004 there has been no effort by Customs to uncover illegal fur entering our country. They have in fact admitted that they have no staff trained to detect dog and cat fur and have tested nothing. HSI purchased several items of clothing containing dog fur and although we have had them tested and confirmed by the world’s leading hair experts, Customs made no attempt to seize the goods or take action against the importer.

In response to Customs inertia we alerted our members and thousands of retailers to the possibility that due to inadequate labelling they could inadvertently be selling dog and cat fur. The response has been overwhelming and the resulting fur free policies from all Australian department stores leads the world in compassionate fashion.

We are now working on the larger fashion chains and have had an excellent response with many already signing our fur free pledge and new pledges every day. You can keep updated on fur free stores through our website at http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=1233.

Like so many issues today it is the consumer who is making the important changes. Government and industry have lost their way but consumers are still on track and will not buy into such a cruel trade.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Flying foxes attacked from all sides Royal Botanic Gardens relocation Despite HSI’s attempts to stop it, in June 2012 the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney began their program to relocate their colony of grey-headed flying-foxes from the Gardens.

This program has been successful in driving the flying-foxes from the Gardens, while many appeared to have roosted in Sydney’s Centennial Park as their new preferred location. HSI continues to watch this closely as the breeding season begins.

Queensland returns to licensed shooting On National Threatened Species Day in September, an amended regulation exempting flying-foxes from humaneness requirements under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 was put into effect, and the election promise of a return to shooting flying-foxes as a method of crop control implemented.

In 2008, the Queensland Government stopped issuing licences to shoot flying-foxes to their fruit growers after an investigation by the Queensland Animal Welfare Advisory Committee found shooting flying-foxes to be inhumane. This finding of cruelty has since been supported by a NSW panel, resulting in NSW phasing out the shooting of flying-foxes.

The new laws sanction the killing of up to 10,500 flying-foxes, including the grey-headed and the spectacled flying-fox, both of which are listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act). Shooting is a cruel method, as flying-foxes are often not killed outright but left to die slow painful deaths from their injuries.

Issue 21 2012

The Humane Society of the United States Files Notice of Suit to Restore Federal Protection for Great Lakes Wolves The following press release was issued by HSI’s Washington office and parent organisation The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in October, responding legally, as it has done on many previous occasions, to ongoing threats posed to threatened wolf populations across the US: WASHINGTON (Oct.15, 2012) — On the day of the first public wolf hunting and trapping season in the Great Lakes region in more than 40 years, The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International and The Fund for Animals served notice that they will file suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore federal protections for Great Lakes wolves under the Endangered Species Act. The groups are also asking the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota to postpone wolf hunting and trapping until the case can be decided on the merits.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s most recent decision to delist wolves became effective earlier this year, after multiple previous attempts to delist wolves were struck down by the courts over the course of the last decade.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put faith in the state wildlife agencies to responsibly manage wolf populations, but their overzealous and extreme plans to allow for trophy hunting and recreational trapping immediately after de-listing demonstrate that such confidence was unwarranted,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO for The HSUS. “Between Minnesota’s broken promise to wait five years before hunting wolves, and Wisconsin’s reckless plan to trap and shoot hundreds of wolves in the first year, it is painfully clear that federal protection must be reasserted. The states have allowed the most extreme voices to grab hold of wolf management, and the result could be devastating for this species.”

In Minnesota, hunters and trappers can kill as many as 400 of the estimated 3,000 wolves in the state. That is additive to the damage control killing, poaching, and other forms of human-caused mortality.

HSI is extremely concerned by this resumption of shooting, which is not only cruel but also ineffective, with netting the only proven method for crop protection against flying-foxes.

HSI continues to work actively with local Queensland groups on this issue.

In Wisconsin, the quota for killing wolves in the state is roughly 24 percent of the estimated wolf population in the state. Including depredations, illegal kills, and vehicle collisions, the human-caused death toll could be more than 50 percent of the wolf population — nearly double the level of human-caused mortality the best available science indicates the population can withstand.

Conservation agreements for bats?

Some lawmakers in Michigan, where livestock owners are already allowed to use lethal means as a first resort when a gray wolf preys upon livestock, are pushing for legislation that would create an open sport hunting season on wolves.

In more concerning news for our threatened flying-fox species, it has become clear that the Commonwealth is in the process of negotiating conservation agreements under the EPBC Act with those states where flying-foxes are commonly found (Queensland, NSW and Victoria). This would allow for state governments to approve a range of actions, including dispersal of flying-fox camps without the need to refer the issue to the Federal Minister under the EPBC Act, as is currently the case for listed species.

This is an issue of great concern to HSI, as flying-foxes are nomadic, and frequently cross state boundaries in the search for food and breeding sites.

To delegate these decisions to state governments removes the ability to consider the impacts on the species as a whole, and therefore is likely to result in poor conservation outcomes.

To date, the Commonwealth Government has resisted requests to view drafts of the conservation agreement, despite repeated requests.

The groups have filed today a 60-day notice of their intent to sue over the rule — as required under the Endangered Species Act. If the agency does not reconsider the delisting rule over the next 60 days, The HSUS/HSI and The Fund for Animals will ask a federal court to reinstate federal ESA protection for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region. Both organizations had hoped that sensible policies would prevail in the states, and also took note of the legal claims filed by other organizations seeking to avert reckless killing of wolves.

Those cases have not resolved several of our concerns favorably for the wolves, leading us to file notice to sue.

Footnote: • The gray wolf (Canis lupus) once roamed across the United States in the hundreds of thousands. However, federally funded eradication programs, which lasted through the mid-1900s, bounty programs, poisons, trapping, and aerial shooting nearly, eliminated the gray wolf from the lower 48 states. Approximately 6,000 gray wolves are thought to remain in the contiguous United States today.

• The decision to strip wolves of federal protection threatens the fragile remnants of the gray wolf population by confining wolves to a small area in the Great Lakes region. The agency’s delisting efforts will prevent the wolves’ recovery throughout the vast majority of their historic range.

• Now that management authority has been turned over to the states, wolf populations could face drastic reductions in their numbers.

15

The resounding response was against increases to stocking rates and the public has been able to let the ACCC know just what their expectations of free range are.

While AECL’s propaganda falls in tatters around them, their plans to make sweeping changes to the way free range eggs are produced have been put on hold pending the outcome of the ACCC investigation.

Several other complaints of free range fraud in the egg industry are pending with ACCC: March 2011

Humane Choice — Snapshot Humane Choice – True Free Range now represents the majority of free range farming businesses Australia wide with over 60 producers signing on for certification or membership of our free range producer group.

Humane Choice is much more than a quality assurance program, as we also act as an advocate for small, genuine producers that battle to be heard against the corporate giants. These farmers are true free range and have asked Humane Choice to be their voice in industry matters that affect them such as truth in labelling and the definition of free range.

Certified farm numbers are on the rise with 7 new applications awaiting audit at the moment and another first for Humane Choice — a smallgoods processor is to be added to our membership in the coming weeks. Farmers are now seeing the value in certification for the peace of mind in brings to their clientele and the strength of combined numbers of like-minded people working toward a common goal.

ACCC campaign continues apace...

The debate over the definition of free range has escalated dramatically since the Australian Egg Corporation (AECL) went a step too far and applied for a certification trade mark that would allow them to put a free range label on eggs produced at 20,000 hens per hectare.

The current free range standard, as presented in the Model Code of practice, limits free range stocking densities at 1500 per hectare. The small producers who have spent their lifetimes building the free range market stand to lose everything, and the consumer would no longer be able to differentiate eggs in store.

Our vigilance and commitment to truth in labelling for free range has seen Humane Choice lead the charge against greed and complacency from both industry and government, in the proposed Egg Corporation standards that were set to intensify free range production.

We have also uncovered negligence in the management of current egg industry standards and the resulting deception that has seen eggs misleadingly labelled as free range. Government’s disinterest in this matter has seen too many doors slammed in the faces of consumers that have been conned by an industry whose sole interest is profit, not the welfare of hens or the concerns of their buying public.

Humane Choice has taken this labelling debate to the public through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and is on the brink of bringing home real results. The ACCC have recognised the importance of consultation with consumers and called for public comment on the proposed standards.

16

Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL) had lodged an application for a Certification Trademark and as part of that process the Rules and Standards that apply to the Trademark must first be reviewed and accepted by the ACCC. Our complaint addressed what we believe are breaches of the Code of Practice and the Environmental Guidelines for the Australian Egg Industry within the proposed standard — the main issue being the increase in stocking densities to 20,000 layer hens per hectare.

Status: ACCC issues initial assessment (see opposite page).

October 2011 EDO (Environmental Defenders Office) assisted in drafting this complaint.

This complaint centres on Egg Corporation’s failure to comply with the Rules for their current Certification Trademark – Egg Corp Assured. ECA has explicitly adopted the Code of Practice as a major component of their standards yet consistently licenses producers that are in breach of the code.

Status: No response but we do believe this complaint will be tied into the March one.

December 2011 Labeling of Primo ‘RSPCA Free Range’ fresh pork products. We were successful in forcing immediate change to the packaging of Primo fresh pork products. The word ‘RSPCA’ no longer appears immediately above or proximate to the phrase free range.

Status: Closed.

March 2012 Complaint about a producer claim of ‘certified’ free range eggs when they are audited against an in-house standard that is in breach of the model code of practice for stocking rates, daylight access, conditions of the range, adequate pop holes and therefore also in breach of the Egg Corp Assured standards while holding current certification.

Status: Pending.

March 2012 Main area of complaint against major producer is major egg substitution and claims of free range. This farm operates without the required council approvals and has been ordered to remove approximately 60,000 hens and infrastructure yet held Egg Corp Assured accreditation. As at August 2012, these eggs still display the ECA logo on cartons in Coles and Woolworths.

Status: Notification in August from ACCC that this complaint is under investigation.

One thing is certain, industry self-regulation has failed. It is time for the Federal Government to define free range and embed the definitions in legislation to avoid the demise of a true free range system in Australia and the ongoing deception of the ethical consumer. The consumer has driven the demand for free range and it will be the consumer that decides what defines it.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

ACCC supports HSI free range claims HSI press release issued on 2/11/12, Sydney: Two years of representations and hard lobbying by Humane Society International (HSI) on behalf of Humane Choice True Free Range producers has culminated in a damning report from the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) opposing the intensification of free range egg production.

The theme throughout the comprehensive ACCC report is that the Australian Egg Corporation’s proposal to increase stocking rates for layer hens to 20,000 birds per hectare will not meet consumer expectations for free range production.

“Although this has been obvious to the consumer for some time, industry has been relentless in their quest to highjack the term free range because big business had seen the potential to increase their profits substantially by labelling their eggs as free range,” said Lee McCosker, Chief Operating Officer for Humane Choice. “This is a resounding victory for consumers, farmers and of course the chickens.”

Kangaroo Island Free Range.

Humane Choice on the road Humane Choice has been on the road over the last few months, visiting politicians, farms, processors and retailers garnering support for true free range farming in Australia.

Humane Choice was invited to speak on behalf of South Australian free range egg producers at a Parliamentary Forum in Adelaide on 27th June 2012. Attendance and interest at the forum was very encouraging with a good cross party support for the Bills currently before Parliament that would see stocking rates for free range hens kept at 1,500 birds per hectare.

While in South Australia, we attended a meeting with Skara Smallgoods and 15 free range pig producers. Skara are keen to change their production to free range and are encouraging all their suppliers to become certified Humane Choice. Producers are now very excited about the prospect and would like to move with farm inspections as soon as possible.

We also met with Kangaroo Island (KI) Council who is very keen to see the uptake of Humane Choice accreditation on KI farms as this will fit nicely with their push to promote the islands produce as clean and green, and will help give that extra edge particularly in the Chinese market. Almost all the free range on Kangaroo Island is now Humane Choice certified and we are currently working with four pig producers who have been busy implementing changes to their farming systems to comply with Humane Choice standards.

August saw both Humane Choice and HSI meet with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to discuss our ongoing complaint against the Egg Corporation Certification Trademark Application. The ACCC admitted that the majority of the 1600 submissions they had received were against the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL) plan to increase stocking rates for layer hens to 20,000.

More recently we wrote to every politician in Australia to seek their views on the free range debate to include in a report card we are compiling to let voters know if their state and Federal members support a 1500 maximum stocking rate for layer hens as per the Model Code of practice. We will be sharing the results with the public prior to State and Federal elections to let supporters know the views of their local politicians. We also travelled to Canberra to garner support for this important issue, followed by a visit to potential Humane Choice farms just outside Adelaide.

Of 1,700 submissions received by the ACCC on the proposed Egg Corporation Standards, a staggering 1,693 were in opposition. There were only 7 submissions in Egg Corporation’s favour and they were probably by the producers most likely to benefit from the deception.

“The consumer has sent a very loud message to anyone labelling their eggs free range as well as to the supermarket chains that are promoting stocking rates up to 20,000 birds for their in-house branded free range eggs. Quite simply, label any egg produced in a system with stocking rates higher than 1500 birds per hectare and you are misleading your customers,” said McCosker.

The report from the ACCC is a welcome relief for true free range producers who were in danger of being put out of business. NSW, TAS, WA and SA all have Bills before parliament capping free range stocking rates at 1500 birds per hectare and the ACCC findings would hopefully push these Bills over the line. The initial notification from the ACCC is reproduced below:

ACCC’s initial assessment of AECL’s CTM application [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] The ACCC has released its initial assessment of AECL’s certification trade mark (CTM) application (attached). The ACCC is proposing not to approve the CTM because it considers that AECL’s proposed standards may mislead consumers about the nature of eggs described as ‘free range’. The proposed standards also do not meet other legislative requirements in the Trade Marks Act. Interested parties have one month from the time the initial assessment is published by IP Australia to provide submissions or seek a conference, before the ACCC makes its final assessment. Submissions should be emailed to CTMs@accc.gov.au. Further information about the ACCC’s role in assessing applications to register CTMs can be found at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/815802.

STOP PRESS: On 23rd November, HSI delivered the final blow to the Egg Corporation’s application for their Certification Trademark with the delivery of 30,000 postcards in support of true free range to the ACCC. These postcards are of particular significance because they are personally addressed and posted by the free range egg buying public. It is expected that the ACCC will hand down its final assessment on the Egg Corporations CTM on the 2nd of December.

17

Providing aid to working animals and villagers in Mali HSI has provided new resources to aid the care of working animals in war-torn Mali in North Africa. Our long term partners in the region, SPANA (Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad) have been working in Mali for over 20 years now and have established headquarters in the Capital, Bamako from where a mobile clinic travels to rural and isolated communities, providing expert care for working animals. In 2011, the SPANA team treated 25,333 cases in Mali. Monies provided by HSI will greatly increase the number of animals that are able to receive veterinary help.

Our grant will allow the employment of a new vet who will also play a critical role in the long-term education of animal owners, local vets and children. The addition of another vet will mean the focus on education and training can increase without having a detrimental effect on the clinical work, and they will also be responsible for organising a two year training course for up to 50 local vets. Such focussed education programs will have very meaningful and long-term welfare benefits for all Mali’s working animals.

Lee McCosker with SPANA vet and friend in Morocco.

Humane Choice visits SPANA in Morocco Earlier this year Humane Choice Chief Operating Officer, Lee McCosker, travelled to Morocco, and was able to visit a rural SPANA project: “During my travels to different parts of Morocco it was evident that these animals were in far better condition in rural areas than many I had seen in the city.

The answer to why donkeys and mules seemed far better cared for even though they lived in such harsh conditions?

— a stark white truck emblazed with green lettering SPANA rolled up at our desert accommodation!

This was their mobile vet clinic carrying a vet and a nurse that tour this region offering free care for animals. They also run an education program in all the areas they visit.

The effect that SPANA was having in these desert regions was self-evident and when I learned that their head office was in Marrakesh I promised myself a visit as soon as we arrived.

The vet has worked at SPANA in Marrakesh for 6 years and his dedication and love for animals just radiated as he guided us through the facility and to visit all the mules and donkeys in special care. He was especially proud of their education facility designed to educate a new generation of children that will understand that these animals are living creatures and not just machines to be discarded when they break down. SPANA is changing the culture of how these beasts of burden are treated”.

Winner of 2012 Grants Program to improve farm animal welfare announced Humane Society International is pleased to announce the winner of this year’s 2012 Grants Program, run in conjunction with the University of Queensland (UQ) Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics.

For the second year running, this annual scholarship provides funding for research specifically addressing improvements to farm animal welfare, the objective being to move towards more humane care of intensively farmed animals in Australia.

HSI supporter Garth Dixon and his wife Rosalind made a long-standing contribution to the preservation of native vegetation in NSW, and Mr Dixon generously donated the funds in memory of his wife, thereby introducing The Rosalind Dixon Memorial Scholarship for Farm Animal Welfare Research.

Mr Dixon said, “I have had exposure to the suffering that factory farmed animals endure. I would like to think that the scholarship I have established in honour of Rosalind is offering a helping hand to the people who are working for more humane care of intensively farmed animals.”

18

Last year was its first year, and the grant was awarded to Mr Eduardo Santurtun Oliveros of the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland whose project was titled the ‘Effects of sea transport motion on sheep stress levels’. The results of this research suggest that ship motion can have a negative impact on the balance of sheep and therefore on their welfare during the exporting process.

The scholarship was made available to students undertaking Honours or postgraduate research into issues in intensive farming at any Australian University. This year, applications closed at the end of August and a total of seven were received by Clive Phillips at UQ’s Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics.

HSI is happy to announce that this year the winner is Ms Shaniko Shini of the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland —her study will survey cage egg producers to establish their intentions, and what they have planned for the imminent transition from traditional cages towards cage-free production systems.

HSI looks forward to seeing the positive impact that this research will have on improving the welfare of farm animals in Australia.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

HSI fights for badger protection in the UK Mark Jones Even in the face of overwhelming scientific opposition, the British government is preparing to issue licenses to farmers and landowners to shoot badgers in Gloucestershire and Somerset in the UK this autumn, claiming its policy is science-led. Badgers are one of the few iconic wild mammals remaining in Britain. Sadly, since the first bovine tuberculosis-infected badger was ‘identified’ in the early 1970s, badgers have been persecuted for their perceived role in the transmission of the disease to cattle.

No one denies that TB in cattle is a serious problem. It results in the premature slaughter of many thousands of cattle each year, with devastating impacts for farmers, and at a huge cost to the taxpayer in testing, inspection and compensation. But killing badgers isn’t going to reduce TB in cattle. The main source of TB in cattle is other cattle, not badgers. Whilst several wild mammals can contract the disease, including badgers, and pass the disease between them, whether and how the disease spreads between cattle and badgers is still highly debatable and not fully understood.

However, the best available scientific evidence comes from an independent analysis by scientists of the 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial.

In their 2007 report scientists made some very significant findings and concluded that “Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain”.1 They also said: “It is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control”.1 These statements come from the foremost scientists working to make sense of this complicated issue. The government itself admits that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial provides the most up-to-date science on the issue. So how the government can claim its policy of licensing farmers and landowners to shoot badgers, scheduled to begin this autumn across two large areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset, is ‘science led’ when it is clearly not supported by the results of the trial hardly makes sense and appears to be a case of twisting science to suit policy.

Killing badgers will not help farmers. What it will do is decimate badger populations across large areas of our countryside, and cause untold suffering for thousands if not tens of thousands of individual badgers.

According to estimates from Natural England, the government agency charged with overseeing the licensing process, if the policy is fully rolled out, it could result in the death of up to 130,000 badgers in up to 40 licensed areas over the next few years.

Natural England estimates this could result in a 30 percent reduction in the badger population across England, and perhaps as much as a 50 percent reduction in the South West.2 Eminent scientists have expressed concerns that whole populations of badgers could be completely wiped out. And the vast majority of the badgers who will be shot and killed will be healthy, uninfected animals, who pose no threat of any kind.

Legal challenges Non-government organisations are challenging the legality of the government’s plans, both domestically and internationally. The Badger Trust launched a Judicial Review process in June of this year, claiming that the policy contravenes the Protection of Badgers Act. The case was rejected by the High Court and the Badger Trust appealed against that judgement.

Humane Society International/UK is also challenging the badger slaughter and submitted an official complaint to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (better known as the Bern Convention) in January 2012. The United Kingdom has been a signatory to the Bern Convention since the early 1980s. The badger is listed in Appendix 3, requiring countries to take appropriate and necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure the protection of badgers, and to keep populations out of danger. HSI UK believes that a mass badger slaughter places the UK government in breach of the convention on three grounds: • First, the government cannot demonstrate that its policy will not seriously disturb badger populations; • Second, the government has not given sufficient consideration to alternative methods of controlling TB in cattle, in particular the development and use of vaccines in both badgers and cattle, and the instigation and enforcement of policies to reduce disease transmission between cattle; • And third, the reduction in cattle TB cases that the government predicts might result from its policy is nowhere near enough to justify the suffering and killing of up to 130,000 badgers and its impact on badger populations.

HSI UK’s complaint was however rejected by the full Standing Committee meeting of the Convention in late October. In the meantime, HSI UK and its TeamBadger coalition partners urge members of the public to make their voices heard for badgers by raising the issue with their Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister to prevent this unnecessary and devastating assault on an iconic British mammal.

STOP PRESS: The UK Government announced in late October that the cull had been delayed until next summer (mid-2013), citing farmers’ ‘inability to pay’ for the program. Following a 150,000 strong petition, triggering a debate in the House of Commons, MPs voted 147 to 28 to abandon the cull entirely.

Mark Jones, Veterinarian Executive Director Humane Society International UK London mjones@hsi.org Professor John Bourne CBE MRCVS, Chairman of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG), Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence, Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, June 2007 (letter to David Miliband (then Secretary of State, DEFRA).

1

Natural England. The impact of culling on badger (Meles meles) populations in England and measures to prevent their ‘local disappearance’ from culled areas. Supplementary advice provided under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

4 July 2011.

2

European badger. © Mark Bridger.

19

Strengthening Wildlife Protection through Unconventional Means: How Free Trade Agreements can help combat the illegal wildlife trade Sarah Stewart The Asia-Pacific Region is known for its rich biodiversity, but it is also a region of significant production and trade in natural resources including wild animals, a substantial portion of which is not harvested or taken and traded in accordance with national and international laws. The global illegal trade in wildlife and wild plant products, estimated to be $16 to 27 billion US dollars per year, includes a range of illicit practices that are depleting species populations on land and in our oceans, and eroding forests and natural habitats.

The situation is so dire that numerous international institutions are calling for action. The International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), which is comprised of the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), ICPO – INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank and the World Customs Organization (WCO), released a toolkit this summer to help strengthen enforcement of wildlife and forest crime. The ICCWC found that the illegal trade in wildlife and wild plants is taking place on a “scale that poses an immediate risk to species and ecosystems as well as to the people who rely upon them for their livelihoods.” 1 The Leader’s Declaration from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings in September also recognizes the critical importance of combating illegal trade in wildlife, timber and associated products due to economic, social, security, and environmental consequences.2 And for the first time ever, the issue of illegal wildlife trade was raised before the UN General Assembly and characterized by the United States “as a threat to conservation efforts, rule of law, governance and economic development.” 3 These calls for action persist despite extensive efforts by existing bodies, such as CITES, and other regional wildlife networks. The reality is that the illegal trade is lucrative, and enforcement raises serious obstacles, particularly for countries with limited resources.

It is for precisely this reason that we must look to strengthen existing bodies, shore up enforcement, and look for any new opportunity to shut down this illegal trade — even if through unconventional means.

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) — venue for progress?

Enter the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a group of eleven countries seeking to conclude a free trade agreement covering issues ranging from market access to regulatory coherence to environmental protection. The TPP countries — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam — are major consumers, producers and traders of natural resources, including wildlife and wildlife products. These countries have stated their intentions to have the TPP be a high-quality, 21st century agreement,4 but what does that mean exactly for environmental protection and wildlife conservation?

It is widely recognized that by increasing trade through tariff liberalization, illicit trade in a wide variety of products increases as well, including wildlife and wildlife products. 5 This is due to a number of factors, including increased trading routes and access to new markets, as well as more opportunities to hide illegal products among legal shipments.

Illegal wildlife trade poses significant risks to species populations, but it has also been linked to the spread of disease to humans and animals, loss of precious biodiversity (that may have an economic impact by making tourism less attractive), and organized crime networks.

20

Leopard cat ready for illegal trading. Doug Hendrie.

Despite the strong nexus between increased trade and impacts on the environment and animals, it is often the case that trade agreements are concluded without binding and enforceable obligations for the parties to protect the environment and mitigate negative consequences. In recent years, however, there has been a growing recognition of the need to make this link. For example, the U.S. – Australia Free Trade Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 2005, included binding provisions requiring the Parties to effectively enforce their environmental laws. The Parties also agreed to engage in environmental cooperation activities to strengthen environmental protection.

But more can be done and should be done through trade agreements, as they can be a vehicle to impose obligations on countries to enforce their environmental laws, to complement multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and address pressing issues such as illegal wildlife trade. To truly make this a 21st Century Agreement, the TPP must go beyond what has been done in the past, and look at the issues facing our world today and in the future.

The TPP Environmental Proposals — looking ahead There are a number of proposals on the table in the TPP negotiations that deal with environmental protection and conservation in ways that have not yet been considered before in a trade agreement. Issues like combatting illegal trade in wildlife and logging, restricting trade in illegally obtained products, imposing disciplines on fisheries subsidies that are depleting – and unreported (IUU) fishing, and addressing shark conservation are being discussed.

This could be a groundbreaking deal, but gaps remain in the level of ambition the TPP countries share on which issues should be included, and how they should be addressed. Many of the TPP countries are endorsing a non-binding, cooperative approach to environmental issues that would not include recourse to dispute settlement if needed — even though it would be available for nearly every other chapter of the agreement. For its part, Australia’s Labor Party endorses the right of countries to prohibit trade in products that are obtained illegally,6 and supports appropriate, minimum and enforceable environmental standards.7 Yet, Australia appears to have taken a more measured position in the environment negotiations, and the press is reporting that it is pushing back against some of the U.S. environment proposals.8

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

While progress can and should be made through environmental cooperation and capacity building, non-binding and unenforceable environmental obligations will ultimately downgrade the importance of the environment chapter vis-à-vis the other chapters, resulting in less attention paid to these issues and far fewer resources available to achieve the critically pressing objectives that are being discussed in the TPP negotiations. Indeed, this has been the case in prior trade agreements and MEAs that have focused solely on a cooperative approach.

Additionally, some countries are hesitant to impose binding obligations in the TPP on issues that are covered by other MEAs, like CITES. Such an approach ignores the fact that environmental crimes like the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products continue to thrive, despite existing efforts. It is for precisely this reason that every possible opportunity to combat this trade through complementary means must be taken.

We are on the precipice of having a truly modern, 21st Century trade agreement that has the potential to benefit millions of animals around the world and become the blueprint for all future trade agreements. This opportunity must not be squandered because it raises complex issues and countries are hesitant to step too far away from what has been done in prior agreements, or are content to defer to other bodies to handle these issues regardless of the clear link to trade. There is simply too much at stake not to meet these challenges head on, and we must heed the international calls for action.

Sarah Stewart Senior Attorney, International Law & Trade Animal Protection Litigation The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sstewart@humanesociety.org Note: HSI Australia has been supporting the TPP efforts of HSUS/HSI in Washington through our own Australian based lobbying program, including attendance at the TPP negotiations held in Melbourne earlier this year.

We continue to raise trade issues of concern with the Australian Government, recently meeting with Trade and Competitiveness Minister Craig Emerson in Canberra.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2012/July/iccwc-launches wildlife-and-forest-crime-toolkit.html

Issue 21 2012

Ramsar Conference report Louise Duff I was fortunate to participate at the 11th Ramsar Conference of Contracting parties (COP 11) held at the Palace of the Parliament in Bucharest, Romania from 6-13 July.

I attended the Conference for WetlandCare Australia in my capacity as Secretary of the Australian Wetland Alliance, a collective of 73 Non-Government Organisations, and Oceania representative to the World Wetland Network. My trip was generously supported by the Humane Society International and other NGOs and individuals.

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty that provides a framework for contracting parties (member countries) to address all aspects of wetland conservation and wise use. It was founded in 1971 in recognition that wetlands contribute to biodiversity conservation and human well-being and are under threat world-wide. Wetlands provide a range of ecosystem services and contribute to water supply, pollution and flood control, fisheries, agriculture, forestry and tourism.

Unlike other Multilateral Environmental Agreements hosted by the United Nations (UN), the Ramsar Convention was born out of civil society and crafted by three international Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) which remain partners in the convention. It is hosted not by the UN but by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, itself an NGO. As a result, participation by NGOs is an enduring hallmark of the Ramsar Convention.

There are many benefits from this cooperation. NGO members are often local custodians who actively implement the Ramsar convention on the ground at wetlands around the world. They provide input to technical guidelines; nominate, manage and monitor some of the Ramsar sites; alert the Ramsar Secretariat when Governments fail to advise of changes to ecological character; engage their communities directly in wise use of wetlands, and speak-out on behalf of wetlands under threat.

The Ramsar Secretariat hosts the Conference of Parties (COP) every three years to assess progress, share experience and plan for the next triennium. In the lead-up to the COP, the Scientific and Technical Reference Panel produced 23 Draft Resolutions on topics addressing wetlands and tourism, climate change, health, poverty and many more. The core business of the COP was to deliberate on the content of the Draft Resolutions, meet consensus agreement and adopt them as a blueprint for policy and action going forward.

1

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2012/

2

2012_aelm.aspx

http://smart-grid.tmcnet.com/news/2012/09/25/6604199.htm http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html 5 See Lenzen, et. al., International Trade Drives Biodiversity Threats in 3

Formally, this work was the domain of the government delegates from the Contracting Parties. But the Non-Government Organisations played an important role and could advocate for amendments from the floor, as long as at least one Contracting Party supported their proposal and there was no opposition.

4

Developing Nations, NATURE, Vol. 486 (June 7, 2012) (“Here we show that a significant number of species are threatened as a result of international trade along complex routes, and that, in particular, consumers in developed countries cause threats to species through their demand of commodities that are ultimately produced in developing countries.”)

See Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement (April 2011) at page 13,

6

available at: http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trading-our-way-tomore-jobs-and-prosperity.pdf at (“It is perfectly legitimate for a country to restrict or prohibit the importation of products that have been harvested and produced illegally, including from rare and endangered species such as ivory and illegally harvested timbers. “).

See Australian Labor 46th National Conference, National Platform at

7

page 32, available at: http://www.alp.org.au/getattachment/fdffe386-48e44ead-be88-d099e884bc54/our-platform/ (“Labor is committed to opposing low-quality piecemeal trade agreements in favour of fair and transparent, multilateral agreements that are based on widespread consultation, provide for appropriate, minimum and enforceable labour and environmental standards, take account of the social and economic impacts of the agreement and allow for sovereign governments to continue making decisions in the interests of their citizens.”)

See Australian Opposition on Key U.S. Priorities Emerges as Hurdle in TPP,

8

NGO contributions to Ramsar resolutions On the first day of COP 11 the World Wetland Network (WWN) held an NGO Conference attended by representatives from over 30 organizations. We then met daily to review and advocate on the draft Resolutions.

The most controversial resolution, DR1 — Institutional Hosting Arrangements, which debated whether the convention should stay with IUCN or move to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). NGOs were concerned their role would be diminished if the convention moved to UNEP, but refrained from entering the debate as this was one of the selling points of the change. This issue generated the second vote in the history of the convention. Eventually consensus was reached, and it was agreed to remain with IUCN, with commitment that the Ramsar Secretariat would work more closely with the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and do more to engage a broader audience.

Continued page 22

Inside US Trade (Sept. 19, 2012).

21

Ramsar Conference report

Continued from page 21

DR07 — Sustainable Tourism looked at how we can minimise the negative effect of tourism and bring positive benefits to wetlands, wildlife and local people. NGOs advocated for the resolution to strengthen the role of indigenous and local people, and ensure benefits accrue to these communities.

DR14 — Climate Change is a framework to demonstrate how wetlands mitigate for and adapt to climate change. WWN members worked with other NGOs to write a letter to the Brazilian Minister of Environment, as they were the only delegation opposing the resolution. In the end the resolution passed with minor amendments, but at the last minute.

DR15 — Rice Paddies, aimed to reduce the impact of pesticides on biodiversity in rice paddies. Initial changes in the wording of the resolution included ‘pest resistant’ strains of rice, leaving the door open for GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) usage. Martin Frid from the Consumers Union of Japan worked very hard to get this changed to include wording that precludes GMO usage.

Other NGO activities Local environmentalist Petruta Moisi presented our opening statement, which expressed concern that unless societies transitioned from over-consumption and rampant development to genuine sustainability, there would be ongoing degradation of wetlands and the wider environment.

Despite targets for designation of Ramsar sites, NGOs expressed concern that contracting parties are very slow at designating sites that local people put forward.

WWN held an official side-event, presenting Blue Globe Awards recognising best practice for wise use of wetlands, and Grey Globes for wetlands suffering threats to their ecological character. The sites were selected through a nomination and voting process by concerned individuals and organisations around the world.

I presented a Blue Globe to Karen Denyer of New Zealand for Whangamarino wetlands, and received a Grey Globe on behalf of Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar site in Botany Bay. Towra Point is suffering a range of environmental threats, which are degrading its value as habitat for migratory shorebirds. As I said in my speech, the Grey Globe is a call to action for all levels of government, community groups and industry partners to work together to protect this wetland of international importance on Sydney’s doorstep.

Ramsar listed Coorong wetlands. © Birdlife Australia/Chris Tzaros.

22

WWN Chair Chris Rostron made a closing statement noting that the Ramsar Convention has been carried forward by co-operative and participatory efforts of governments and NGOs over the past forty years, and called for this spirit to continue for the benefit of wetlands.

I am grateful to the Humane Society International for supporting my attendance at COP 11 and look forward to working within the Ramsar framework in the years to come.

Louise Duff, B. App. Sc. (NRM), MPA Hunter Region Coordinator WetlandCare Australia louiseduff@wetlandcare.com.au

Ramsar Resources The most important lesson I learned attending Ramsar COP 11 is that the Ramsar Convention has created a wealth of policy and resources to protect wetlands. Publications launched at the COP included: • Ramsar Wetland Disease manual on how to minimise disease risk for those managing wetlands; • Enhancing the Wise use of Wetlands manual on building capacity, produced by Wageningen University; • Destination Wetlands, Ramsar case studies and guidance on managing wetlands for tourism.

The final texts of all 22 Resolutions adopted by the Contracting Parties at COP11 in Bucharest in July 2012, are now available on the Ramsar website in English, French, and Spanish: www.ramsar.org/cop11-resolutions A suite of 13 Vox Pop videos of COP 11 participants can be viewed on WetlandCare Australia’s web site at: http://www. wetlandcare.com.au/index.php/news/news-archive/vox-popsfrom-ramsar-cop11-in-bucharest-romania/ An excellent overview of the Conference is provided by IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin at http://www.iisd.ca/ramsar/cop11/.

WWN have published their report on the proceedings at http://www.worldwetnet.org/static/filebrowser/WWN_COP11 _report_v4.pdf

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

Eden Recreated — Restoring Kalimantan’s degraded forests Farquhar Stirling We stand looking out over a desolate landscape of white sand and low, stunted shrubs. Nothing moves except for the low bushes which are stirred by the hot wind that sweeps and moans across this desert. You half expect a lion or a giraffe to walk into view, or for the Lone Ranger to ride up on a thirsty and exhausted horse.

But this is not the desert savannah of Africa or the plains of the western US. It’s Lamandau River Wildlife Reserve, Central Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, more associated with lush tropical rain forest, than arid desert scrub. And of course this was once a green tropical paradise, vibrant with plant-life, animals, insects and birds.

Until, that is, the loggers came, to clear-cut the forest for the timber that we crave, and apparently can’t do without. That was many years ago, and since then this huge area has lain dormant, and unused. An ugly scar on the face of the earth. Under Indonesian law, the loggers are required to replant the trees that they have cut, but this is easily circumvented, often by closing the original company, and starting anew somewhere else in the forests.

Based on the success of FNPF (Friends of the National Parks Foundation) reforestation projects in other parts of Central Kalimantan, the FNPF team have been invited by the local government to open a centre here in Lamandau, to start the process of re-greening the desert.

We were on a 4-day visit to see the progress of FNPF’s efforts to replant trees here in Central Kalimantan, in areas near Tanjung Puting National Park. The team includes FNPF Director and Founder Bayu Wirayudha, Michael Kennedy, Director and Co-Founder of Humane Society International (HSI) Australia, a key FNPF donor, and Lily Wardoyo, an FNPF Ubud volunteer. FNPF has several replanting sites near the Tanjung Puting National Park. The oldest of these is at Pesalat, where FNPF has been busy planting tree saplings for the past 7 years. The results are heart-warming, and spectacular.

On our recent visit a flock of black hornbills crossed the young forest, and other bird species flitted from tree to tree. The Pesalat forest is also home to deer and pigs, and other animals, and most exciting of all, orangutan, who come here to feed on fruit from the replanted trees. Bayu showed us the remains of fruit eaten by orangutan, and explained that they feel safe to enter the replanting zone, even though they must spend some time on the ground as they traverse the forest. As with other FNPF sites in Kalimantan, there is an office with accommodation for workers and volunteers. The one at Pesalat is particularly pleasant, surrounded by shady trees, and a nursery for saplings of many different tree species.

FNPF has other replanting sites at Beguruh, where you can climb a fire-watching tower to view the developing replanted forest below, and Padang Sembilan, a newer site in an area of former farming and rice-growing fields, where the tiny saplings must compete with ferns and other vegetation that makes this a particularly challenging replanting task.

At Jerumbun, FNPF is encouraging staff and local villagers to experiment with agro-forestry crops, such as rubber, gaharu and watermelons. This area buffers the river from a huge palm-oil plantation, and the day before our visit, a fire had seen FNPF staff rushing to review any damage, and to be ready to fight the flames, if necessary. Forest fires, some set deliberately, particularly near palm-oil plantations, are a constant source of worry for FNPF. Several developing forest areas have been damaged by fires, and it is heartbreaking for FNPF workers to see trees that they have nurtured for years, destroyed in the blink of an eye. A young orangutan was spotted at Jerumbun during our visit, but he quickly fled into the nearby forest. The potential conflict between man and orangutan was illustrated graphically by the sight of young rubber trees, planted as cash-crops by villagers, where the bark had been chewed off by the animals.

FNPF Rehabilitation site in Tanjung Puting. NP/HSI.

All of the this replanting work carried out by FNPF has resulted in a substantial body of knowledge about how best to carry out this important work, and the spirit of experimentation has infused the work of Bayu and his team. They now know the best tree species for different soil, climate and vegetation conditions; the optimal interval to leave between saplings and other vegetation; the best season to plant, and so on.

As with any land-use issue, though, there are abundant potential conflicts with the various stakeholders, and in Central Kalimantan they include the local communities, palm-oil companies, logging both legal and illegal, gold miners, the local government, and even other NGO’s. It is vital that these various stakeholders support, or at least do not hinder, the work of FNPF. At the village of Tanjung Harapan we visited a small house that will be used as a library for the village children to learn about their environment, and the importance of preserving the local forests. FNPF is also supporting village ecotourism and agroforestry initiatives in Tanjung Harapan, encouraging the development of livelihoods that do not depend, like logging and gold-mining, on the unsustainable exploitation of local resources.

Back at Lamandau, the task is particularly challenging. Not only is the destroyed area a large one, but the soil, and climatic conditions are unfavourable. The soil in many places is simply white sand. FNPF have made a great start, however. The office and centre nestles in the lee of a sliver of surviving forest, which holds an all-important water supply, rare in this area. Replanting has already started, and tiny saplings reach for the sky around the FNPF center. Experimentation by the FNPF team has shown that saplings grafted from larger trees grow quicker, and are stronger once planted, and this promises to speed up the planting process. It is hard, now, to see this blighted land being transformed into a sea of green.

But with the willpower and experience of Bayu and his FNPF team, and the support of generous and far-sighted donors, such as HSI, The Boeing Corporation and Taronga Zoo, the vision will become reality.

As Michael Kennedy of HSI said after his recent visit, “The forest rehabilitation work of FNPF is truly inspirational. Their commitment to protecting Tanjung Puting National Park is second to none, and we are very proud to be associated with their on-going conservation achievements.”

Farquhar Stirling FNPF Friend and Supporter, Ubud, Bali

23

Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra — Bungur reforestation project Dicky Tri Sutanto Way Kambas National Park (WKNP) lies at the extreme southern end of the eastern coastal plain of Sumatra, within Lampung administrative province, and covers an area of 125,621.3 hectares. Despite the loss of up to 75 % of the primary forest (in the 1970’s), the reserve still contains one of the largest areas of freshwater (non-peat) swamp forest of any protected area in Sumatra. In addition, it has a diversity of habitats which support good numbers of notable fauna, many of which are endangered throughout their ranges. Mammals include Sumatran tiger, Sumatran elephant, Sumatran rhinoceros, sunbear, Asiatic golden cat, and Malayan tapir.

Currently 30-40 % of WKNP habitat is degraded and most of this is incursion by Imperata grass. The degraded areas suffer intensively from fire. Forest Fire is a very significant factor in destroying ecosystem and degrading the forest floor in many part of WKNP. This human induced fire regime occurs every year, resulting in a failure of natural forest succession.

Reforestation project in WKNP Historically, the reforestation project in Way Kambas National Park (in South East corner of Sumatra) has focused on short term, broad-scale planting.

Most projects have consisted of a 12 month period of enrichment planting in a degraded area, covering thousands of hectares, and using the national standard technique. Such projects are expensive and require substantial external grant support. Unfortunately, most of the past reforestation projects in WKNP have had minimum impact or have completely failed to meet their goals. The short-term time frame and minimal maintenance and protection of the reforested area has resulted in burning, tree death, and a return to degraded habitat within a short period after the end of the project period.

An exception — the Bungur Reforestation Project — is a small program promoting reforestation and habitat protection in Bungur sub-section in the north-western area of WKNP. In the dry season of 2011, this reforestation project was the only reforestation effort in WKNP which was not burned by forest fire. Using this project as a model for habitat restoration techniques in WKNP, it was determined that more resources should be dedicated to protecting habitats from forest fire, rather than undertake expensive, short-term planting activities.

Bungur Reforestation Project This project was started in early June 2010 and is managed by a local NGO, Aliansi Lestari Rimba Terpadu (ALeRT), and funded by Save Indonesian Endangered Species Fund (SIES). Bungur sub-Section was historically the primary habitat for endangered mega-fauna, and has suffered from frequent wide-spread forest fires and illegal logging during the last 20 years.

This project has successfully secured hundreds of hectares around the project site from forest fires for more than 2 years, and monitored a very healthy natural succession process around the area. The primary focus of this project is on protecting, supporting and ensuring the natural succession and regeneration process.

There are four main activities being undertaken in this project: a. Area protection (by 24 hour forest camp guarding) — since habitat monitoring and protection are recognised as critical to insuring successful reforestation of the area, this project prioritises those activities. b. Planting fire resistance species — a minimum area of 10 hectares (over a 20 hectare plot, with a checker board system) are planted with fire resistance tree species. c. Maintenance of existing pioneer species (by weed clearings to decrease competition by Imperata grass). d. Community involvement — employment, community awareness, conservation education.

Learning from this reforestation model, we believe that reforestation projects shouldn’t always have the primary activity of “planting trees”, and project budgets shouldn’t always be judged by “how many trees are planted”.

Photo AleRT.

In Way Kambas National Park, which has more than 40,000 hectares of degraded habitat, the main cause of habitat degradation is forest fire. The soil condition, vegetation distribution and other factors show that natural succession can still take place in this Park. Protecting — Supporting and Ensuring forest regrowth in the long-term is the best way we know to restore WKNP’s critical habitats. Many other conventional (but short term) reforestation projects have failed because of constraints on planting and low levels of protection.

In the future, the project aims to develop more intensive reforestation and biodiversity enrichment programs; to expand protection to a larger area for further natural regeneration; develop other programs such as ecotourism, biological research, and wildlife re-introduction programs.

Support for this project in 2012 came from Humane Society International (HSI). An additional 4000 seedlings were prepared, and an extra 20 hectares of degraded habitat will be enriched during the rainy season (December 2012 – January 2013). New equipment for the reforestation program was also purchased, including a ‘motored-grass cutting tool’, for clearing Imperata grass.

Dicky Tri Sutanto AleRT (The Alliance of Integration Forest Conservation) Sumatra dekine_green@yahoo.com

24

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Bali Governor supports Bali starling conservation

His Excellency I Made Mangku Pastika, Governor of Bali, meets with FNPF/HSI/USF&WS delegation.

Issue 21 2012

HSI’s campaign director Michael Kennedy met earlier this year with the Governor of Bali, accompanied by Dr I Bayu Wirayudha, Founder and Director of the Friends of the National Parks Foundation (FNPF) and Dr Meenakshi Nagendran from the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The Governor was thanked for his support for the Bali starling conservation program on the island of Nusa Penida, operated

by FNPF, and stated his willingness to help FNPF with further Bali starling (and black-winged startling) community conservation initiatives.

Planned for the Besikalung Temple area on Bali, the Governor promised to instruct the Forestry Department and the Environment Department to consult with FNPF about the program’s development, and to provide budget support from Provincial Government resources. HSI Australia and the WLT have been supporting FNPF’s work on Nusa Penida for many years now.

Notorious tiger poacher Bheema Bawaria arrested with tiger skin, tiger bones, live turtles and elephant body parts on New Delhi border In July this year, in a daring operation involving several vehicles and a daylight chase and ambush through the streets of the New Delhi National Capital Region Gurgoan area, notorious poacher Bheema Bawaria was arrested red handed with a tiger skin, tiger bones (entire skeleton) in a joint operation conducted by Humane Society International’s Indian partner Wildlife SOS, NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority), Haryana Forest Department, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), WCCB (Wildlife Crime Control Bureau) and the Haryana Police.

According to information from the NTCA, Bheema Bawaria was earlier arrested in 2009 with a tiger skeleton in Gurgaon and has been absconding since. He is a repeat offender and has been arrested in several wildlife crime cases over the years linking him to the big names in wildlife crime like Sansar Chand who is now in a Rajasthan jail.

Several enforcement agencies like the NTCA, CBI, WCCB, Haryana Forest department and the Police have been on the lookout for this man for years. The anti-poaching and surveillance wing of Wildlife SOS has been on the trail of Bheema Bawaria and kept him under constant surveillance for over 18 months to confirm his whereabouts, contacts and trade linkages.

“Operation Bheema” initiated by Wildlife SOS had the support and cooperation of Dr Rajesh Gopal, Member Secretary, NTCA who was in touch with Wildlife SOS since September 2011. This operation indicates admirable cooperation and liaison between Wildlife SOS and multiple enforcement agencies. Wildlife SOS’s Anti-poaching Unit “Forestwatch!” is financially supported by HSI, One Voice and Hauser Bears.

HSI Campaign Director Michael Kennedy said that, “It is shocking to see the extent of wildlife crime in India today and congratulate Wildlife SOS for their ongoing successes. We are very confident that future Wildlife SOS and other NGO and enforcement agency partnerships can help check wildlife crime in a more effective manner.”

Wildlife SOS India For further information and photos please contact Aishuwarya Sudarshan at aishuwarya@wildlifesos.org

“Being a repeat offender and a frequent visitor to jail has made him a hardened wildlife criminal. Jail and imprisonment is no longer a disincentive for wildlife criminals like Bheema. His increasing confidence of being able to get out on bail and go back to killing tigers makes him a very dangerous criminal. It is critically important to confirm the international linkages and routes he was using and get to the bottom of his network and neutralize such gangs”, said Kartick Satyanarayan, co-founder and chairman of Wildlife SOS who led the operation against Bheema.

Delhi and the National Capital Region of Delhi is used as an intermediate trade route before the contraband leaves the country for international destinations like SE Asia and China where the Tiger body parts are then used as ingredients in preparation of aphrodisiac and Chinese traditional medicines. The arrest of Bheema has the potential to reveal further critical links to his suppliers and locations where he and his close associates may have trapped and killed tigers in the past across India.

Kartick Satyanarayan (WSOS – far right) with Police & Forest Department teams after a successful anti-poaching operation.

25

Preventing the extinction of the hicatee turtle The campaign to help prevent the extinction of the hicatee turtle in Belize is one of 19 projects in 10 countries (see table below) that HSI has helped finance during 2012 through its partnership with the global Turtle Conservation Fund (TCF), a collection of leading conservation organisations* dedicated to the protection of Critically Endangered freshwater turtles and tortoises around the world. Total funding for 2012 was US$87,800.

Nationwide outreach campaign to prevent extinction of Dermatemys mawii (hicatee turtle) in Belize (McLoughlin, Lee. 2011): The populations of Central American River Turtle in Belize, where it is known as the “Hicatee”, were until recently believed to be the last strongholds for the species. However, recent surveys conducted by the Turtle Survival Alliance in April 2010 indicate that it is now in very sharp decline in Belize as well — the populations and range of the species has significantly decreased since the last assessment in the 1980-90s. The greatest threat to this species is believed to be human over-consumption.

In order to address the conservation issue of this species, Belize has convened a National Hicatee Conservation Network, an overarching body that will coordinate efforts, research, advocacy, and debates relating to conservation of this species. Awareness of Hicatee’s critically endangered status and of the laws pertaining to its hunting has been highlighted as the most important short-term solution to address the problem. In the beginning of 2011, Ya’axché Conservation Trust, took the lead on developing and launching a nationwide awareness campaign. The campaign used a multimedia approach to reach a vast majority of the Belizeans. It is essential that this campaign continues in 2012 to reinforce the messages and to maintain the momentum. The proposed project will carry forward the awareness and outreach campaign aiming to ensure the survival of this Critically Endangered turtle. All funding requested from the Turtle Conservation Fund will be used for the purpose of publishing campaign materials.

Hicatee turtle. Peter Paul van Dijk/Turtle Conservation Fund.

Overall goal: Prevent extinction of the Critically Endangered Hicatee Turtle; Project goal: Reduce hunting and consumption of hicatee turtle in Belize; Objective 1. Build knowledge and enhance awareness of environmental laws and Hicatee status among hunters and consumers of the turtle across Belize; Objective 2. Support the adaptive management design of Hicatee awareness campaigns across Belize. * Conservation International • International Union for Conservation of Nature / Species Survival

Commission / Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group • Turtle Survival Alliance • European Association of Zoos and Aquaria / Shellshock Campaign • Chelonian Research Foundation • Fort Worth Zoo • Wildlife Conservation Society • Behler Chelonian Center / Turtle Conservancy • Chelonian Research Institute • Humane Society International Australia.

Freshwater turtle conservation programs recently approved by the Turtle Conservation Fund Platt, Kalyar, Steven G. Platt and Me Me Soe (Wildlife Conservation Society and Turtle Survival Alliance). 2011. Technical assistance for the Turtle Rescue Facility in Lashio, Myanmar.

Schoppe, Sabine. 2011. Community-based conservation of the Palawanendemic Philippine forest turtle (Siebenrockiella leytensis) through information education.

Khin Myo Myo, Win Ko Ko, Myint Myint Oo, Kaw Moe, and Steven G. Platt (Wildlife Conservation Society). 2011. Conservation outreach program in communities surrounding Minzontaung Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar.

Shepherd, Loretta Ann. 2011. Freshwater turtle and tortoise rescue centre, Malaysia.

Páez, Vivian P, Laura del Pilar Echeverri Garcia, and Ezequiel González León. 2011. Demographic status of populations of Podocnemis lewyana under different levels of hunting pressure in the middle Magdalena drainage, Colombia (revised title — Proposal for the selection of a conservation area for Podocnemis lewyana in Colombia).

Velosoa, Juliette. 2011. Social and environmental management plan for the creation of the new protected area at Lake Ambondrobe for the conservation of Erymnochelys madagascariensis, Madagascar.

Kuchling, Gerald, Lu Shunqing and Rao Dingqi. 2011. Identification and survey of Rafetus swinhoei in Yunnan, China.

Guntoro, Joko. 2011. Survey to estimate the population of painted terrapin (Batagur borneoensis) in Aceh Tamiang District, Province Aceh, Indonesia.

Kuchling, Gerald, Nantarika Chansue, and Lu Shunqing. 2011. Reproductive evaluation of the last male and artificial insemination of the last female Yangtze giant softshell turtle (Rafetus swinhoei) in China.

26

McLoughlin, Lee. 2011. Nationwide outreach campaign to prevent extinction of Dermatemys mawii (hicatee turtle) in Belize.

Vinke, Thomas and Sabine Vinke. 2011. Red-listing workshop “chelonians of the southern cone of South America”, 11-15 April 2011, Filadelfia, Chaco, Paraguay.

Lescher, Timothy C. 2012. The distribution, movement, and conservation of the Critically Endangered Southeast Asian narrow-headed softshell turtle (Chitra chitra) in Sumatra.

Kyaw Moe, Khin Myo Myo, Win Ko Ko, and Steven G. Platt. 2012. Integrated conservation of the Burmese roofed turtle, Batagur trivittata in Nam Thalet Chaung, Myanmar.

Steven G. Platt, and Me Me Soe. 2012. A survey to determine the conservation status of Geochelone platynota in Alaungdaw Kathapa and Mahamyaing National Parks, Myanmar.

Chen, Pelf-Nyok. 2012. Research and conservation of southern river terrapin (Batagur affinis) in the Kemaman River, Terengganu, Malaysia.

Velosoa, Juliette. 2012. Nest monitoring and protection of Erymnochelys madagascariensis at Lake Ambondrobe, Madagascar.

Currylow, Andrea F., and Mbolatiana Ranaivoarivelo. 2012. Monitoring and conservation of wild Astrochelys to evaluate protected reintroduction efforts.

Madagascar.

Randriamahazo, Herilala, Tahafe Soary Randrianjafizanaka and Sylvain Mahazotahy. 2012. Development of reintroduction techniques and population monitoring of Radiated Tortoises (Astrochelys radiata) at two important Turtle Survival Alliance sites in southern Madagascar: Ampotaka and Antsakoamasy.

Hudson, Rick. 2012. Launching the TSA’s Turtle Survival Center.

Issue 21 2012

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Sea turtles — protecting olive ridley nesting beaches on Bali I Wayan Wiradnyana Indonesia is a country with the longest coast line in the world and one of the most biologically rich. Of the world’s seven sea turtle species, six can be found in Indonesian waters: green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), leatherback (Dermochelys coracea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the flatback (Natator depressus).

Bali is an Indonesian island well-known for its tourism industry and for its abundance of sea turtles and nesting beaches, although it has developed an unfortunate reputation for the high number of sea turtles in trade over the past two decades — becoming a focus of national and international attention in the process.

The response of the Indonesian public to the issue of legal/illegal sea turtle trade elicits varied reactions, positive and negative, and for Balinese society itself, it has not always been something to be proud of. However, there are several sea turtle nesting locations along Bali’s many glorious beaches where, over the past few years, positive community reactions have seen vastly improved protection for such sea turtle nesting sites. This is true for example for the local communities at Kuta Beach and at Tegal Besar Beach, Klungkung, not far north of Kuta, where olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) have been laying their eggs for millions of years.

The Bali Sea Turtle Society (BSTS) is a society for the protection of all sea turtles, based in Bali on Kuta Beach. BSTS works effectively for sea turtle conservation by involving the whole of the local community through a truly “Community Based Conservation” program and education campaign.

This program is funded by Humane Society International Australia.

Kuta Beach — Badung Regency, Bali In the Badung Regency, BSTS works together with the Kuta Traditional Village (in particular with Kuta Beach Security) who are responsible for the management of Kuta village. In 2012, three times as many olive ridley nests where found and relocated on Kuta Beach as the year before, breaking the record number of nests previously recorded in 2010. This is largely due to the effective distribution of sea turtle protection information to Kuta Beach visitors, hotel security officers and beach security officers, throughout Legian and Seminyak by BSTS. Up until August 31 this year, 233 nests were located by BSTS, with more than 22,800 eggs relocated to the main hatchery on Kuta Beach, with every hatchling released safely back into the ocean. Around 77 new females were tagged this year, while 97 nesting turtles were already found to have recovery tags from years 2010 and 2011. Given the number of eggs laid this year, BSTS also needed to build five more new protected hatcheries on Kuta Beach.

Tegal Besar Beach, in Klungkung Regency Bali In Klungkung Regency, BSTS works with all community sectors within the Tegal Besar Traditional Village (called Banjar Adat Tegal Besar) including the Sekaa Teruna youth group, fishermans group, and the traditional community as a whole.

This year, some 20 nests were found on Tegal Besar Beach, with 1,796 eggs collected in total. To the present, 14 nests have been relocated on the seashore, protected by fishing net which guards them from the high tide — the hatchlings can then go directly to the sea. From the six other nests, 435 hatchings have been set free up to the time of publication.

The original hatchery on the beach was totally inadequate, lacking enough sunlight, and occupied by a huge ant colony that disturbed the turtle nesting site. The new hatchery management arrangements are now proving to be extremely effective.

I Wayan Wiradnyana Bali Sea Turtle Society wayan@baliseaturtle.org

Bali Sea Turtle Society.

Countdown to the next CITES meeting begins Unprecedented efforts proposed for shark conservation The list of proposals for the upcoming 16th Conference of Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CoP16) has now been published. The meeting will be held in Bangkok from 3–15 March 2013.

68 proposals have been put forward by 38 countries to the CITES Secretariat for consideration at CoP16. These include 7 shark and ray species including the scalloped hammerhead, smooth hammerhead and great hammerhead sharks, the porbeagle shark, the oceanic whitetip shark, manta rays, and three stingray species. In addition, Australia has also proposed the up-listing to Appendix I for the freshwater sawfish — a long awaited move after Australia had previously blocked the listing in Appendix I of this species alongside the rest of its family.

The US is also proposing the up-listing of the polar bear to Appendix I, and Australia is proposing the removal of eight species from the Appendices, following the CITES Review of Appendices which recommended their removal as they all involve extinct species, such as the Thylacine.

HSI will be actively working on all the proposals as part of the Species Survival Network (SSN) in the lead up to and at the CoP16. http://www.ssn.org/.

27

Rhinos continue to be poached at horrendous rate Humane Society International has long been involved in the fight to protect rhinos in their natural habitats in Africa and Asia and to campaign against both illegal and any proposed legal trade in rhino parts. In cooperation with our office in Washington and with many NGO partners in nations that hold highly threatened rhino populations, we have supported anti-poaching programs designed to reduce the rising global wildlife trade carnage. HSI Australia financially supports anti-poaching and anti-wildlife trade programs in Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

HSI helps SanWild protect its rhinos A short note from Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) member Louise Joubert, Managing Director of SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary in South Africa, on the state of the rhino poaching dilemma is produced below. HSI Australia has recently provided SanWild with the resources to purchase six semi-automatic rifles to properly arm its rangers with effective equipment to combat increasingly violent and dangerous poachers: SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary, South Africa: The massacre of rhinos continues in South Africa and at least 455 rhinos have been slaughtered by poachers up to October 2012 which already exceeds the drastic kill figure of 448 in 2011.

It is estimated that up to 650 animals may die this year at the hand of poachers. Adding to this number the number of rhinos legally hunted and those that die through natural mortalities, South Africa stands to lose in excess of 1200 rhinos in 2012.

South Africa is a country divided on how to stop the slaughter of this iconic species. On the one hand the National Park authorities seem to fight a losing battle to end the mass slaughter of rhinos under their protection. Adding to their problems to root out corrupt rangers and officials is the fact that parks are open to the public and that the exact locations of rhinos are easy to pass on to poaching syndicates.

Many private rhino owners have joined the pro-use lobby that is calling on the South African government and the world to re-open the trade in rhino horn, as they see this as the only way to end the slaughter. Of course, those that drive the arguments in favour of reopening the trade stand to literally “make a killing” on short term financial gain and present the trade as the “silver bullet” that will end the poaching.

Many of them have systematically been purchasing more and more rhinos. One rhino owner in particular owns in excess of 600 rhinos and have been dehorning and stockpiling rhino horns for many years. It is anticipated that the local trade in rhino horn may very well be opened locally and from there it is only logic to presume that the South African government will present a proposal to CITES to reopen the trade sooner rather than later.

SanWild.

Earlier this year for example, HSI supported and attended a “Rhinos in Crisis Conference” in Beijing, organised by the Capital Animal Welfare Association, which brought together wildlife experts and conservationists from around the world (one of the largest gatherings of international rhino conservationists ever held in China).

Their message to China: Rhinos are being poached out of existence, and Chinese consumers’ demand for rhino horn must end. Recent reports suggest that rhino horn is selling for up to $65,000 per kg on the black market. Recent news also suggests that Vietnam has thus far avoided signing an MoU with South Africa, better attempting to control the rhino horn trade, with Vietnam stating that it was unable to sign the document at a recent meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in India.

The good news is that South Africa has not put forward a proposal for the next CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) seeking to legalise international rhino horn trade.

HSI is also a long-term member of the global Species Survival Network (SSN) which specialises in combatting the international wildlife trade. The SSN Rhino Newsletter is produced by the SSN Rhino Working Group as a service to CITES Parties, and up-to-date information on the rhino trade can be found within its pages, and can be found at: http://www.ssn.org/ Documents/Rhino_news/Rhino_August_2012.pdf

28

However the public at large and a number of conservationist and animal welfare organisations are totally opposed to the re-opening of the trade in rhino horn. Sadly at this stage it appears as if the lobby to reopen the trade is rapidly gaining momentum purely because many private rhino owners are simply at a loss of how to tackle the massive challenge to end the poaching. But at least we have had the good news that South Africa will not be approaching CITES in Bangkok in 2013 to allow a legal trade in rhino horn.

Protecting rhinos on private land is a costly and very expensive exercise and one most rhino owners are not willing to do. In reality rhinos have become a huge liability for their owners and many of them are starting to sell rhinos off to whoever is willing to pay their price. Unfortunately this results in even more exploitation. Many are purchased, dehorned and dumped on properties where there is little or no protection for the animals themselves. Some have been purchased and have just recently been exported live to Vietnam via Bangkok.

If South Africa is to win the war on rhino poachers the physical protection of rhinos and security measures on private land and parks will need to be stepped up drastically. On private land it will have to be adopted as a lifestyle and an important aspect of conservation management. It remains to be seen however how many private land owners will be willing to incur the financial expenditure associated with deployment of a highly specialised “rhino army” on their properties. Political negotiations and solutions alone will not end the poaching. The dehorning or farming of rhinos can never supply the growing demand and on a continent where poverty remains a huge problem criminal syndicates will continue to flourish; especially in a country like South Africa where there is major breakdown in provincial and national government structures such as conservation, police and national justice. News about SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary’s rhino protection program can be found on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TheSanWildRhinoSanctuary.

Louse Joubert Founder trustee SanWild Wildlife Sanctuary louise@sanwild.org

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Albatross update Longline TAP review HSI is continuing to play an active role in the review of the ‘Threat Abatement Plan for the Incidental Catch (or Bycatch) of Seabirds during Oceanic Longline Fishing Operations’, also known as the ‘Longline TAP’. Since being responsible for the nomination for the key threatening process that led to the development of the longline TAP, HSI has retained an active interest in the document and remains a part of the TAP team.

This TAP has been incredibly successful in reducing the number of seabird deaths from longlines, and HSI continues to urge the fishing industry to continue its excellent progress towards zero seabird bycatch.

In August, the team reconvened to discuss a revised Longline TAP, as the plan is due for its five year review having been last updated in 2006.

HSI will continue to engage in this process in the coming months to ensure the best possible plan for the next five year period.

Progress made on seabird trawling deaths Whilst progress against the threat of longline bycatch for seabirds has been made since the introduction of the longline TAP, HSI recently identified the threat posed by trawl fisheries in Australia. The main threat posed to seabirds by trawling operations is from striking the warp wires holding the gear in place whilst it is in the water. This threat is particularly heightened whilst the processing of the catch is underway, as fish waste is thrown overboard.

Once the full scale of this threat became clear, HSI sought to ensure that measures were put in place to minimise seabird bycatch as much as possible. We are pleased to report that all trawler vessels now have in place Seabird Management Plans, as of the end of October 2011. This requires vessels and their crew to be aware of the potential for seabirds to be impacted by trawl operations and to have physical mitigation measures in place while fishing to minimise seabird bycatch. Whilst this is not HSI’s ideal preference of a sector wide approach, we are continuing to work with the fisheries agency and other stakeholders to ensure the best outcome for seabirds.

Issue 21 2012

International negotiations continue Globally, HSI continues to attend meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) to ensure that the conservation of seabirds, sharks and other species caught as bycatch in the southern bluefin tuna fishery is reported on and reduced. In the past six months HSI’s seabird expert, Nigel Brothers, has attended the working group focussed on bycatch species (the ‘Ecologically Related Species Working Group’) as well as both the Compliance and Extended Commission meetings (ERS meeting 27-30 March 2012, Tokyo, Japan; Compliance Committee 27-29 September 2012 and Extended Commission meeting 1-4 October, both in Takamatsu City, Japan).

Sadly it appears that reporting of bycatch to CCSBT is still totally inadequate and lacking in many areas, to the extent that the number of interactions with seabirds and other species is still not clear. Whilst this remains a confused picture, mitigation and any progress in addressing bycatch concerns are also delayed. This is an issue of great frustration to HSI, which we continue to pursue with the aim that all CCSBT members are reporting on bycatch interactions and complying with all necessary conservation and management measures, and reporting back on this compliance to CCSBT.

Domestic SBT catch HSI also believes that all sources of mortality of SBT should be taken into account to ensure the species the best chances of recovery. SBT are a prized recreational catch, with an active recreational fishery in Victoria in particular. As a result, these recreational fisheries are seeking reassurance that they will be able to continue to fish for SBT. To date, Australia has not accounted for recreational catch nor reported this to the CCSBT. At the most recent Commission meeting in October this issue drew some attention from parties to CCSBT, such as Japan, who are keen for Australia to account for this catch. Australia gave a commitment to implement a nationwide survey to obtain a better estimate of its total recreational catch. HSI notes that accounting for the magnitude of recreational catch is going to be a complicated Commonwealth/State issue to resolve but we believe this is essential so that all sources of SBT mortality can be properly accounted for in Australia’s allocated catch.

Monitoring is now underway to establish whether these mitigation measures are in fact working to minimise seabird bycatch. This should be complete by early 2013, and HSI looks forward to continuing to ensure that the numbers of seabirds killed by trawlers continues to decrease through the introduction of innovative fishing practices.

SBT fishing crew convicted for shooting seabirds In early 2012, HSI received disturbing news that the crew of a southern bluefin tuna fishing vessel had been illegally shooting seabirds for entertainment. HSI pursued this matter further, submitting a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) and the South Australian fisheries department to establish further details on this troubling report.

Subsequently in April 2012, AFMA issued a statement that seven fishermen had been convicted in the Port Lincoln Magistrate Court for criminal breaches associated with the illegal fishing of southern bluefin tuna, the shooting of protected seabirds and littering at sea. The men, crew members aboard two commercial southern bluefin tuna tow boats, were convicted and ordered to pay fines totalling $22,000.

As a result of its FOI request HSI received troubling video footage of the crew shortly after the court had delivered its verdict. The footage shows the crew laughing and joking as they take pot shots at the seabirds from the deck of the fishing vessel. HSI welcomes the action taken by AFMA for these despicable acts of violence against seabirds and hopes that the fines awarded will ensure no repeat of the animal cruelty observed.

Waved albatross. Nigel Brothers.

29

CCAMLR takes a brave new step?

As this Technical Bulletin goes to print, the 25 member states who are Party to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) are in deep debate in Hobart over the potential declaration of massive marine reserves around the Antarctic continent.

Proposals for marine reserves are on the table from Australia and France backed by the European Union (1.9 million square kilometres), the United States and New Zealand are proposing protection for the Ross Sea (originally with conflicting proposals), and the United Kingdom is proposing a system of reserves for the Antarctic ice shelves.

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA) however is proposing a far larger and more comprehensive system of reserves as can been seen on the map opposite, and is calling for example for 3.6 million square kilometres of the Ross Sea to be protected.

The US and New Zealand resolved their differences over the Ross Sea plan during the course of the meeting, and are proposing a marine protected area (MPA) of some 2.27 square million kilometres with a 1.6 million square kilometres being designated a “no-take” zone.

It would be the world’s largest marine reserve, but CCAMLR requires a consensus decision so there is much battering still to be done.

HSI is a long-term Council member of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and a Partner in the Antarctic Ocean Alliance who have both fielded large teams of lobbyists at the CCAMLR meeting to urge Parties to provide concrete MPA outcomes from the Conference.

HSI consultant Alistair Graham is acting as an adviser on the official Australian Government Delegation to CCAMLR, representing NGO conservation interests.

STOP PRESS: Bad news from Hobart. CCAMLR’s 25 members failed to reach a consensus on the establishment of new MPAs, with moves to do so blocked by both China and Russia.

But for only the second time in its history, CCAMLR has agreed to convene a special intercessional meeting in Germany in July, 2013, to continue discussions on the issue.

ASOC and AOA members have been bitterly disappointed by this outcome, but will be making all-out efforts to see the designation of a big MPA in July next year.

30

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

31

Antarctica and National Heritage In 2005, HSI prepared a detailed scientific nomination that sought the listing and subsequently improved protection for the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) and the adjacent Australian Whale Sanctuary (Exclusive Economic Zone — EEZ) under the National Heritage provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Commonwealth has, since that time, failed to trigger an assessment of the AAT/EEZ for listing as a National Heritage site, at one point noting the diplomatic difficulties in undertaking such an assessment in the context of the Antarctic Treaty agreement.

This is of course a highly hypocritical position, given Australia’s very public determination to enlarge its Antarctic Territory claim to the limits of an Extended Continental Shelf (350 nautical miles) beyond the existing 200 nautical mile EEZ. HSI resubmitted the proposal in 2008 and 2011 and will be doing so again before the end of 2012. In recent correspondence with the heritage section of SEWPAC, the Department agreed that the AAT “may have national heritage values”, and so we have not given up hope. HSI was extremely pleased however, as a Member of the Australian Heritage Council at the time, to help facilitate the National Heritage listing of Mawson’s Hut and Mawson’s Hut Historic Site back in January, 2005.

Notwithstanding the National Heritage listing of 19 million hectares of the West Kimberley in 2011, the current Labor Government has systematically set about destroying a viable National Heritage program, although the Coalition Government first started to weaken heritage provisions under the EPBC Act in 2006. Beginning with Minister Garrett and continued by Minister Burke, funding to the heritage program has been slashed, chronic delays in assessing nominations have ensued (some politically motivated) and controversial nominations avoided or buried, with proposals in the pipeline to scratch public nominations, and have development approvals that may have a significant impact upon heritage sites (Matters of National Environmental Significance) devolved to the states and territories. There are very bad times looming for National Heritage (and potentially World Heritage) protection in Australia.

Antarctic campaign memories...

It has been 30 years since the entry into force and the first meeting of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and start of the negotiations for a proposed Antarctic minerals convention — and consequently the start of the global NGO campaign to oppose such a regime. It is also 100 years since Scott and Amusden reached the South Pole.

The authors of this short piece have thumbed the depths of their fading campaign memories to recall those NGOs and individuals involved in the early days of Antarctic campaigning in Sydney. The origins centered on the activities of Friends of the Earth (FOE), the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and the Antarctica Project, based at The Fund for Animals Ltd (FFA) on Sydney’s northern beaches, and in Washington, DC. The seeds of this first global Antarctic campaign were sowed in the mid-70s. ASOC and the Antarctica Project were the brain-child of Jim Barnes, an American lawyer based in Washington DC, who began to alert the world to the dangers facing the last great environmental frontier.

His foresight triggered the start of broad non-government organisational and governmental action to safeguard the frozen continent.

The start of a Sydney hub for action on Antarctica occurred when the Coordinator of Friends of the Earth, Michael Kennedy (at the invitation of Jim Barnes) joined as a member of ASOC in 1978. That year, FOE had commissioned one of the very first Australian NGO policy publications about the future conservation needs of the last great wilderness continent, written by Dr Keith Suter, FOE’s international law adviser.

The book, “World Law and the Last Wilderness”, with an impassioned foreword by Jacques-Yves Cousteau, called for the internationalisation of Antarctica. It is also important to note the support given to FOE and FFA over a number of years by Senator Chris Puplick, one of only a few real environmental friends in the Federal Parliament at the time.

FOE spent those early years campaigning hard with ASOC and its members to ensure the conclusion of the very first ecosystem based management regime for the protection of Southern Ocean marine environment. CCAMLR emerged from successful final negotiations in Canberra in 1980. At that meeting, FOE and ACF provided one of the first individuals to represent the non-government conservation community on an Australian delegation to a global conservation treaty negotiating session (courtesy of Foreign Affairs Minister Andrew Peacock).

It was also the meeting which saw the largest gathering on of ASOC members to date, including Barnes, Kennedy and soon to be a member of the Sydney team, Michael Bland, past National Coordinator for FOE New Zealand and representing Greenpeace NZ (at the time, ASOC had approximately 20 organisational members in 10 countries).

While CCAMLR was nearing the end of negotiations, government preparations were already being made for the initiation of talks on the development of an international agreement on the exploitation on minerals in Antarctica, and NGOs in Sydney and around the world began to prepare for a fight.

Adelie penguins. © Shutterstock/Axily.

32

During 1981, Kennedy was invited to join The Fund for Animals Ltd as its founding Campaign Director, establishing a new office in Manly. Joining FFA Director Verna Simpson (who ensured the money kept coming) he brought with him FOE stalwart Alistair Machin and Dr Keith Suter, forming the base of the new Antarctic campaigning team. Within a short period of time, the Antarctic team expanded to include Karla Bell, Lyn Goldsworthy, Annette Horseler, Alistair Graham, Ian Fry and Michael Bland. Alistair Graham had come to Australia from New Zealand, having

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

already sunk his teeth into the anti-minerals regime campaign, including acting as an adviser on the New Zealand Government negotiating team (and ASOC New Zealand). Mention should also be made of FOE/FFA volunteer, Ross Burton.

In 1981/82, Southern Hemisphere offices for both The Antarctica Project and ASOC were established at FFA, with Barnes and Kennedy acting as joint coordinators of ASOC globally, and Annette Horseler and Lyn Goldsworthy carrying out subsequent coordinating roles for ASOC/FFA acted as ASOC’s Southern Hemisphere Secretariat providing both the financial resources and a focus for the growing campaign against the proposed minerals regime — developing with Jim Barnes and colleagues in the ASOC network — a strategy to see the eventual downfall of the minerals negotiations. The Sydney campaign office worked particularly well with our colleagues in New Zealand, notably Roger Wilson and Cath Wallace.

The effort to bring Greenpeace International (GPI) onboard the Antarctic campaign was a key moment in the global strategy to protect the southern continent, led by Cornelia Durrant, Sidney Holt and Jim Barnes) and resulted in David McTaggart agreeing to a major role for GPI. Roger Wilson was hired as their first Antarctic Coordinator, and this proved a major turning point for the minerals campaign, leading to Antarctic expeditions and the establishment of the World Park Base, the UN debates on the Question of Antarctica, for which Cornelia Durrant, Kelly Rigg and Jim Barnes wrote a series of briefings for the UN General Assembly, which included leaking texts of the proposed minerals agreement.

The Antarctica Project/ASOC teams in Washington and Sydney worked hard on developing new global policies aimed at the total protection of Antarctica, expending large amounts of resources and energy attending international Antarctic talks. All of the individuals mentioned in this text shared the very heavy work load in pursuing good Antarctic conservation policy around the world.

A great deal of time was spent briefing ASOC members in preparation for all Antarctic Treaty, CCAMLR and minerals negotiations meetings, and preparing policy recommendations for each global gathering. Policy papers prepared included a, “Draft of a Proposal for a Consolidated Environmental Protection Regime in Antarctica”, an “Outline of a World Park Proposal”, a draft “Antarctic Conservation Convention”, a proposal containing “Essential features for Additional Protective Arrangements involving a new type of Protected Area in Antarctica”, and supporting the production of the Jim Barnes’ book, “Let’s Save Antarctica” that was published in 1982 in Australia.

Between 1980 and 1986 for example, Sydney FFA/ASOC/Antarctica Project staff attended a total of 15 Antarctic related global treaty meetings, covering CCAMLR (5), CRAMRA (8) and ATCMs (2) in eight countries, to say nothing of the impressive globe-trotting undertaken by Jim Barnes and colleagues in ASOC’s office in the US, including Cornelia Durrant and Kelly Rigg. These international policy efforts included attendance at the 1981 IUCN General Assembly in Christchurch and the 1982 World Congress on National Parks in Bali, working to support critical Resolutions passed on the conservation of Antarctica at each meeting.

The growing expertise and respect being gained by the work of FFA/ASOC and the Antarctica Project was further recognised when, in 1984, Lyn Goldsworthy, the Antarctica Project Coordinator, was granted a passage to Antarctica on the Australian Government chartered supply ship IceBird, visiting Australia’s Casey research station.

ASOC staff from Sydney (Michael Kennedy), Jim Barnes and Cornelia Durrant (GPI’s Whales Coordinator) also attended the International Whaling Commission meeting in the UK in 1982, which saw the vote in support of global moratorium on commercial whaling finally pass — which was very good news for whales in Antarctic waters.

Alistair Graham, Jim Barns & Michael Kennedy at the 2012 Antarctic Treaty Meeting in Hobart.

In 1984, FFA instigated an important Antarctic research program, to be carried out by the UK based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) under the supervision of Professor John Beddington. This work aimed to throw light on some of the central problems of management of the Southern Ocean, including to what extent if any there is a krill surplus and the impact of krill harvesting on the depleted baleen whales.

Education efforts were also an important part of the FFA/ASOC/Antarctic Project activities. At the time, FFA was one of the largest membership groups in the country, with some 25,000 supporters. This supporter base was used extensively to lobby the Australian and other governments over appropriate Antarctic conservation policy (while also giving generously to the campaign). Significant national advertising campaigns were also undertaken through the mass media, heavily promoting the need to conserve the wildlife of Antarctica. These adverts were paid for by Mailex International, the major corporate sponsor of FFA. FFA’s Lance Kennedy also produced a large travelling display on Antarctica which was hawked around major Australian conservation venues.

The above represents just a small part of a very large story, that here centres on the role played by Sydney NGOs in the globally successful ASOC campaigns. Nearly all the NGOs mentioned in this brief text carried on working on Antarctic matters to some degree, witnessing the passage of a global moratorium on minerals extraction in Antarctica, right up to the CCAMLR meeting in Hobart this year.

Jim Barnes has never given up, and has received several awards for his life’s work in helping secure Antarctica’s future, including the Officer of the Order of the Golden Ark in 1998 from His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the Sierra Club International Earthcare Award in 2005. Similarly, Lyn Goldsworthy was awarded the Order of Australia in 1993 for “service to the conservation and the environment.” Alistair Graham received a 2008 Australia Day Medal — for “achievement’ in Southern Ocean conservation.”

33

Annual whaling talks held in Panama City HSI once again had strong representation at the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, which this year was held in Panama City, Panama in June. Our colleagues from the US office formed the HSI delegation, and HSI Australia was represented as one of two NGO representatives on the Australian delegation. This position, voted on by the NGO community ensures that HSI can continue to work closely with the Government for the best outcomes for whales and dolphins.

This year’s IWC was somewhat different in character from previous years, as parties returned to voting to decide on key agenda items. This is in contrast to past years where the spirit of consensus had been sought as part of the Future of the IWC process.

Overall this year’s meeting resulted in good progress on a number of conservation issues, including ship strikes, whale watching, conservation management plans and a new addition of marine debris. It is encouraging to see this increased focus on conservation, and HSI and other groups continue to work with all governments to encourage this important aspect of the IWC’s work program. In another step forward, observers were also permitted to make a number of interventions at the meeting. Although still far from ideal compared with other international conventions, this is an improvement on previous years.

There were however also some disappointing outcomes from the meeting, not least the failure to get the required three-quarters majority to implement the Buenos Aires Group proposal for a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary, decided on by a vote in plenary.

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling was a crucial issue debated at the meeting, with the quotas for these up for renewal. All with the exception of Greenland the quotas were agreed, not before there was some debate and a vote on the St Vincent and Grenadine hunt, where many parties highlighted the lack of historical whaling, noting substantive concerns raised by NGOs. The Greenland quota also promoted some debate, and a vote held failed to reach the three-quarter majority required to accept the proposed amendment to increase the quota. Denmark promised to go home and think about the future, and it is not clear what their next steps will be regarding their desired quota increase.

One of the most concerning parts of the meeting was the announcement by the Government of the Republic of Korea that they were considering conducting a ‘scientific whaling’ program under Article VIII of the convention of an endangered stock of minke whales, and that they would put the proposal to the IWC’s Scientific Committee for consideration next year. Korean fishermen have ‘whaled’ using the ‘inadvertent bycatch’ rule for many years. Korea reported a catch of 458 during the five years encompassing

HSI’s Alexia Wellbelove and Minister Tony Burke at the Australian Government reception at IWC64, Panama City, Panama. Photo Chris Schweizer.

1999-2003, but genetic testing of whale meat in Korean markets suggests that as many as 827 individual animals were taken through this loophole.

In addition over the past year 21 minke whales have been harpooned, for which they have been fined under Korean law. However, this new announcement caught many by surprise, as it was an obvious intent to formalise a whaling program that has never properly ceased under the moratorium.

Understandably, the Korean announcement caused some uproar, both in Panama and internationally, with Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard condemning the Korean Government’s plans in a statement. Following the meeting and the concerns raised by numerous countries, the Republic of Korea appears to have backtracked from this announcement, although there is yet to be written confirmation that the proposed scientific whaling program will not go ahead. HSI will continue to monitor this situation carefully.

The meeting also voted on a number of important administrative issues.

This included agreement that the annual IWC plenary meetings be moved to biennially, with the next IWC meeting due to be held in mid-2014, at a location yet to be agreed. The Scientific Committee will continue to meet annually, with the next meeting held in the Republic of Korea in May/June 2013.

Footnote: With the Australian Government’s case against the Japanese Government in the International Court of Justice likely to proceed in 2013, HSI’s plans to take the Japanese whaling company to the Federal Court for “contempt of court” in ignoring the Federal Court injunction against and continuing to whale in Australia’s Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica — is on hold. We are advised that such an action may jeopardise the ICJ proceedings in favour of Japan.

HSI gains first legislative protection for hammerhead sharks In May, the New South Wales Government confirmed that the scalloped and great hammerhead sharks would be protected under the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994, as endangered and vulnerable respectively. These listings followed scientific nominations from HSI, which we submitted to both State and Federal legislative processes. In addition, the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee has recently confirmed that it also proposes to list the smooth hammerhead shark as vulnerable under the Fisheries Management Act 1994. HSI supports this additional listing which we hope will be confirmed by the NSW Fisheries Minister in due course.

Subsequent to the NSW process, HSI’s nominations for great and scalloped hammerhead sharks have also been accepted on the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act). These species, in addition to the smooth hammerhead shark are now undergoing assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to determine whether they should be listed under the EPBC Act in due course.

34

Whilst we are not likely to see a decision on these listings until late 2015, we remain hopeful that much needed protection will be afforded to these species.

In the meantime, as a result of international nominations from European Union Member States and Costa Rica, the porbeagle shark and the scalloped hammerhead have been included in Appendix III of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). This listing requires Australia to issue a certificate of origin when exporting these species. This information will assist in ensuring we can better understand the international trade in these threatened species.

STOP PRESS: HSI gaining traction in European Union. 566 Members of the European Parliament recently voted to close the loopholes in the EU shark finning ban, 47 voted against with 16 abstentions. It still requires the approval of the European Council.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Issue 21 2012

HSI nominates “recreational game fishing” as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act On June 5th, 2011, HSI nominated “Recreational game fishing — competition game fishing especially for sharks, tuna and marlins” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

HSI has for some time been concerned about the conservation status of many of these species, and actively sought their protection separately through threatened species listings under the EPBC Act.

In developing the scientific nomination, HSI was required to provide, “Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent”, and “Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment”.

We are concerned that many of these populations are being impacted by recreational game fishing, despite much of this fishing being catch and release.

In preparing its nomination, HSI chose to focus on recreational fishing that is competition game fishing, especially fishing for sharks, tuna and marlins. All other forms of recreational fishing are excluded.

In competition game fishing, the Game Fishing Association of Australia recognises nine species/families of shark eligible for catch: hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.); mako (Isurus spp.); porbeagle (Lamna nasus); school (tope) (Galeorhinus galeus) — listed under EPBC Act as Conservation Dependent (after an HSI nomination); thresher (Alopias spp.); tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier); whaler (Carcharinus spp.); blue (Prionace glauca); and gummy (Mustelus antarcticus).

The practice of catch and release is only efficient if the fish released is unharmed without any detrimental impacts on its survival. Questions have been raised internationally over the survival rate of fish released, particularly those that have been subject to an intense chase before capture. As a result of this and further research, HSI has submitted the KTP nomination.

The Minister has not yet determined that the KTP nomination should be added to the Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL).

HSI was previously successful with the nomination and listing of “Hook and line fishing in areas important for the survival of threatened species” as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act, 1994 (under threatened species provisions).

White marlin. © Shutterstock/holbox.

35

Commonwealth fishery assessment processes and supertrawlers HSI was very pleased to support the successful Stop the Supertrawler campaign, launched by NGOs in response to the arrival of FV Margiris (now FV Abel Tasman) into Australia to fish in the small pelagic fishery.

An alliance was formed between environment groups and recreational fishers, to stop the supertrawler from fishing in Australian waters, and HSI’s principal concerns were related to the potential bycatch of the supertrawler, and the impacts in particular on marine mammals and seabirds.

Amongst all the mass-media and huffing and puffing surrounding the event, it is clear to HSI that Minister Burke always had the powers, contained within the EPBC Act, to stop the supertrawler’s proposed activities, and prior to the special EPBC Act amendments package tabled in the Parliament, Minister Burke had already required tough conditions on the proposal.

The view from Crikey Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy commented on the issue on Crikey on October 5th (“Burke’s supertrawler call more politics than preservation”) and made some interesting observations, including the fact that Minister Burke always had the power under the EPBC Act to stop the proposal:

“One of the tragic things about environmental policy is that it tends to follow the principle of factor sparsity, or what is more generally known as the 80-20 rule — 80% is for show, 20% for go. Put another way, 80% of policy is designed to do nothing more than send political signals to the electorate or make voters feel better about themselves. The remaining 20% is actually intended to change environmental outcomes.

There is no better example of the 80% in action than the government’s treatment of the Abel Tasman supertrawler issue.

Supertrawler Margiris. © Pierre Gleizes/Greenpeace.

The conditions had further imposed measures to monitor the level of bycatch. For dolphins, they specified that if one or more mortality occurred, fishing would have to be suspended, the incident reviewed and fishing recommenced at least 50 nautical miles from the mortality event. For seals, a seal management plan was required to be in place, with handling and setting rules to minimise mortalities, and if 3 or more seals were killed in 3 consecutive shots, 10 seal mortalities in 24 hours, or more than 10 seal mortalities in one shot occurred, then the condition stated that fishing should be suspended, consultation with AFMA undertaken, and fishing recommenced at least 50 nautical miles from the mortality event. The vessel was also required to have a seabird management plan in place, with appropriate mitigation and management measures deployed. The conditions also stated that the vessel should not fish in areas already closed to protect Australian sea lions.

The conditions further required that an on-board observer be available at all times with 24 hour monitoring, and when fishing the vessel would be required to report daily on threatened species interactions. Despite these initial conditions, HSI and other groups remained concerned that the level of bycatch permitted was still too high, with unknown impacts on the marine environment.* Following significant public outcry however, the Federal Fisheries and Environment Ministers came together and an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) was passed through Parliament. This amendment states that for any ‘declared fishing activity’ which both the Environment and Fisheries Ministers agree there is uncertainty regarding its impact or requires further consultation, fishing activity is prohibited until further consultation for a period of up to 24 months. Both ministers confirmed the 2 year ban on November 19th.

HSI recently submitted a joint paper (with WWF, AMCS and TRAFFIC to the subsequent “Review of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991” announced

by Fisheries Minister, and met with the Chair of the review, David Borthwick in late October. * http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/commonwealth/ pelagics/pubs/small-pelagics-part13-assessment-2012.pdf

36

Since the early 1990s, Commonwealth fisheries policy has largely been based on three simple principles. First, overfishing is addressed by placing caps (or quotas) on how many fish can be taken in each fishery. Second, government policy should encourage the caps to be filled at least cost — that is, the fish should be caught in the cheapest way possible to free up resources for other uses. Third, the use of fishing gear is regulated in order to reduce by-catch, or the unintentional capture of non-commercial species.

Sitting above the fisheries regime are environmental protection laws. Under federal environmental law, all Commonwealthmanaged fisheries are strategically assessed on a rolling basis.

These assessments look at the environmental impacts of the management arrangements for each fishery and determine whether they are sustainable. After the completion of the assessment, if the environment minister is satisfied with the arrangements, the fishery is approved for the purpose of export and an exemption is granted to ensure individual fishers do not have to comply with project-based environmental approval requirements.

Despite the noise in the media, the proposed operations of the Abel Tasman tick all the boxes of the fisheries and environmental regime. The fishing will occur within the quota set for the Small Pelagic Fishery. The fisheries management arrangements for this fishery have been strategically assessed by the Environment Department on four occasions: 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2012.

Moreover, the introduction of the larger vessel is in keeping with the desire to improve efficiency as it will lower unit costs, and Environment Minister Tony Burke had set stringent bycatch conditions on the operation of the vessel.

This is not to say that the general management arrangements for the Small Pelagics Fishery or any other Commonwealth-managed fishery are sustainable. Several of them are overfished and subject to serious bycatch and environmental degradation issues (noting that the Small Pelagics Fishery is probably among the better-managed Commonwealth fisheries). However, the operator of the Abel Tasman, Seafish, has done everything according to the book. Its only crime was to run into a government in a tight political spot that is looking to attract votes on the back of a populist environmental campaign.

As if to highlight the absurdity of the situation, the government is rushing through legislation today in order to give it the power to stop the Abel Tasman from fishing pending an environmental assessment, even though it already possesses this power. There are provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that allow Burke to call in the Abel Tasman’s proposed activities and subject them to the project-based environmental assessment and approval process.

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

It is unclear why the government thinks it needs to duplicate these existing powers.

Given the way the process has unfolded, at the very least, Seafish should be offered compensation for its treatment. If it isn’t, the company is justified in asking why its losses are any different from those incurred by the fossil-fuel generators and other emissionsintensive polluters, which have been so grossly overcompensated for the effects of the carbon pricing scheme.

Beyond that, this incident shines a light toward more serious policy questions, particularly the sustainability of the current fisheries management arrangements and efficacy of the Commonwealth’s strategic assessment process.

To date, there has been only one independent analysis of the fisheries strategic assessment process. It found that the strategic assessments rarely led to material changes in fisheries practices and that its environmental achievements were modest. If there is a need for change, it is in the way these assessments are conducted and the level of transparency in environmental and fisheries regulation.

As Seafish has pleaded today, fishers need certainty in the regulatory environment in which they operate. Equally, the community is entitled to ask that its marine resources are effectively and sustainably managed, and that it is provided with the data to make these judgments” Andrew Macintosh

Issue 21 2012

Negative EPBC amendments proposed for fisheries assessments While the EPBC fisheries assessment processes may not be perfect, there are moves to weaken them. One small sentence in the Australian Government 114 page response to the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act struck dread into the heart of HSI. In response to Hawke recommendation 40, in relation to fisheries, the sentence reads “the government supports in principle a progressive shift under the amended Act from individual assessments of fisheries to accreditation of fisheries management arrangements”. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-review-govtresponse.html.

HSI swiftly wrote to Minister Burke to dissuade him from going down this path which we are certain would be disastrous for Australian fisheries.

To date there have been 129 fisheries assessed under the EPBC Act. These include both Commonwealth and State and Territory fisheries.

The individual assessments of Commonwealth and export fisheries under the EPBC Act are widely credited for lifting the standards of ecological sustainability that these fisheries are now aiming for.

HSI has been closely involved in many of these processes (including actions in the Federal court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) and we know that it is the close oversight of the Environment Department and Minister that has been crucial to persuading the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to lift its game. If this leverage is given up, HSI can foresee that not only would the improvements to the ecological sustainability of Australian fisheries that are still desperately needed start to stall, but there is also a real risk that the gains made in recent years could start unravelling. HSI will do all it can to avoid such a disaster.

Slow progress on the agreement for migratory sharks HSI attended the first meeting of signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (CMS Sharks MoU) in Bonn, Germany from 24-27 September.

Once again, the meeting heard from IUCN (The World Conservation Union) of the perilous state of migratory sharks and the need for urgent action.

Although, regrettably, the main shark fishing nations aren’t yet signatories to the MoU, progress is still being made and there remains much goodwill amongst parties to the MoU to undertake activities related to effective shark conservation.

Following many years of negotiation and successive drafts, the meeting adopted a Conservation Plan under the MoU which will assist with implementation of shark conservation actions. Despite insufficient time to prioritise the conservation plan, this will be continued intersessionally.

Some administrative decisions on the future operation of the MoU were also agreed at the meeting, including that the Secretariat will remain in Bonn at the CMS Secretariat, that an Advisory Committee made up of 10 shark experts regionally allocated will be established to progress much of the work identified in the Conservation Plan and undertake additional work intersessionally.

Finally, despite some disagreement amongst parties regarding the process allowing cooperating partners it was decided that both HSI Australia and its partner organisation HSI Washington should sign

HSI Australia becomes a cooperating partner to the CMS Sharks MOU (Photo Peter Wood, Earth Negotiations Bulletin).

onto the MoU as Cooperating Partners due to our considerable work and contribution to the process to date. We hope that this commitment will allow us to remain active participants in the work of the MoU as key decisions are made in the coming months and years intersessionally.

HSI has been involved in the development of the shark MoU since the outset of negotiations helping to instigate the talks.

37

Great white sharks must be protected The recent tragic attacks in Western Australia, with five fatal shark attacks in 10 months have prompted renewed calls for the protection of great white sharks to be lifted. This has alarmed many who have been working hard to protect great white sharks in recent years.

In the late 1990’s HSI submitted a nomination to the list the great white shark under Australia’s premier Federal environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act). This was following our concerns that the combined pressures of recreational and commercial fishing and the international trade in great white shark parts (particularly their jaws and teeth) were driving a reduction in their numbers in Australia, as part of a global population decline. In 1999, following detailed scientific investigation of the species status, the great white shark was given full protection in Australia.

Globally there has been a reported decline of between 60 and 95% in great white shark numbers in the last 50 years. As a result the great white shark is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of threatened species and protected through listing on a number of international treaties including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), HSI playing a major part in both these listings.

HSI is therefore calling for more research to be carried out into great white sharks, as well as all the possible factors involved in the recent tragic fatalities.

Removing the protection from sharks will not make our waters safer, but finding out as much as possible about sharks and any factors behind the attacks can provide us with further information to help prevent any further shark attacks.

We also want critical marine habitat areas for the species recognised and legally protected. The map below, the result of joint research by HSI and WWF (Gibson, L. E. and Wellbelove, A.P. 2012. Protecting Critical Marine Habitats: The Key to conserving out threatened marine species.

A Humane Society International and WWF – Australia Report), shows the 24 critical habitat sites identified thus far.

Whilst we have welcomed the increased funding for shark research from the WA Government in particular, we are extremely alarmed by the most recent policy statements from the Government in September 2012, which will allow the Fisheries Department to ‘track, catch and, if necessary, destroy sharks identified in close proximity to beachgoers’. Whilst the EPBC Act allows for the killing of sharks if human life is in danger, this move to proactive killing of sharks before they have attacked is of great concern to HSI. HSI’s legal advice suggests that the WA government will need an approval from Minster Burke to proceed with his new policy direction.

SEWPAC.

Since 1999 efforts have been made in Australia to try to recover the numbers of great white sharks to a healthy level. However the great white shark is slow to reproduce. It is thought that females give birth only every two to three years, with a possible gestation period of up to 18 months.

Great white sharks only reach maturity at between 10 and 12 years of age, meaning a female great white shark born in 1999 will only just have reached maturity in recent years. Given this information, it is biologically impossible that over the past 13 years that there has been any significant

increase of great white sharks. CSIRO great white shark expert Barry Bruce also made this point clearly in national media. Whilst there are many programs underway to ascertain the current population status of the great white shark, these are not able to provide estimates of white shark numbers at this time. With historical and contemporary data too poor to indicate any population trends, claims that white shark numbers have significantly increased cannot be supported.

38

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

HSI is in frequent contact with the WA Government, and over the past few months has written outlining the possible role of live exports in the increase in shark attacks. HSI believes that all possible factors in the increase in shark attacks in WA should be explored fully, and we consider that the tens of thousands of sheep thrown overboard by the live export industry from 22 kilometres outwards of the coastline, may be sufficient to draw in greater than usual numbers of large sharks.

The WA Government has continued to dismiss our concerns, though the following article printed in The West Australian on 15/10/12 makes interesting reading:

Sheep-ship shark probe sinks Federal bureaucrats were on the verge of launching a major study into the idea live sheep ships were attracting great white sharks to the WA coast.

But the investigation was quickly shut down after more senior officials warned the theory was “simplistic”.

Freedom of Information documents obtained by “The West Australian” show at least one public servant at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry thought the idea that the rise in shark attacks could be linked to the presence of sheep ships was “intriguing” and suggested specialists at the CSIRO pursue the claim.

Another questioned whether the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences should be brought in to crunch data on the probabilities of the presence of sheep ships playing a role in shark attacks. “This is an intriguing theory,” one unnamed bureaucrat said in an email to his superiors in July.

“Great whites ‘traditionally’ follow whale pods and hang around seal colonies.

“One question is whether live export ships discharge carcasses or offal in the vicinity of ports . . . I’m not sure what distance this is off Western Australia but it’s likely to be at least 100km from the coast. “Nevertheless, it could be argued that great whites might continue to follow ships into port.”

The department began looking at the issue after the Humane Society International put out a press release on July 17 attempting to correlate the rise in WA shark attacks with the presence of live sheep ships off the coast. The HSI release listed all major shark attack and shark sightings in WA dating back to 2005, then attempted to plot the position of the nearest sheep ship at the time. But several department officials were scathing of the methodology behind the HSI study.

“Another point to note is that the live-export ships are actually leaving Australia, so a non-scientist might argue they are actually doing a service in attracting sharks away from the coast!” one officer in the fisheries branch of the department wrote. “Using the list they (HSI) provided all of the mortalities on the vessels that we have looked at occurred after the incident/attack.

“Senior bureaucrats ruled out a wide study – apparently after consulting media advisers in Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig’s office. (Our emphasis)

Issue 21 2012

HSI funds further biological research For the third year, HSI has joined forces with the Paddy Pallin Foundation, the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife, Providence petrel. Photo Theodore Wenner. and the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, under the banner of the ‘Paddy Pallin Science Grants’, to provide grants supporting field based, high quality ecological research for post graduate and early career researchers.

This year, HSI was pleased to be able to provide three of the five available grants. The first of these was a grant focussed on marine research, which was the third year of providing this grant, while the second and third grants were additional allocations for the program focussed on terrestrial or freshwater research.

Applications were of a high standard, and competition for the grants was fierce.

Following consideration by the scientific review committee, HSI has supported the following projects: The marine science grant was awarded to Theodore Wenner for his work on Providence petrels (Pterodroma solandri) and flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes). Theodore’s research is focussed on identifying the distinctiveness, size and trajectories of the populations of both these species.

As the Providence petrel breeds only at two locations, both Australian territories, it is vital we know more about the populations so that the appropriate conservation measures can be applied. Study on the flesh-footed shearwater hopes to provide further clarity on the species populations, and the details of any movement between colonies to inform future management and conservation decisions.

The first terrestrial science grant was awarded to Michaela Plein for her work in the biodiversity hotspot of southwest Western Australia on pollinator assemblage on the critically endangered plant Leucopogon gnaphalioides. With management efforts already underway to save this plant species, involving the translocation of the species, there are concerns that these efforts are ignoring the conservation of the insects the plant is dependent upon.

Michaela hopes that her work will better inform conservation efforts already underway, and lead to the listing of the area as a threatened ecological community under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

The second terrestrial science grant was awarded to Aaron Greenville for his work on dingoes and their role in conserving Australia’s mammals.

The aims of this project are to examine the relationship between dingoes, red foxes and feral cats and what the role of the abundance of the prey population is in this relationship. Investigating if dingoes are important in the control of introduced predators is important to assess the environmental costs of such programs (see page 14).

In addition, grants were awarded from the Paddy Pallin Foundation and the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife to projects researching the causes of decline in endangered forty-spotted pardalotes (Pardalotus quadragintus) and the population structure of southern calamari (Sepioteuthis australis) in Victoria. The Foundation has also provided an extra grant involving research on the threatened grey nurse shark.

39

Marine reserves declared In June this year, Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke announced the Commonwealth Government’s plan for a new network of marine parks and marine sanctuaries around Australia. Working with our colleague conservation organisations through the “Protect our Coral Sea”, “Save Our Marine Life”, and “Save Our Tropical Sealife” coalitions, HSI is very pleased to have helped secure this commitment to dedicate a comprehensive marine reserve system, covering a huge 3.1 million square kilometers and representing more than a third of Commonwealth waters (totaling 60 reserves). This will become the largest network of marine protected areas in the world (see map below).

Since its establishment in Australia, HSI has been working hard to protect our marine environment utilising the campaign avenues available to us. In 1994, HSI, in collaboration with WWF, issued a policy directions paper by Dr Keith Suter entitled, “The History of the Development of the Law of the Sea — the importance for global marine conservation and recommendations for Australia”, which urged the development of an Australian “Oceans Policy”. Subsequently, in 1996, HSI began to work with the Commonwealth in developing a broad Oceans Policy for Australia, setting the scene for future national action. Emerging from that Oceans Policy review, HSI helped secure an additional Commonwealth commitment to the marine bioregional program, which was to include the development of a system of marine protected areas. The marine bioregion program and its protected area component was brought directly under the control of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 — bioregional planning provisions, provisions supported by HSI and WWF. STOP PRESS: On 16th November the Gillard Government announced the proclamation of Australia’s network of marine reserves, effective from midnight that day. HSI welcomed the announcement, which means that Australia now officially has the world’s largest network of marine reserves. Consultation has now begun on the management plans, which will take effect from July 2014.

Coral Sea considered for National Heritage list Following a nomination from an alliance of environment organisations*, instigated and prepared by HSI, the Government has announced that the Coral Sea (nearly 100,000 square kilometres) is undergoing assessment to determine whether it qualifies for listing as National Heritage under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

The National Heritage List recognises places of outstanding heritage significance to Australia. We hope that this assessment will recognise the special natural features of the Coral Sea, as well as its important military and civic heritage values and recommend it be included on the National Heritage List. The assessment is due be completed by 30 June 2014, with a decision by the Minister expected shortly afterwards. http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/ pubs/priority-assessment-nhl-2012-13.pdf * The groups supporting this nomination are Humane Society Inter

national, Pew Environment Group, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, CAFNEC, Australian Conservation Foundation, and The Wilderness Society.

Humane Society International Inc. ABN 63 510 927 032

PO Box 439 Avalon NSW 2107 Australia Telephone (02) 9973 1728 Facsimile (02) 9973 1729 Email admin@hsi.org.au www.hsi.org.au ISBN 978-0-9874641-0-1 Graphic design and layout by Lithium Innovation Pty Limited • www.lithium.net.au

40

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER