Despite being made of plastic bottles and recycled materials, the Plastiki catamaran survived its four-month ocean voyage to land in Sydney with a rousing call to end plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, Nick Evershed reports.

What do poo and penises have in common with animal preservation efforts? Jacob Willis finds out.

Experts are using excrement as a tool in their fight against extinction. Image: Courtesy of Western Plains Zoo

“Poo’s great,” says Tamara Keeley. She would know. She deals with it every day.

“You can get a lot of information from poo, because poo represents everything that your body has been through and done. You’ve got stress hormones coming out, reproduction hormones coming out… all sorts of things. It’s a fantastic thing.”

A reproductive biologist specialising in endocrinology at Taronga Western Plains Zoo, Keeley uses poo, along with other animal excrements such as saliva and urine, as vital components in the process of breeding animals.

Keeley is able to gain a thorough insight into the present state of an animal’s body, allowing her to determine ideal breeding times.

“We can determine if and when she’s cycling, if she’s pregnant, and you can do it without even touching the animal. It can give them [the zoo] a head start in terms of making her comfortable, isolating her from other animals, making sure there’s no construction in that area. You want to make sure you get as much information as possible to increase your chances of getting viable young.”

She says one of the real positives of the technology is the amount of information you can obtain from the animals without disturbing them.

“Wildlife biologists have actually been using poo to determine hormone levels for about 20 years now. It started with domestics, where most of these technologies do, but it really took off with wildlife because it’s a very non invasive way of getting a lot of information from an endangered species.”

There are approximately 5000 endangered species in the world today. On average, one of those species will become extinct every year. But assistive reproductive technologies are playing an increasing role in preserving endangered species.

Australia is at the forefront of these technologies. Aside from Western Plains’ hormone analysis work, assistive reproductive technologies are present in many of our countries other wildlife facilities.

Taronga Zoo Sydney was home to it’s first ever elephant artificial insemination in August 2008, and the calf was born to mother, Porntip in March this year.

A key component of Taronga’s elephant insemination success was world renowned elephant and reproductive scientist Dr Thomas Hildebrandt, from the Institute for Zoo Biology and Wildlife Research in Berlin. Dr Hildebrandt pioneered the method of artificially inseminating elephants without surgery, and his services are in hot demand from wildlife institutes around the globe.

He stresses that artificial insemination is not the ideal solution; but is a helping hand when natural breeding becomes difficult.

“It should never replace natural mating. But artificial insemination is a very important management tool if there are some incompatibilities,” said Dr Hildebrandt.

“There may be some aggression between the [elephant] cows, or for example there may be an inbreeding problem when the bull in the facilities has been there so long that he would breed with his own daughters. There are a lot of really necessary situations where artificial insemination makes a lot of sense, but it is not an exclusive technique.”

The process is complicated and relies on a lot of smaller details working together.

“You need three elements coming together. You need very good technology to put the semen in, you have to do it at the right time, and you have to have good semen at the time you need it. These three elements are sometimes difficult to get together. The overall success rate [of elephant artificial insemination] is about 30 per cent. The success rate if all three elements are together is over 90 per cent,” said Dr Hildebrandt.

But at the birth of Taronga’s artificially inseminated calf, celebrations nearly turned into tears.

“It was in a coma and it is very difficult to determine the point when the calf is dead. But what we found was that the life signs were not there.” The calf had turned upside down in its mother’s womb, and the birth was not expected to be a success.

The calf, aptly named Pathi Harn – Thai for ‘miracle’ – was eventually born to the mother, Porntip – Thai for ‘gift from heaven’ – in the early hours of March 10.

“The birth at first was a big, big surprise which gives us lots of hope for other complicated births in the future. I think the Taronga birth is very important for the future to look in the right direction to save the life of the calf and of the mum,” said Dr Hildebrandt.

“The Taronga case was one of my favourite moments. Every elephant birth is something that is so incredible and so complicated. It’s very stressful, but in the end, it makes you very happy.”

Back at Western Plains Zoo, is “the frozen zoo” – a collection of frozen sperm and eggs of a number of the zoo’s animals as Keeley calls it. They are stored in large silver containers filled with liquid nitrogen at -196 degrees Celsius, allowing the specimens to be kept for up to 100 years. The containers contain small ‘straws’ inside of them, each filled with thousands of sperm. The sperm can then be then be used to fertilise a female in a captive breeding program, meaning an animal’s strong genetics do not go to waste.

Specimen containers at the frozen zoo. Image: Courtesy of Western Plains Zoo

The Animal Gene Storage Resource Centre of Australia (AGSRCA), also known as the Australian Frozen Zoo, takes this work done by Taronga Western Plains to a whole new level. They are home to specimens of sperm and eggs from over 100 species. It is a joint venture between Monash University Melbourne and the Zoological Parks Board of NSW.

Dr Ian Gunn, project director, has been the passion behind the AGSRCA since its establishment in 1995.

The common outsider would be forgiven for making the mistake that once an animal dies, it’s of no more use. But this is not the case. The AGSRCA can actually retrieve specimens from endangered animals that have died, ensuring they too can contribute to preservation of their species.

“The main goal is to preserve and put away as much reproductive and DNA material from any endangered wildlife that dies in captivity or dies in conservation zones. So instead of wasting all the genetic material we could collect a sample and put it away for storage or use or research in the future,” said Dr Gunn.

“The other aim is the development of IVF technology that offer a lot of scope to utilise some of the reproductive material to assist in the breeding of wildlife.”

Dr Gunn said, “The idea is to maintain a population that is viable… Most wildlife populations need at least 200 animals to maintain a viable population, to have enough genetic diversity to divide. If you’ve got very small populations spread around, then you need to transfer genes to ensure there’s enough diversity.”

The huge amount of work and technology required and the limited amount of resources available means assisted reproduction is a slow process, and not always a successful one. But when it does succeed, it is proving to be a vital lifeline for endangered animals.

Dr Hildebrandt said, “The human kind does a lot of bad things. But I think with our technology and knowledge about changing the environment, we can do something good too.”

While the water debate continues across Australia, a new local workshop on water management has cast the issue globally. Tara Egan reports.

Karakouram highway crosses the Indus river in northern Pakistan. Image: Joonas Lyytinen

An international water workshop is underway in Sydney, which is focused on the impact of population change, energy needs and climate change on water resources.

Colin Chatres, head of the International Water Management Institute in Sri Lanka, is a speaker at the workshop entitled Water and Its Interdependencies in the Australian Economy.

He says Australia has a lot to teach other countries about effective water use, with many countries facing severe food shortages in the wake of a growing population.

“The opportunities are the fact that Australia has developed an extremely good suite of methodologies to deal with these kinds of issues in food production; both in terms of conservation farming on dry land systems to improved irrigation technologies…” he said.

Listen to this story on the Wire:

Mr Chatres said the water management issues facing Australia are similar to countries right across the globe.

“Overseas, there really are several countries that are on a threshold… if they don’t get things right and if they don’t improve the way they produce food… they are going to be faced with famine and more malnutrition,” he said.

Citing an agreement made between India and Pakistan on the Indus River – where water passes between both countries – Mr Chatres said that despite political tension, both countries have been able to effectively manage the river.

Looking to the future, Mr Chatres said he would like to see the environment given much greater consideration.

“In Australia we store approximately 5000 cubic metres per person of water, per year in big dams and rivers. In Ethiopia that figure is less than 40 cubic metres per person, per year. So there is no real buffer there for people to get water if things are getting tough,” he said.

Tara Egan is a producer on the Wire.

By Sarah Michael

Consumers are confused with so many different recycling labels in use. Image: Trounce

Almost 90 per cent of Australian homes have access to recycling but many don’t know what the various symbols stand for.

A report released by Victoria University entitled “The Role of Labels in Directing Consumer Packaging Waste”, found that many are confused by the numerous recycling symbols currently in use.

Author of the report, Sarah Buelow says some of the most commonly used recycling symbols are also the most misunderstood.

“The little chasing arrows with the number inside that’s on pretty much all plastic packaging that you’ll find, everyone thinks that that’s the recycling symbol when it’s actually just the identification code to inform you what plastic the package is made out of.

“People automatically assume that means recycle it when that’s not really, that’s definitely not what its saying.”

Listen to the full story:

Buelow thinks that manufacturers are using too many different kinds of symbols and consumers are left confused because there is no standard set in place.

“There is a whole bunch of different things kind of all based on the same ideas but they [the labels] are just very different. You can combine those labels… because only a few of them are regulated. It’s a bit of a free-for-all.”

By Peter Vaughan | Monash University, Melbourne

Burnt river vegetation along Dinner Creek. Image: Peter Vaughan

Conservationists are concerned that fuel reduction burns in East Gippsland will threaten endangered species and reduce biodiversity.

On March 16, fire managers from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) ignited a fuel reduction burn in the Dinner Creek catchment of Waygara state forest, approximately 14 km West of Orbost.

The fire quickly gained intensity, aided by a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. It burnt most of the environmentally sensitive vegetation within the fire zone along four kilometres of the Dinner Creek.

DSE Fire Manager for the Orbost Region, Steve de Voogd, said that the Dinner Creek fuel reduction burn grew hotter than intended.

The fire was meant to burn 2206 hectare of coastal forest and leave a mosaic of burnt and un-burnt areas within the fire’s containment lines.

According to Mr de Voogd, the DSE is now under community pressure to reduce the risk of wildfire through fuel reduction burning, and that must take precedent over ecological considerations.

“Although there is probably room for more fire ecology planning, it is incumbent on the DSE to take action because the consequences of doing nothing may be worse,” Mr de Voogd said.

Most of the hollow bearing trees in the burn zone, which were home to a number of endangered species protected under state and federal law, were destroyed.

Dr Rohan Bilney, an expert on Australian forest owls and spokesperson for the Gippsland Environment Group, said that the program intended to burn large areas of coastal forest without adequate ecological planning, monitoring or research, which threatened crucial habitat and food sources for the forest’s owls species.

“The coastal forests of East Gippsland are the strong hold of the Masked Owl, a species listed as threatened under two laws: the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Most of East Gippsland’s Masked Owls live in the coastal forests now being subjected to intense broad area fuel reduction burns by the DSE,” said Dr Bilney.

The Masked Owl Action Statement, prepared under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, estimates only 150 pairs of Masked Owl exist in Victoria. Of that total, 100 pairs are found in East Gippsland and most are concentrated in the coastal forest.

DSE Manager of Biodiversity in East Gippsland, Dr Steve Henry, said that the current DSE fuel reduction fire strategy allows for large fires but burning on such a scale leaves few options for the protection of important ecological values.

“If there are some areas that contain specific environmental attributes that we want to protect, we could exclude them from fire with a bulldozer line. However that is expensive and often very destructive on most of these large burns. The main management technique used is the way in which the lighting pattern of the fire is done, sometimes that is not as effective as we would hope,” he said.

Mr Henry said that funding constraints have not permitted the DSE to conduct detailed ecological studies of the coastal forests, including the effect of fire on the environment.

A post-fire ecological survey is currently being conducted by the DSE in selected fuel reduction areas.

The Dinner Creek fire was just one of 48 fuel reduction burns planned by the DSE for the region during 2009-2010. Like other fuel reduction burns, the DSE must comply with the Victorian Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land.

The primary objective of the Code is to protect of life and property, while minimising negative impacts on natural and cultural values, and abiding by threatened species legislation, are also included.

The Code of Practice also states that the DSE must prepare a Fire Ecology Strategy that includes input from ecological experts and full consideration of all available scientific research.

If little ecological research exists, fuel reduction burning can be conducted under the rational that it may reduce the future risk of wildfire.

In the absence of scientific data, the DSE will continue to plan fuel reduction burns from computer desktops, utilising the ad hoc data collected as part of the Environmental Vegetation Class mapping projects of the late 1990s.

While political pressure continues to increase, the DSE fire policy will remain focused on protecting the community against the spectre of Black Saturday.

Could whales and oil platforms be neighbours? Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson seems to think they can. He has just released new offshore oil leases, and some of them lie in areas that are flagged as potential marine sanctuaries. Pia Volk reports.

Oil leases compete with marine sanctuary proposals for Government approval. Image: Mike L. Baird.

Nearly 80 oil and gas approvals were made in Australian waters throughout the last 18 months, but not one marine reserve has been declared. Now federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has announced new drill and leases in South Australia and the area of Kangaroo Island – the same area that was flagged by Environment Minister Peter Garret for potential marine sanctuaries.

“What you’ve essentially seen is the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson jumping the gun and deliberately trying to get in before these marine sanctuaries have actually legally been declared,” says Peter Owen, campaign manager of the Wilderness Society in South Australia.

“They’ve been flagged and they’re currently being discussed, and now suddenly we’ve got oil acreage released right over the top of one of the more significant marine sanctuary propositions for the whole of southern Australia- the Kangaroo Island Canyons.”

The Kangaroo Island Canyons are very nutrient-rich areas and several species of whales feed there, a fact that has regional manager of the Whale and Dolphins Society Mike Bosseley concerned for their wellbeing.

“Whales and dolphins are vulnerable to being impacted by oil spills in several ways,” Bosseley says.

“One way is by eating the oil either directly in the water or if it gets onto fish. Another way is by absorbing it through their skins and another way is when the oil vaporises it just lies above the surface of the water and the whales and dolphins can breathe it in.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:

A similar case of conflicting interests between oil drilling and environmental protection occurred in Western Australia. There, a spokesperson of Mr Ferguson’s told The West Australian newspaper that the areas would continue to be evaluated as a marine reserve by the federal Environment Department, but within the framework of existing oil and gas leases.

“You can’t have a marine sanctuary with oil drilling in the middle of it… that completely defeats the purpose of having a marine sanctuary,” says Peter Owen. “What we’re basically calling on with the Rudd government is to make a decision here.”

Owen warns that the risk of accidents is very real.

“If you were to have an oil accident out where this is being proposed in the Kangaroo Islands Canyon area, you would decimate much of Kangaroo Island, which is South Australia’s tourism Mecca,” he says.

“You would then potentially also decimate much of the gulf areas and see oil washed up on some metropolitan beaches in Adelaide… We really can’t afford to take this type of risk.”

Pia Volk is a producer for The Wire .

The Agapanthus plant may bloom beautiful purple flowers in summer, but if uncontrolled this popular plant can be a nightmare for native ecosystems and local councils. Natalie Muller reports.

Agapanthus may be a weed. Image: Nicholas Laughlin

There are many different types of Agapanthus, but only one is potentially invasive.

Its name is Agapanthus praecox subspecies orientalis, and the ease with which it can spread and self-seed has led some to label it a weed.

Yet this South African native is attractive to gardeners for the same reason it’s a pain for bushland.

“What you find with these types of weeds is that they are very popular because they are easy to grow,” said Chris Dewhurst, environmental coordinator at Blue Mountains City Council.

In some parts of the Blue Mountains, a World Heritage listed region, Agapanthus has spread from gardens into native bushland and national parks.

“They’re not such a problem for people who know how to manage them,” said Mr Dewhurst. “But if a person has a big area of Agapanthus at the edge of a garden on a mountain and they don’t manage it, in a couple of years you could see them spreading all the way down the slope.”

“It’s the people who leave their gardens unchecked that have the impact,” he said.

The Blue Mountains City Council has classified the Agapanthus praecox as an environmental weed – a plant that threatens natural ecosystems and diversity of fauna and flora.

“It can totally dominate the ground layer of the ecosystem and prevents natural regeneration,” Mr Dewhurst said. “So an ecosystem of 50 or 60 species can be reduced to just a handful of species. Lots of shrubs and birds becomes just a ground layer of Agapanthus and big trees.”

“[Weeds] are really the number one threat to our biodiversity up here,” he said.

The Agapanthus is a resilient plant, which can often displace all other vegetation with its dense root system. Its seeds are usually carried by water – through drainage systems and waterways – and spread outside garden limits.

“There’s not a lot of science to back it up,” said Dr Anthony Kachenko, national environmental and technical policy manager at Nursery and Garden Industry Australia. “A lot of it is anecdotal. People see it growing on the side of a park or the road and think it’s invasive when in reality someone has probably gone and dumped it there.”

Growing and selling the Agapanthus praecox is not illegal under the Noxious Weed Act, which regulates harmful weeds in NSW. Yet many local councils such as the Blue Mountains City Council strongly advise against planting them because of the potential dangers to native bushland areas.

Still, the Agapanthus is a popular choice for landscapers and gardeners and can be found in most big plant nurseries.

Alternative hybrid and sterile varieties have been developed to prevent easy spreading, but gardeners can also control their plants by chopping off the flower heads before seeds form.

Next year Blue Mountains City Council is launching a Bush friendly Nursery Scheme to promote nurseries who don’t grow and sell the Agapanthus praecox.

“It’ll provide a motive for nurseries to get on board with us and stop selling environmental weeds,” said Mr Dewhurst.

“When something is not noxious, it comes down to opinion,” he said. “Often you get a bit of disagreement about what’s a weed. Some nurseries say ‘it’s not a weed’ but others are very good about it and don’t sell these plants that can impact our environment.”

“It is quite a contentious topic,” said Dr Kachenko. “There is one particular species which is a potentially invasive species and it’s our advice to not grow them, but there are heaps of sterile types that are fine.”

In New Zealand, the Auckland Regional Council has gone a step further. Since 2007 Agapanthus praecox has been classified as a noxious weed. This means it is illegal to plant, sell, propagate or distribute the plant throughout the Auckland region, home to around a third of the New Zealand population.

Chris Roebuck owner of Auckland-based plant supplier Hortex Big Tree Limited, was surprised the laws were necessary. “You sometimes wonder where people get these noxious-weed ideas from,” he said.

Jack Craw, group manager of biosecurity at the Auckland Regional Council said the Agapanthus is a pest plant that spreads far too easily.

“The plant can naturalise into a variety of habitats, and forms dense stands particularly on the coastline, and out-competes native vegetation,” he said.

Some commercial growers gained exemptions from the law to be able to continue supplying the plant to buyers outside the Auckland region.

Others in the nursery industry have adapted.

“It hasn’t actually affected our business,” said David Addis, manager of Agapanthus Direct, a New Zealand supplier of Agapanthus. His business specialised in Agapanthus plants until he decided to expand his range a few years ago.

“Our business can’t just survive on one product, so we went on to lavender, buxus, azaleas [and others],” he said. “They still allow the dwarf variety [of Agapanthus] to be sold, so nurseries across New Zealand are still selling the varieties that aren’t invasive, and they’re also developing sterile varieties in laboratories that don’t self seed.”

The Auckland Regional Council is currently carrying out research, expected to be released next month, to determine whether the dwarf Agapanthus varieties can also be considered ‘weeds.’

Removing Agapanthus and other weeds from bushland areas is a costly affair for councils and for bush regeneration volunteers.

A Cost Benefit Analysis by Auckland Regional Council showed outlawing the Agapanthus praecox would save almost $1 million in the Auckland region each year.

“It’s a cost to the community because rate payers have to fund teams to go in and remove these weeds,” said Mr Dewhurst. “The Council would easily be spending over $700,000 a year on weed control.”

But despite the steep costs, the council feels it is better to teach the community how to control the Agapanthus rather than ban it altogether.

“People can choose whether they want to grow it or not. It’s a moral or ethical choice,” said Mr Dewhurst.

“We prefer to educate people and let them have the freedom to choose.”

Chain reaction, the ripple or butterfly effect – these can all be used to describe the intertwined nature of the world’s ecosystems. Jessica Black investigates how even a small change in temperatures and seasons can affect an entire system and cause profound change to natural landscapes.

Scottish Soay sheep are shrinking due to changing climate. Image: Jonesor

According to studies of spring phenology, over 80% of the 1500 species exhibiting signs of change are a result of climate change and rising temperatures.

Director of the Research Earth Policy Institute, Janet Larsen, says change in the ecology of a single species can wreak havoc with an ecosystem, sending shock waves to the very top of the food chain.

“You can think about ecosystems like airplanes. You probably can tweak a few knobs here or there…and still keep flying fine. But if you keep tinkering with the system…[you’ll] bring the plane down. In nature, even small changes can cause unexpected cascades through the ecosystem.”

While it’s still too early to say which of the animal and plant kingdom will come out on top, early bets would favour animals, plants and insects with a shorter life cycle, an evolutionary advantage when adapting to rapid environmental changes.

In Scotland, the wild Soay Sheep are trying to adapt to temperature changes.

As a result of milder winters and the earlier onset of spring, the sheep have gradually decreased their size, as smaller sheep stand an increasingly better chance of reaching maturity and passing on their genetic make-up to a new generation.

“The Soay sheep show us that climate change can turn ‘survival of the fittest’ on its head,” says Larsen.

“It’s still hard to tell, though, whether the species that don’t seem to be changing their ranges or life cycle timing along with warmer temperatures and early springs will ultimately start to adapt or what ecosystems of the future will look like.”

The Soay are an example of an evolution success story, as plant and animal species race to beat the clock under increasing pressure from climate change wrought by human activity.

Spring phenology studies have shown that species experiencing a change in their life cycles did so by advancing an average of 5 days in their blooming or birthing stage.

Should one species adjust to an earlier spring by blossoming sooner, those species depending upon its flowering become out of sync, causing a prey-predator mismatch.

This is known as a “trophic cascade” whereby the numbers of one species become out of proportion with other species in the food chain.

This distorts the balance that is central to a properly functioning ecosystem.

“The number of prey influence the number of predators and vice versa – we say the species are ‘couple’d however, both species might be influenced by the weather too,” says Professor Tim Coulson, Professor of Population Biology at the Imperial College London.

“If the weather reduces the number of prey, then the number of predators will also be affected just because there are fewer animals for them to eat.”

The endangerment of these species means an ecosystem loses those the links between predator and prey that make up an ecosystem.

According to Geoff Lawton, Managing Director of the Permaculture Research Institute, ecosystems play a vital role in the moderation and translation of the sun’s energy and therefore have a stabilising effect on the weather.

“In a natural situation we have a wonderfully abundant living system that receives that [sun’s] energy and stores that energy better than any other system we know in the universe.”

However, when the ecosystem loses the power to store and moderate that energy, Lawton says the affects of climate change will be visible and felt everywhere.

He says in order to maintain the ability of ecosystems to mitigate the sun’s energy, we need to negotiate a new hierarchy with those species who have come out on top – in this case, the weeds.

Those annoying weeds may be the answer to saving our ecosystem. Image: Peripitus

With an increase in temperatures, exotic plants and weeds which are responsive to CO2 and receptive to warmer temperatures thrive, while native plants lose ground.

“If we want to get anything, like the diversity and quality of ecosystems that were represented in recent history, then we’re going to have to work with the weeds. There’s nothing wrong in taking part…we shouldn’t get sentimental of nature, nature isn’t sentimental about nature,” Lawton says.

How successful a natural world such as this might be, is yet be be answered.

Rising temperatures also create a knock on effect by altering weather patterns.

Species might miss a crucial feeding time, having become accustomed to birthing at a specific time to coincide with that time when their prey is most abundant.

The skewing of species populations also means less biodiversity as those species unable to keep up with the changes will inevitably begin decreasing in numbers.

Wet, tropical forests, known as “biodiversity hotspots” are especially vulnerable to the effects of warming as are birds with longer migration routes such as the swallow.

For these birds, their passageway may become drier, creating fewer chances to feed. They are also faced with the double burden of having to adapt to several climates undergoing change.

On the other hand, species that are able to inhabit a range of terrains can be an advantage.

Deers for example, are familiar with several territories and therefore more mobile, says Professor Coulson.

Species with short ranges such as amphibians, are unable to move on if one area no longer provides the resources necessary for their survival.

Although climate is seen to have greater sway over an ecosystem, a greater interdependence of weather and ecosystems may be on the horizon, says Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, Dr David Jones.

“Certainly in the context of climate change, it is largely changing climate [that is] affecting changes in ecosystems. This may change in future as we put in training very large shifts in ecosystems which could then affect climate,” says Dr Jones.

The evidence at hand would indicate that we are likely to experience a radical overhauling of natural landscapes as changes to seasonal indicators continue to cause ructions up and down the food chain.

While no one can say for sure what will happen next, the interdependence of climate change and ecosystems, and the interrelated nature of ecosystems in themselves will ensure that any change will resonate around the world.

The Earth’s species are disappearing, and this time we can’t blame the asteroids. But just what is biodiversity, and why should we be worried? Annie Hastwell talks to Dr Aaron Bernstein about his mission to stop the world’s next mass extinction.

Biodiversity is set to decline by mid century. Image by: Donna *Deestea*

Population growth and human consumption are killing the world’s biodiversity, according to author Dr Aaron Bernstein.

As a paediatrician with a passion for biodiversity, he predicts that we are on a fast track to a species wipe out similar to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction 65 million years ago.

“We’re on a pace to lose roughly a third to a half of all species by mid-century or shortly thereafter. The difference is that 65 million years ago an asteroid struck the Earth and precipitated those extinctions,” said Dr Bernstein.

But today, the drivers of extinction are habitat loss and climate change – both a result of human interference.

So what is biodiversity?

“What biodiversity really means is the variety of all life, not just the beautiful birds and colourful fish that you go out of your way to see at zoos and aquariums,” Dr Bernstein said.

“It includes the species that make up the ecosystems that filter the water here in Melbourne, or the trees that purify air outside Sydney or the farms that provide food to all Australians- and indeed to all people.”

Dr Bernstein states such life should be protected and the way to do it is to address the leading threats to biodiversity.

“First is climate change. We need an internationally binding agreement,” he said.

“No single nation can solve the problem of climate change.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:

“Fossil fuels, which [are] really the fundamental source of all of our consumption, [are] much too cheap right now,” Dr Bernstein said.

“Addressing carbon will be a major way to reduce consumption.”

Dr Bernstein says that as the world moves toward a dense urban lifestyle, we are forgetting the important bond between human and nature.

“It’s important to recognise that most people in today’s world live in cities and that trend has been continuing. It has become extremely difficult for us to identify the bonds of nature which were so clear and so real when all of us required land to farm,” he said.

“This message that our health is dependent on the health of nature needs to get out.

“In order to re-establish the connection we need to give people information on how our health is tied to nature so we can act in ways that are in our own interest.”

But to truly make a difference and save biodiversity once and for all, Dr Bernstein says that each individual must do their part.

“It is the sum of our actions that lead to these problems and in fact there is a tremendous amount that individuals can do… like trying to eat locally grown foods when possible, trying to take public transport, limiting our use of cars, or owning fuel-efficient cars.”

Annie Hastwell is a producer for The Wire

Environmentalists argue that what began as an initiative to clean up dirty palm oil production practices, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil has become little more than an NGO-endorsed greenwashing tool. Rebecca Zhou reports.

Due to an increase in worldwide demand for food, palm oil production has grown dramatically since it began in the 1970s. Image: CELCOR

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was set up by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to involve companies in creating more sustainable ways of producing palm oil. However environmental experts believe that not only is the RSPO ineffective, it has become a way to green wash poor practices.

“The RSPO gives the companies a green front and encourages more consumption, which is precisely the cause of the problem,” said Valerie Phillips, forest campaigner of the Greenpeace branch in Papua New Guinea, one of the three countries most adversely affected by the palm oil industry.

The Roundtable board includes stakeholders from producers, processors to traders and retailers who work with NGOs to develop a set of ‘Principles and Criteria’ that all member companies must follow to be certified.

One of the environmentalists’ main concerns is that there is no legal framework around the ‘P&C’ and companies work at their own pace to meet them. Often they are not met at all.

“It is a voluntary initiative so the company cannot even be held accountable for failing to meet standards,” said Eddie Tanago of the Centre of Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR) in Papua New Guinea.

“Up till now there are 11 or 12 companies certified under RSPO mechanism, however all of the companies have gotten complaints because of most of them are not following the principles and criteria of RSPO but still have the certificate,” said Agrofuels campaigner from Friends of the Earth Indonesia, Torry Kuswardono.

WWF’s Global Forest and Trade Manager Lydia Gaskell says that companies wanting to be certified are given action plans and targets according to ‘the size of the company and how sustainable they are.’

“To take a company off certification for failing to meet standards and criteria is at the very least, impractical,” said Gaskell. “There would be no need for the RSPO if everyone was meeting those principles and standards from day one.”

The fact that action plans and targets are negotiable is another weakness, said Grant Rosoman, Forests Campaigner for Greenpeace International. He believes that WWF’s close affiliation with businesses has led to compromises in their conservation efforts.

Misuse of environmental indicators

Under the P&C, the company must work with WWF to identify ‘High Value Conservation Forest’ (HCVF) areas prior to plantation. WWF, with the assistance of other independent consultancies such as Daemeter Consulting use a HCVF ‘toolkit’ as a framework to define these areas.

“They’ve taken the HCVF concept and misused it,” said Rosoman, “The HCVF is essentially open to interpretation and when used this way, the assessments see heavy interference from the company.”

“Say the assessment is done and 50 percent of the land is written off as being primary forest. The company says not feasible. It then becomes negotiable with WWF to reducing that down to a more ‘economic level’. In the end it gets to something ridiculous like only 10 percent of the area.”

WWF has been under fire in the past for receiving enormous levels of funding from corporate companies. In 2007, it received $20 million from Coca Cola for research into water efficiency. Its 2008 annual Financial Report recorded revenue of $196.5 million while Greenpeace reported a 2007-08 revenue of a little over $40 million.

“WWF needs to take a side and really stick to their guns and not be influenced by the client. Poor HVCF assessments risks good work done on the ground,” said Rosoman.

Kuswardono is also concerned with the lack of transparency with HCVF assessments and the role that WWF plays in the process.

“It’s hard to know what WWF’s role is because they are always acting in the gray area between the government and the company,” said Kuswardono.

“Although WWF will set principles and criteria which promote their interests in HCV forests, they won’t push the companies to implement them.”

Violation of land rights

Investigations into RSPO certified company Wilmar International show that it has been clearing land without proper consultation with communities. Criterion 2.3 in the P&C states that the company must ensure ‘use of land for oil palm does not diminish the legal rights, or customary rights, of other users, without their free, prior and informed consent’ and that prior negotiations with locals must involve ‘open sharing of all relevant information in appropriate forms and languages, including assessments of impacts, proposed benefit sharing and legal arrangements.’

Kuswardono says that when companies do consultations, they are insufficient and often misleading.

Child pushing a wheelbarrow. Image: CELCOR

“They will use tactics of division by selecting certain figures of the community who support their projects and cause a divide between communities in this way.”

A joint investigation by NGOs into Singapore palm oil giant Wilmar International in October 2009 revealed that crucial information about land rights were often omitted during negotiations with community. The team discovered that a large majority of local people living in the Landak plantation area had been misled into relinquishing their land to the company.

Under Indonesian law, the land leased to a company is returned to the government, and not the original owner. The investigation showed that those who agreed to relinquish their land did it under the belief that they could reclaim ownership after expiration of the lease.

The investigation team reported that ‘they [community leaders] vehemently asserted that the lands were theirs and should revert to them and that they had only lent the lands to the companies for their use (hak pakai). Two interviewees in the widely separated districts went on to say that they would never have agreed to release their lands if they had known that this was permanent.’

Health issues

A study by CELCOR in 2006 reveals that some of Cargill’s plantations managed by its subsidiary Higaturu, have also gravely affected communities’ health.

In 1976, Higaturu, a subsidiary of Cargill started a plantation in Popondetta in Oro Province, where the Kokoda Track is situated. The health effects of the mill on local communities for the past 33 years has been severe and in some cases, irreversible.

The study documented the effects of nine toxic chemicals such as the herbicide ‘paraquat’ used commonly in all plantations as well as a variety of insecticides. Its effects range from skin diseases, ulceration and alterations to the Central Nervous System resulting in intense nausea and loss of reflexes. Paraquat was banned by the European Union (EU) in 2007 but remains legal in most developing countries. Though it is still commonly used in Australia and New Zealand, there are strict regulations governing it.

“The people live all the way down near the rivers there and those rivers have all been polluted with the effluent from the mills. The company reports claim that it is a hundred per cent treated but it’s not,” said Tanago.

“The people depend on the river for living. They drink from it and they wash their clothes in it and they continue to do so because they have nowhere else to go.”

In response to allegations of pollution made by CELCOR and Friends of the Earth to the RSPO grievances panel in 2008, Wilmar responded that they would prepare ‘to adopt a precautionary approach by conducting Environmental lmpact Assessments, a full HCVF Assessment and Social Impact Assessments before any land development in the area commences.’

But Tanago maintains that he has not seen any real commitment from the company.

“Their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. The company says that there is no scientific backing and sometimes they will just refuse to answer them. There is evidence of suffering though. About 60 per cent of a village of 200 people are affected. Only few ever speak up about it.”

WWF also seems to believe that complaints from the communities and findings of NGOs require more substantial evidence.

“There will always be allegations, and WWF can’t be everywhere at once.”

“Cargill and Wilmar are definitely not a hundred per cent there yet,” said Gaskell, “In fact I wouldn’t say that any of the companies are quite there yet.”

“WWF is very much aware of the situation on the ground,” said Grant Rosaman, forests campaigner for Greenpeace International, “But when WWF becomes an external assessment body for the companies, the companies become their clients and it gets very difficult for them to stay loyal to their agenda.”

Forest Restoration coordinator for WWF Indonesia, Fitrian Ardiansyah concedes that some companies on the Roundtable have continued their malpractices.

“This is a challenge for us. And we have been naming and shaming companies which use the RSPO to cover up their practices,” said Ardiansyah.

The RSPO website has a list of companies whose memberships have been terminated but no such ‘name and shame’ list that draws attention to the alleged malpractices of major companies like Wilmar and Cargill exists. An older version of the RSPO website however, did report a complaint made against Wilmar International by Friends of the Earth in January 2008.

Complaints made against companies are dealt with by the Grievances Board, which consists of stakeholders instead of external assessors. In response to the allegations against Wilmar, the executive board stated that ‘There are three items in the response where further assurance is to be secured…none of these three items, individually or collectively, were considered as invalidating the acceptability of the response.’ There was no specification of what those three items were and whether Wilmar delivered its assurance. At the time of this article’s publication, the executive board’s response had been removed from the new RSPO website, a move that further shows the board’s lack of transparency.

The Singapore biofuel giant remains a member of the Roundtable and received full certification in January 2009 as ‘a testament of Wilmar’s strong commitment towards sustainable palm oil production, based on sound management and active engagement with the different stakeholders in the palm oil supply chain’, according to a company press statement.

Villagers are contracted by major companies to harvest palm oil. Image: CELCOR

Gaskell describes the Roundtable as a ‘journey of improvement’ that WWF guides them along. It is also a journey for the organisation itself, which is constantly seeking ways to improve the principles and criteria.

“RSPO has worked hard to get a set of standards that are far and beyond the current level of practices. They are the best practice management right now. And those standards are not set. WWF will continue working with companies to strengthen them.”

But both international and local campaigners believe that WWF is missing the point, which is that without a legal framework within the country that can govern a company’s actions, the RSPO is useless. Furthermore, local governments often have no regard for the environmental impacts of plantations and this makes it difficult for the company to carry out assessments without heavy financial losses and thereby making them more likely to skip the process.

Government indifference

In Indonesia, the Department of Agriculture regulates and distributes permits to companies. These location permits provide for the transfer of rights of the land to companies for commercial uses but are only valid for three years. In that time, companies must carry out initial surveys, socialisation programs and environmental impact assessments, secure investments, apply for and be granted requisite permits for clearance and construction and install the necessary infrastructure. Delays occur for a number of reasons and permits are often forfeited if the company cannot complete the process on time.

“It is very likely that the companies will not perform assessments or community consultations properly because they are afraid they will lose the land to someone else,” said Kuswardono.

“The government in Indonesia or Papua New Guinea doesn’t care how much forest will be destroyed when they give out these permits.”

The same investigation by Sawit Watch, Wild Asia and Forest Peoples Programme found that as a reaction to complaints of other businesses, governments often rush to reallocate these permits to other companies. Wilmar International was reported to have had over a total area of 120,100 ha in 2006 with active permits. By 2009, the Minister for Agriculture had cancelled permits to almost all these areas and had then restored to Wilmar only 52,204 ha. The main receiver of the permits was a company called Djarum, which is not RSPO certified and was alleged to have cleared land without conducting environmental impact assessments or securing agreements from host communities.

“The big task which WWF and RSPO should focus on is creating a legal bind for the HVC assessments so that companies can be held accountable for their actions,” said Tanago.

“Nothing is being done right now about the pollution and land clearance because the government is on the company’s side.”

WWF concedes that it is a difficult situation but maintains that it is taking a constructive approach.

“We have been involved with the Indonesian government since the early days of the RSPO and taking all the necessary steps in the process,” said Ardiansyah, former forest restoration coordinator for WWF Indonesia. “It is a difficult process because the government does not yet understand.”

“But I would say that 50 per cent of the P&C have already been incorporated into government agenda. The critical points related to social and indigenous issues are not quite there yet.”

Carbon emissions

Palm oil production also accounts for a large majority of Indonesia’s carbon emissions. When each hectare of peatland is drained for oil palm production, an estimated 3,750-5,400 tons of carbon dioxide is released over 25 years. Due to this, Indonesia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the U.S.

The Roundtable held its annual conference in Kuala Lumpur in early November 2009 and according to its press releases, the executive board managed to ‘reach a compromise in which some emissions reduction requirements will be directly incorporated in the Roundtable’s certification standards.’ Again, the standards to be followed will be voluntary.

“This is a move in the right direction,” said Adam Harrison, WWF’s representative on the RSPO Executive Board in a press statement released after the meeting. “We encourage companies to embrace emissions reduction standards once they become available and do their part to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change.”

The fact that the RSPO does not factor the enormous levels of CO2 emitted from plantations has been one of the primary concerns of NGOs. WWF appears to consider the outcome of the latest annual meeting a constructive step forward but it is unlikely that the others will agree.