by Editor 20100826.

‘Critically Endangered Birds: A Global Audit’ is a summary review by ^Birdlife International as a product of its BirdLife Preventing Extinctions Programme.  It presents the science underpinning the programme and the actions needed by other organisations, agencies and governments to complement it.

It reports the state of the world’s Critically Endangered birds as they were in 2008, highlighting the pressures they face, and the actions needed to prevent their extinction.  The report is drawn from material developed for State of the World’s Birds, a broader report which is available for download and as an extensive searchable database at ^www.birdlife.org/sowb

The ‘Critically Endangered Birds: A Global Audit’ report (PDF, 3.36 MB) is available by clicking the following link :

^Critically_Endangered_Birds_global_audit_(Birdlife_Intl_2008)

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100820.

Following the devastating Grose Valley bushfires of November 2006 in New South Wales (Australia), which burnt out 14,070 hectares of high conservation bushland in and around the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, the editor (a nearby resident and witness) wrote to the head of the NSW Rural Fire Service.

The letter raised serious concerns about bushfire management and offerred constructive recommendations and a detailed operational reform initiative.  The letter was not responded to by the Rural Fire Service.

[Read below]

Aftermath of the Grose Valley Bushfires, Blue Mountains, NSW (Australia)

looking from Govett’s Leap, Blackheath.

[Photo taken 9-Dec-2006]

 

---

The Habitat Advocate

PO Box 21

KATOOMBA NSW 2780

Wednesday, 9^th January 2007

Mr Keith Harrap

Assistant Commissioner

NSW Rural Fire Service

15 Carter Street

HOMEBUSH NSW 2127

Dear Mr Harrap,

Your Ref:   M07/0515

RE: FOI Request for Operational Reports & Costs of the Grose Fire

Thank you for your reply letter of 24-Dec-07.  I appreciate the efforts of your staff to search and to try to provide this information that I have requested about the operational reports and costs directly associated with the Grose Fire of November 2006.  I am particularly grateful for the co-operative communication provided by Justin Walsh at NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) headquarters.

I have some questions about the information provided in respect to the RFS recording of events and costs associated with this major fire.  I wish to also offer some observations and make recommendations that I will appreciate you taking on board by way of ongoing quality improvements to fire management policy and practices.  In this regard, I have had some brief communication with the local Superintendent District Manager of the RFS in the district where I live (the Blue Mountains), Mal Cronstedt.

Mal Cronstedt as you will be aware, was the Incident Controller of the Grose Fire.  As courtesy I shall send him a copy of this letter as well as the information you have provided me.  I will also appreciate you passing on a copy of this letter to the NSW RFS Commissioner, Mr Shane Fitzsimmons and advise that I will also welcome his feedback.

Fire Incident Recording

I am surprised by your reply that the RFS does not have any record or minutes of the operational meeting immediately following the Grose Fire.  The reported inter-agency review that took place at Katoomba on 19^th December 2006 some three weeks after the fire would have included critical operational information about the Grose Fire. The accurate hands-on operational feedback from fire fighters would have proved invaluable in preparing the formal Section 44 Incident Controller’s Report into this fire.  Such operational information, feedback and assessment would be invaluable in providing increased understanding of the fire incident and fire behaviour, of resource utilisation and of management handling and decision making during the fire.

This would support fire investigation efforts and facilitate analysis of the fire and of fire fighting performance and effectiveness.  It would be a valuable addition to the wealth of strategic and operational fire knowledge to the local fire command to help them take remedial actions to improve fire management standards and resourcing.

However, without any operation records of this major fire incident such benefits have been lost.

I have asked Justin Walsh at RFS headquarters to also find out if any reports or meeting minutes exist by either Fire Captains at Katoomba or Lithgow from where the fire fighting of the Grose Fire was jointly controlled.  If such information exists then I shall be applying for an additional Freedom of Information request for this.

Given the considerable monetary cost of this fire, the extensive resources required to combat it and bring it under control, the wide media attention it attracted and the public outcry as a result of the damage to the Blue Gum Forest, it would seem inconceivable that no records, field notes or daily records exist about the fire’s progress and of decisions and actions taken by fire management.

If so, this suggests a serious disconnect between executing fire suppression operations and monitoring those operations.  This surely would undermine performance management planning and review systems within the RFS.  It sends a message to the community that the RFS is not accountable.

As you will be aware, under the RFS Corporate Plan 2007-2009, a key value includes ‘continuous improvement’ which it applies on page 14 to being “we pro-actively seek, develop and implement benchmarks, to measure, monitor and improve our performance.”

RFS Key Strategy Programme 1.1.5 under this plan reads:

“Maintain an accurate system for the recording of all fire and emergency incidents using the Fire Incident Reporting System (FIRS) by reporting all incidents to the Operations Customer Support Centre.”

RFS Key Strategy Programme 1.1.33 under this plan reads:

“Continuously improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service’s business and tactical planning by reviewing, maintaining and improving the Service Delivery Model (SDM).”

 

I have concerns that this plan is not transferring into practice.

Recommendation:

 

Last month I outlined to Mal Cronstedt a recommended reform initiative ‘Compulsory Fire Event Logging’.  This reform initiative proposes to standardise and make compulsory a Bushfire Event Log for every registered fire in New South Wales.  This would seek to capture all quantitative and qualitative information about a fire. The purpose of a Fire Event Log would be to capture and consolidate all information associated with combating a fire into one document for operational analysis and future reference use.

I look forward to Mal’s feedback on this recommended reform.

Total Fire Cost

The expenditure summary that you have provided seems to be an internal RFS accounting report limited to the direct recorded outlays of the RFS associated with the Grose Fire.

However, my Freedom of Information request is for the total cost of the Grose Fire – the ‘Total Fire Cost’. By this I am referring to all expenditures and costs incurred by the RFS and all associated organisations involved directly and indirectly in fighting this fire, including asset loss valuations.  The direct and indirect costs that I expect can be attributed to the fire, would include:

• Direct and indirect operating costs incurred by the RFS from the time of first responding to the fire through to completing mopping up operations after the fire was extinguished
• Direct and indirect operating costs incurred by all fire fighting authorities fighting the fire including NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) – both local and Inter-District, NSW Fire Brigades (NSWFB), Department of Environment & Conservation (NSW) – (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)).
• Direct costs incurred by organisations associated with fighting the fire such as the many interstate support agencies seconded to fight the fire, including their associated transport and accommodation costs, plus the costs of other support organisations which can directly attribute costs specifically to this fire.   Support Agencies listed in the Section 44 Report section 4.2 include the following:
• Any direct operating costs of the fire not paid for by the RFS due to funding, subsidies or rebates provided by government agencies outside the RFS.
• Direct expenses of related injury and accident claims of personnel directly involved in fighting the fire, including the cost of WorkCover claims, related payouts and lost time at work.
• Economic loss valuations of property, plant and equipment damaged as a direct result of the fire.  This includes those of owners of land and infrastructure such as DECC, Blue Mountains City Council, RailCorp, Sydney Catchment Authority, Integral Energy, Telstra, the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority and private land owners, including insurance claims.

• • Ambulance Service of New South Wales
  • Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC)
  • Department of Defence, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
  • Integral Energy
  • NSW Department of Community Services
  • NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation
  • NSW Department of Primary Industries
  • NSW Health
  • NSW Police Force
  • NSW State Emergency Service (SES)
  • Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW (RTA)
  • Rail Corporation New South Wales (RaiICorp)
  • Salvation Army
  • St Johns Ambulance of Australia
  • Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA)
  • Sydney Water
  • Telstra Corporation Limited

This list is not exhaustive.

Importantly, here I am not seeking to obtain the broader social and environmental costs, which though relevant, would understandably be more difficult to estimate and obtain.  Instead, I am merely seeking those accounting costs that can be reasonably and justifiably attributed to this fire.  Such costs must be recorded respectively by each organisation as part of Australian financial accounting practices.

Does the RFS have access to these costs?  Does the RFS maintain a database that captures all direct and indirect costs of each major bushfire in NSW?  If not, does the RFS have any plans to start capturing Total Fire Costs of major fire or indeed to capture the Total Fire Costs of each registered fire incident during each financial year?

Recommendation:

I propose that the RFS should capture the Total Fire Costs for each major fire and, to be comprehensive, for all registered fire incidents to which the RFS responds.  The expertise for this task may well require the assistance of an outside audit firm.

However, the benefit of this to the RFS and to the community will be considerable in highlighting the Total Fire Costs of fighting fires in New South Wales, which I argue we still don’t know with any reliably accuracy.  I expect that for the Grose Fire for instance, the Total Fire Cost will be a considerably larger figure than the internally recorded accounting records of the RFS of $6.1 million.

Such record keeping will serve to greatly assist the effort of the RFS to attract increased funding to enable it to better:

1. mitigate the risk of bushfires
2. resource itself to better detect ignitions
3. resource itself to better suppress bushfires.

I understand that between 2003 and 2007 the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre (Bushfire- CRC) with RMIT University completed a research project, which involved researching the ‘true costs of bushfires’.  It would be useful to seek the reports from this project.

RFS Reporting of Fire Incidents

Please advise RFS policy and practice guidelines for recording major fire incidents?  [Read recommended policy initiative below]

Recommendation:

As an RFS policy, that for each major fire incident declared under Section 44 of the Rural Fire Act 1997, I recommend that both an Incident Controllers Report together with the Total Fire Costs of Fire be provided by the RFS to the Minister for Emergency Services.

I will welcome your feedback and the opportunity to participate in reforms to fire management across NSW.

Yours sincerely,

[the Editor]

CC:                   Mal Cronstedt, Superintendent, District Manager, Blue Mountains

 

 

---

 

Rural Fire Management Reform

Recommended Reform Initiative #01

Compulsory Fire Event Logging

Table of Contents

 

 

---

 

 

1.    Purpose of Reform Initiative

2.    Recommended Policy

3.    Recommended Procedures

4.    Justifications for Reform Initiative

5.    Benefits of Reform Initiative

---

1.     Purpose of Reform Initiative

This reform initiative proposes to standardise and make compulsory a Bushfire Event Log for every registered fire in New South Wales.

The purpose of a Fire Event Log is to capture and consolidate all information associated with combating a fire into one document for operational and reference use.

Typical information about a fire is to be sourced from fire management decision-making, deployment instructions, radio communications from fire-fighting crews, observations by airborne crews, current weather statistics from the Bureau of Meteorology and relevant information received from other emergency services (NSWFB, Police, Ambulance, SES, etc) associated with a subject fire.

---

2.     Recommended Policy

The Fire Control Centre of each Rural Fire District in New South Wales must establish and maintain a separate Fire Event Log of each registered fire occurring, either wholly or partially, within its Rural Fire District.

A minimum Australian standard of vital fire information necessary for a Fire Event Log must be established and approved by the NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner.  This standard must be reviewed annually ahead of each peak fire risk season.

A suitable training programme in Fire Event Log Procedures must be established to enable suitable fire personnel to be trained in order to competently maintain a Fire Event Log to the minimum Australian standard.

This policy should be integrated into the RURAL FIRE SERVICE Standard Operating Procedures once a process of consultation with all relevant personnel has been extensively undertaken across the entire breadth of the organisation.

Once approved, a Fire Event Log Policy and Procedures should be gazetted into the Rural Fires Act (NSW), 1997 and considered similarly for each fire authority in each Australian State.

---

3.     Recommended Procedures

• The Fire Control Centre of each Rural Fire District across New South Wales must establish a new and separate Fire Event Log upon becoming first aware of any fire within its fire district.
• A Fire Event Log must be maintained continuously throughout the duration of a fire within a Fire District until such time as the responsible Fire Control Officer (or higher RURAL FIRE SERVICE command) declares the fire extinguished within that district.
• A Fire Event Log must be recorded using the RURAL FIRE SERVICE central computer system, with appropriate daily data back ups generated at the end of each day.
• The Fire Control Officer for a given Rural Fire District is ultimate responsibile and accountabile for establishing and maintaining an accurate and thorough Fire Event Log for each fire in its district.  A Fire Control Officer may only delegate the task of maintaining a Fire Event Log to a qualified fire fighter holding a current endorsement in Fire Event Log Procedures.
• The Fire Control Officer of each Rural Fire District must endeavour to capture all information about a fire in a separate Bushfire Event Log for each fire (where possible) including, but not limited to

1. The designated name of the subject fire
2. Date & time of the ignition
3. Location of the ignition
4. Cause of the ignition
5. GIS digital map updating of the fire spread, likely path and key data
6. Details of the initial reporting of the fire outbreak/detection details
7. Lapse time to initial response & details of initial response action
8. Location of fire(s) & fire behaviour updates at 15 minute intervals
9. Local and forecast weather statistics relevant to the fire
10. Interstate agencies seconded
11. Daily updates on Total Area Burnt
12. Daily updates on any lives Lost
13. Daily updates on property lost, including number of dwellings
14. Daily updates on area of private property & farmland burnt
15. Daily updates on areas of mapped high conservation areas burnt
16. Daily updates on the number of fire-fighters involved
17. Daily updates on the number of aircraft involved
18. Daily synopsis on the fire(s) status
19. Executive decisions and actions taken, including incident declaration
20. Critical issues
21. Key operational threats & risks
22. Fire resource needs and shortfalls
23. Contact details and correspondence with assigned fire investigation
24. Total duration of fire activity once extinguished
25. Injury Summary Report
26. Resource Usage Summary Report by contribution agency
27. Register of Support Agency Involvement

• When a fire takes the form of combined fires or multiple fire fronts within reasonable proximity in a geographic area, the responsible Fire Control Officer may order that a single Fire Event Log be maintained for the combined fires/multiple fire front.
• Regular communication must be maintained between the Fire Control Centre and field brigades fighting a fire to facilitate logging fire activity to a minimum standard that allows communications at a minimum interval of 15 minutes.
• Any communications failures or difficulties between firefighting crews (ground and airborne) and Fire Control, or any problems experienced  in maintaining a minimum 15 minute communications frequency, must be immediately reported by the Fire Control Officer, or in the case of a major fire incident, to the Incident Controller.
• A Fire Event Log is to be deemed the official single register of a fire event, a core operational document and a legal document admissible in a court of law.
• As an internal document, a Fire Event Log is not automatically available for public access.  The RURAL FIRE SERVICE Commissioner may at his/her discretion allow public access to such a document via a Freedom of Information Request from a member of the public.
• The integrity and security of a Fire Event Log is paramount and is the ultimate responsibility of the Fire Control Officer assigned to a given fire.  A digital copy of Fire Event Log must be provided by a Rural Fire District branch to RURAL FIRE SERVICE Headquarters within 7 days of the fire being declared extinguished.  A secure and accessible database of Fire Event Logs is to be maintained by both the respective  Rural Fire District branch and for all fires across NSW by RURAL FIRE SERVICE Headquarters.

---

4.     Justifications for Reform Initiative

• While it is acknowledged that the author is not a member of the Rural Fire Service and so not privy to Rural Fire Service policy and procedures for recording bushfire operations, the lack of operational detail provided the Section 44 Incident Controllers Report for the Nov-06 Grose bushfire and the absence of minutes from the subsequent Inter-Agency review on 19-Dec-06, highlight shortcomings in record keeping of fire operations.
• Perhaps much of the information reported of bushfire events is obtained from personal recollection of events from individual line personnel a considerable time after the event.   For instance, the Section 44 Report into the Grose bushfire (14-Nov-06 to 3-Dec-06) is dated 8-Feb-07, two months later.  There are obvious problems relying upon recollecting detailed events, the precise time and order of those events, the changing fire behaviour, the decisions made and actions taken and the changing conditions at the time.  The absence of a factual minute by minute event log makes it difficult to be accurate and comprehensive in reporting major bushfire incidents. In the event of a major fire, maintaining a Fire Event Log will provide a record the performance of the four ICS functions – control, operations, planning and logistics.
• It may well be that bushfire agencies in each Australian state have their own methods and protocols for recording fire events.  It may also be that different agencies and indeed different regional branches have their own different ways of recording bushfire event data. There is likely no universal consistent standard across Australia of recording bushfire events as they occur.  Some records may be better than others.  There is a need to have a consistently high standard of record keeping for bushfire events across Australia.
• Recent coronial inquests in Australia into bushfire deaths (Canberra Bushfire Jan 2003, Eyre Peninsula Fire Jan 2005), highlight the need for fire authorities need to have accurate records of bushfire events so that they are better able to defend their actions in court.

---

5.     Benefits of Reform Initiative

• The benefits of establishing and maintaining a Bushfire Event Log is to better enable bushfire management to achieve an accurate and comprehensive record of a fire – the events, decisions and actions and outcomes associated with each fire event.   All relevant operational data associated with a fire will be recorded in one convenient document.
• A Bushfire Event Log will provide a reliable source document for preparing a fire incident report.  This will avoid the often difficult task of having to recall events, the order of those events, decisions made along with the fire behaviour at the time, long after a fire sometimes days or weeks later when memories have faded.
• Recent reports and inquests have highlighted failures in fire-fighting communications, which arguably had a role in contributing to operational problems in controlling the spread, severity and impacts of fires.  Compulsorily requiring a Bushfire Event Log will require regular communication between fire-fighters and Fire Control.  This requirement will help drive the need to improve the reliability of operational communications during a bushfire event.
• A Bushfire Event Log will provide a actual live record of the performance of the co-ordination, command and control functions of the ICS, including the operational sequence: Reaction, Reconnaissance, Appreciation, Plan, Issue of Orders and Deployment.   This log will be highly useful at a debriefing session following a fire, allowing operational problems to be better identified.  This will aid the RURAL FIRE SERVICE to increases its knowledge and understanding of rural fire fighting.
• A Bushfire Event Log will enable bushfire management to be more transparent in reporting its operations, assisting any possible coronial investigations, for operational evaluation and improvement, analysis and to contribute firefighting practice into bushfire research.  By making fire event logging compulsory, regular information must be fed back to central command in order to achieve the minimum reporting standard.  This will drive a higher standard in strategic communications.

---

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100811.

Editor at Blue Drum Waterhole along the Kings Tableland Road south toward McMahon’s Lookout, Blue Mountains, NSW,  Australia, 12th November 2004.

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100810.

The following article appeared on ABC Television in Tasmania (Australia), Friday 16th July 2010.

---

‘Scientists are concerned about a decline in eastern quoll numbers in Tasmania.

The eastern quoll is a carnivorous marsupial and is sometimes known as a native cat.

Scientists predicted quoll numbers would rise as the tasmanian devil population was decimated by the facial tumour disease.

But spotlighting survey work has shown numbers have fallen by half.

University of Tasmania honours student, Bronwyn Fancourt, is now doing more detailed survey work but says initial results are concerning.

“We really need to protect these guys because we don’t want to see them end up as another thylacine,” she said.

Blood samples and measurements will be taken for further research into why the species is in decline.’

---

Further reading on the plight of Quolls in Tasmania:

[The following article was extracted from the Tasmanian Times of 15th May 2010, by Nick Mooney, Richmond (Tasmania), ^http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/cynical-dismissal-of-substantial-material-evidence ].

‘Cynical dismissal of substantial material evidence‘

[This article was extracted from the Hobart Mercury of 16-July 2010, by Charkes Waterhouse, http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/16/159131_tasmania-news.html ].

‘Another native Tasmanian species is under threat, with the population of eastern quolls falling around the state.

The decline has alarmed experts as the eastern quoll was expected to thrive to fill the void left by falling numbers of disease-ravaged Tasmanian devils.

The University of Tasmania and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment will investigate the extent of the falling population.

DPIPWE threatened species zoologist Clare Hawkins said the study would provide scientific data on the status of the species.

She said annual spotlighting information suggested the population of the eastern quoll had declined.

“It does appear quite complicated as at the same time there are areas of the state, such as Bruny Island, where landowners are reporting they have never seen so many eastern quolls,” she said.

“It may be that in some areas of the state they remain in high numbers, whereas other parts of Tasmania have had declines, or it may be that in some areas they are coming into closer contact with the urban environment making them more observed, which could be masking an overall decline.”

University of Tasmania zoology honours student Bronwyn Fancourt said a systematic survey would provide scientific information on the wild population, building on information about population changes and showing whether there were areas where increases or decreases had occurred.

“Tasmania is the last stronghold for the eastern quoll as it is now presumed extinct on mainland Australia, which highlights the importance of having scientific data on what the population is doing,” Ms Fancourt said.

She said the survey was taking place through a trap-and-release program at various sites.

Information from this program and any other data collected could help an understanding of possible contributory factors if the quolls were in decline.

---

‘Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080‘

[This article is extracted from the Tasmanian Times, 24-Nov-2006, by wildlife biologist Nick Mooney,^ http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/nick2/].

Assessing the Risks

When assessing the risks of 1080 fox baiting to individuals or populations of any particular species a number of things should be taken into account, including:

• The physiological sensitivity of the species to 1080 poison (depends on many things principal amongst them the historic exposure of the species to 1080 as it occurs in Australian plants), something that can be experimentally measured.

• How many baits the species might find (depends on the sensory abilities of the animal, how, where and the number of baits placed in a given area — the landscape density).

• How many baits the species might eat within a certain period. To cause death, a lethal dose has to be ingested in a certain time — usually within 2 days because sub lethal doses of 1080 are metabolised. Dried meat baits are too hard for many species to do more than mouth and nibble but many species can eat other baits such as Foxoff (eg non toxic bait trials — Belcher 1998 and DPIW data). There is evidence some species can detect 1080 in baits and avoid eating them (eg the spotted-tailed quoll in Foxoff baits, Kortner et al 2003).

• How much 1080 is left in baits when they are eaten (if they are decomposing, 1080 will have also degraded to a comparable degree).

• The likelihood of the species digesting baits (many carnivores and omnivores regurgitate food containing significant amounts of 1080. There are past records of devils regurgitating 1080-laced food in captive trials).

• The age and health of the individual eating the bait or carcasses of poisoned animals (smaller individuals of a species likely have higher metabolisms and consequent usual higher sensitivity to 1080 and healthy individuals likely have more resistance to 1080)

• The size of individuals in the population at baiting (size effects metabolism and consequent susceptibility to 1080. Individuals of the same species might be different in size in different populations, eg devils on the east coast of Tasmania are much larger than west coast individuals, and there may be many small juveniles just after breeding).

• How the species’ range and abundance overlaps with 1080 baiting (the proportion of the species that might be exposed to baiting).

Physiological sensitivity

The level of physiological sensitivity of a species to 1080 is usually described as the species’ LD50 – that is the mg of 1080 ingested per kg of animal during a very short period that will kill 50% of the individuals exposed (LD = Lethal Dose). Most of the research on LD50s for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by Dr John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research (eg McIlroy, 1981a, 1981b and 1981c) and he still gives occasional advice on the matter to DPIW. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.

LD50s for some Tasmanian animals of obvious interest as potential non-target consumers of fox baits (mainly dried kangaroo meat but also some Foxoff meat compound) are

We see that kg-for-kg, red foxes are over 13 times as sensitive to 1080 as are spotted-tailed quolls and 30 times as sensitive as devils. The LD50 for spotted-tailed quolls is lower than might be expected considering those for its relatives, the eastern quoll and Tasmanian devil. McIlroy has expressed the opinion the small sample size and temperatures the results were obtained under may have given a too low result. This is born up by most mainland research that shows little effect of fox and wild dog baiting on spotted-tailed quolls (eg Kortner et al 2003).

Persistence of 1080 in baits

In the field, 1080 breaks down by microbe and fungal activity. Meat baits as used in Tasmania are about 120g of fresh kangaroo meat, each dosed with 3mg of 1080 dried hard to about 40g for storage then use (eg Saunders et al 1995). By the time they are set (buried) some 1080 is already broken down and on average they then only contain 2.7mg – a 10% loss. Once buried, degradation of 1080 accelerates, the rate depending on soil conditions (particularly moisture and temperature) and consequent baits degradation. Such degradation of 1080 is well known (eg Saunders et al 2000).

Tasmanian 1080 fox dried meat baits have been tested after different times in the ground in field conditions and on average after 2 days in the ground only 43.3% of 1080 remained, after 5 days there was 28.2% left, after 10 days 19.7% and after 15 days 11.6%. However, there was considerable variation even between neighbouring baits; some in wet places have much less 1080 residue and some in dry places much more than the average.

Number of baits needed to put individuals at risk

Considering the sensitivity of spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes to 1080 and degradation of 1080 in buried baits we can calculate how many baits buried for various times need to be eaten by different sized spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes within 2 days to have a 50% chance of being killed.

We see below that a very small spotted-tailed quoll will consume an LD50 if it eats most of one freshly layed bait but that same animal would have to eat at least 5 baits within 2 days once they had been in the ground for two weeks to be at similar risk. Similarly a very large spotted-tailed quoll would have to eat more than 4 freshly layed baits to be at risk but more than 30 after two weeks in the ground.

We see below that even a very small devil (probably not even weaned) needs to eat more than 3 freshly layed baits within 2 days to reach an LD50 and large devils need to eat very many baits in a short period to reach an LD50.

We see that foxes are extremely susceptible to 1080 baiting and in many circumstances need less than 1 bait to reach an LD50.

The chances of individuals finding enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk

Extensive testing with foxes on mainland Australia clearly shows they can find baits immediately they are buried; initial take is often high and usually continues until baits and/or foxes are greatly reduced (eg Saunders et al 1995). Limited testing with Foxoff and fresh meat baits with captive and wild spotted-tailed quolls in NSW showed they could detect buried baits but trials only identified this species as taking 2 of 7 baits taken after 3-4 weeks buried adjacent to a spotted-tailed latrine in the wild (Belcher 1998); results consistent with Tasmanian observations considering time buried and that baits were replaced exactly where taken (see below).

Research on take of fox baits without 1080 was undertaken with an isolated, island population of devils (no quolls or foxes present). Initial take was very low (a few % per night) but escalated once baits began to rot, to the point where most baits were taken after 3 weeks. These results were mirrored in places with devils and spotted-tailed quolls, devils and eastern quolls and eastern quolls alone; there are no places exclusively with spotted-tailed quolls in Tasmania. If baits were replaced in a hole where a previous bait had rotted then re-take could be immediate but if placed in a new hole take was very low. Devils in particular would sometimes deeply excavate holes in which baits had rotted.

It seems devils and quolls are not well equipped to find buried baits until they rot or are otherwise smelly (or replaced); probably there has been no need in their evolution. On the other hand, foxes and dogs evolved under conditions of extremely harsh winters where caching and recovering food (or raiding others’ caches) was fundamental to survival. Therefore, these canids are ‘professionals’ at finding buried food (eg Saunders et al 1995, Twigg et al 2000). This does not mean that other species cannot find any buried baits or might even be exposed accidentally (eg during echidna excavations) but it is a clear trend.

There has been considerable questioning of what animals have taken the thousands of baits of the nearly 80,000 sofar set in Tasmania. Checking baits daily allows a reasonable judgment of what might have taken them and in the early days of baiting (2002/3) when daily checks were undertaken about 20 baits were recorded as taken in typical fox style (as seen else where in Australia). Once baiting expanded and baits were only checked at recovery such judgments of take could rarely be made; hence the experiments reported here. If baits were recovered 2-3 weeks after burial few were missing but if it was 3 weeks or more most might be – it seemed a simple fact of rotting and then being found.

In operational fox baiting in Tasmania, baits are buried at a landscape density of 5-10/km2. The number of baits in an animal’s home range can also be considered and how much competition there might be for baits. A large devil might have 100 baits in its home range but that home range would likely be shared by 10-30 other devils plus quolls (and possibly foxes). Thus, the baits available per individual are comparatively few.

The chances of individuals eating enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk

Although they can easily eat soft baits, test have shown that small or even medium sized spotted-tailed quolls and very small devils do not (probably can not) eat very dry and hard baits and it is not until they are independent that they are likely to be under enough nutritional pressure and are strong enough to eat such. Tests on captive mainland Australian spotted-tailed quolls support these results (Belcher 2000).

What actually happens in the field?

Considerable research has been done on effects of 1080 fox baiting on spotted-tailed quolls on mainland Australia (eg Kortner ET al 2003). In Tasmania, experimental 1080 baiting was not carried out but rather, research waited until an operational baiting occurred in an area with enough spotted-tailed quolls to usefully study (near Wynyard).

Although there were too few quolls in the study sites area (and a comparative control site with no baiting) to have statistically robust comparisons of numbers before and after baiting we found individual spotted-tailed quolls similarly persisted in both areas through and after baiting. Importantly, there were breeding females (with pouch young) and free ranging juveniles present in both sites after baiting; there was no identifiable difference between baited and non-baited sites. This work will be repeated as opportunity presents.

In the northern midlands where the effects of 1080 fox baiting on devils was being studied, there was also a ‘background’ population of spotted-tailed quolls. Trapping after a prolonged baiting period showed all elements of a normal devil population in place – breeders and juveniles with no apparent drop in density. Perhaps most interestingly, in the months after this research a substantial drop in numbers of devils due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease occurred and in another 6 months numbers of spotted-tailed quoll seemed to have measurably increased (probably due to decreased competition and predation from the fewer devils) and has stayed high with an apparently normal mix of breeders and juveniles. DFTD it seems has absolutely overwhelming effects (even if indirect) compared to fox baiting.

In an area in which Foxoff meat compound baits were operationally used extensive capture-mark-recapture studies were done of large local populations of Tasmanian bettongs Bettongia giamardi and brushtail possums Truchosaurus vulpecula, two species likely to eat these baits. Very few Foxoff baits were taken and there was no difference in population change between the baited site and a control site.

These Tasmanian ‘pilot’ studies suggest there is little if any damage to local populations of spotted-tailed quoll, Tasmanian devils, Tasmanian bettongs or brushtail possum from 1080 fox baiting in Tasmania as is known to have severe effects on fox populations on mainland Australia (eg Saunders et al 1995).

State-wide Effects

A final check can be made by looking at what proportion of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quoll and devil population might be exposed to 1080 fox baiting. Sofar, 1080 fox baiting has only touched the fringe of Tasmania’s core spotted-tailed quoll habitat and perhaps less than 2-3% of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quolls have been in baited areas. Similarly perhaps 5% of Tasmania’s devils have been in baited areas. These areas and percentages may increase by half with planned fox baiting but, even then the reality is little or no effect on a small proportion of the State’s populations of these important species.

References

1. Belcher, C. (1998). Susceptibility of the tiger quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, and the eastern quoll D. viverrinus, to 1080-poisoned baits in control programmes for vertebrate pests in eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 25, 33-40.
2. Belcher, C. (2000). The ecology of the Tiger Quoll Dasyurus maculatus, in south-eastern Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin Uni.
3. Kortner, G., Gresser, S. and B. Harden (2003). Does fox baiting threaten the spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus maculatus? Wildlife Research 30, 111-118.
4. McIlroy, J. C. (1981a). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 1. Intraspecific variation and factors effecting acute toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
5. McIlroy, J. C. (1981b). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 11. Marsupial and eutherian carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.
6. McIlroy, J.C. (1981). The sensitivity of Australian animals to 1080 poison.1X. Comparisons between the major groups of animals, and the potential danger non-target species face from 1080 poisoning campaigns. Australian wildlife Research 13, 39-48.
7. Saunders, G., McLeod, S. and B. Kay (2000). Degradation of sodium monoflouroacetate (1080) in buried fox baits. Wildlife Research 27, 129-135.
8. Twigg, L., Eldridge, S., Edwards, G., Shakeshaft, B., dePeru, N. and N. Adams (2000). The longevity and efficacy of 1080 meat baits used for dingo control in central Australia). Wildlife Research 27, 473-481.

Other Useful Reading

Kinnear, J.E. (2003). Eradicating the fox in Tasmania: A review of the Fox Free Tasmania Program. Unpublished report to DPIWE, Hobart.
Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. and M. Braysher (1995). Managing vertebrate pests: Foxes. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra
Saunders, G., Lane, C., Harris, S. and C. Dickman (2006). Foxes in Tasmania: A Report on the Incursion of an Invasive Species. IACRC, Canberra.

Nick Mooney is a wildlife biologist with DPIW and has been working with Tasmanian wildlife for more than 30 years. Amongst other hats, he pioneered Tasmanian rehabilitation and conservation of raptors including eagles in forestry, has monitored reports of Thylacines and foxes, helped with responses to newly discovered diseases, whale strandings and oil spills and developed practical conservation of devils and innovative wildlife tourism. Most recently he kicked off the response to Devil facial Tumour Disease and has been giving advice for the response to recent evidence of foxes in Tasmania. Nick is assessing the potential ecological effects of DFTD, foxes and cats; he sees the biggest ecological threat as establishment of foxes because of DFTD, a process that could cause the ultimate long term threat to devils (his favourite animal).

Nick Mooney

There has been a recent spate of public concern over the effect that 1080 baiting targeting the red fox Vulpes vulpes in Tasmania might have on the spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus and the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii.

Considerable research has been done on that quoll species on mainland Australia, studies augmented by work in Tasmania on both it and devils.

---

‘Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080 #2‘

[This article is extracted from the Tasmanian Times, 27-Nov-2006, by David Obendorf,^ http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/obis1/].

AS NICK MOONEY states: ‘Most of the research on lethal dose to 50% (LD50) for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.’  (Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080)

With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.
John McIlroy commenced his work on the sensitivity of Australian animals to the poison 1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate) a quarter of a century ago. John was a research scientist working at the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research at Gunghalin near Canberra. During the period from 1980-86 he conducted a series of dose-response experiments to assess the sensitivity of 1080 on a representative range of Australian animals, covering species in all the main vertebrate taxa. He published 9 scientific papers in this series; 7 as the sole author and 2 in collaboration with others.

In documenting his research findings, John was careful to firstly prepare the theoretical and statistical ground work on which this series of experimentally-based toxicity would be based (McIlroy 1981a).

“In toxicological work the sensitivity of different [species of] animals to a poison is usually expressed as the LD50 or median lethal dose, a statistical estimate of the dose — in milligrams of poison per kilogram body weight, that will kill 50%  of a large population.

The LD50 of a poison and its 95% confidence limits are only an indication of the values that might be expected from repeated trials on the same strain of animals under the same experimental conditions.”

In applying the LD50 values to a test poison, McIlroy states:

“The necessity for such a standardised procedure has been questioned … [as] statistically significant differences in LD50 values (up to 3.2 fold) within and between laboratories, related to differences in experimental procedure, …  [but] these were not great enough to change the interpretation of the relative hazards of the test chemical involved. However, because I was concerned with a controversial poison [1080] and its toxicity to a variety of wild animals, I felt it was important to assess the effects that differences in experimental procedure might have on LD50 values of 1080 and, if necessary, design a procedure to minimize such sources of variation.” (McIlroy 1981a)

In his second paper detailing the results of his experimental studies on marsupials and placental mammals, John began on a cautionary note:

“The effect that these [1080] poisoning campaigns are having on non-target or native animal populations is not known, despite occasional reports of individuals of these species being found dead or ‘vanishing’ from areas in which 1080 has been used.” (McIlroy 1981b).

Targeting dingoes

McIlroy was very considered in any reliance of these experimentally derived LD50 values:

“In reality many factors are involved in determining whether an individual or what proportion of a population may be killed by a [1080] poisoning campaign. The preceding theoretical analysis involved mean body weights of only small samples of animals, LD50s obtained under specific experimental conditions, and a particular concentration of 1080 in each bait plus the assumptions about bait intake by free-living species. All are likely to vary in different field situations, altering the risk each individual carnivore faces.”

Based on 1080 baiting campaigns targeting dingoes (& wild dogs), John McIlroy made some thoughtful recommendations when deciding on the most effective bait size and quantity of 1080 per bait for maximal kill of target species and minimal impact to non-target (native) species.

“The data on [1080] sensitivities do provide fundamental information for the planning of dingo-poisoning operations. For example, if the aim is to obtain maximal control with minimum dose it would be best to plan the baiting on the basis of a LD100 based on twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 and the weight of the heaviest specimen reported. In contrast, to assess the hazard to a non-target species, calculations might be best based on the lower confidence limit of the LD50, or some other lower figure, and either the mean weight or much lower body weights of, for instance, immature animals.”

McIlroy went on to do a theoretical calculation to show this point for dingoes (the target carnivore) and spotted-tail quolls (a non-target carnivore).

“The heaviest individual [dingo] caught in the Eastern Highlands was 25 kg. Thus if the LD100 is assumed to be approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.3mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get 7.5 mg of 1080 into a dog of this size to kill it. Similar calculations for tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls], using twice the lower confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 2.56 mg/kg BW) and taking the mean body weight of 2.8 kg, indicate that 7.17 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose for [this species].

Applying McIlroy’s precautionary recommendation to the mean body weight for immature spotted-tail quolls of 1.1 kg, only 2.8 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose.

Obtain a lethal dose

The same theoretical calculation and logic can be applied can be applied to 1080 poisoning campaigns targeting foxes.

For an extreme body weight fox of 6 kg and applying an LD100 that is approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.26mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get a fox to consume 1.56 mg of 1080 to kill it (not 3 mg of 1080 per bait). If each dried kangaroo meat (DKM) baits contained this amount of 1080, one bait would kill all foxes less than 6 kg. When applying McIlroy’s precautionary calculation to a mean body weight for immature quolls, such animals would need to ingest at least two baits to obtain a lethal dose.

“From the viewpoint of trying to safeguard tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls]; therefore, it is obviously necessary to keep 1080 concentration in baits as low as possible.” (McIlroy 1981b)

One variable that McIlroy particularly commented on was the effect of ambient temperature on the sensitivity of 1080 poison. He was concerned that his experimental trials to set the LD50 for many native marsupials were carried out at about 22°C (in controlled environment rooms). He noted that in relation toxicity studies on the spotted-tail quolls, trials were conducted at 13°C where the LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kg BW.

“… different ambient temperatures cause two to five fold differences in the susceptibility of mice and guinea pigs to 1080. Both species are susceptible at both low and high ambient temperatures than they are at medium temperatures. If similar responses occur amongst other, larger homeotherms, this might explain the relatively low LD50 for the tiger cat [spotted-tail quoll] compared to those for the other native cats [quolls]. The possibility exists, therefore, that if these trials had been carried out at 22°C [instead of 13°C], the LD50 would have been slightly higher than 1.85 mg/kg BW.

Ambient temperatures obviously vary considerably between field poisoning situations, both geographically and diurnally, so a LD50 obtained at 22°C, or a dose that will kill 50% of a population experiencing this ambient temperature, must be regarded as only a general value. Greater population mortality may be expected at much lower or higher environmental temperatures.” (McIlroy 1981b)

In relation to the most susceptible non-target marsupial carnivore, the spotted-tail quoll, 1080 baiting programs targeting foxes and wild dogs are still reliant on McIlroy’s highly qualified toxicology studies and LD50 calculations.

In obtaining his LD50 levels for each species, McIlroy orally dosed between 3 and 5 individuals at dose intervals of 1.26 in 4 distinct dose groupings. For spotted-tailed quoll he used 12 animals. The LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kgm with 95% confidence intervals of 1.28 to 2.68 mg/kgm BW.

Other animals begin to vomit

Clinical observations were made on the experimentally poisoned animals.

“Most commonly, affected animals suddenly became hyper-excited, with rapid breathing, bouts of trembling and sometimes periodic circling within their cages. Again, some animals may then recover while other begin to vomit, convulse, or both. With some animals, particularly the eastern native and tiger cats [quolls] and Tasmanian devils, the first symptom is the sudden onset of vomiting.

Convulsions were triggered by disturbance, such as the opening of a door, sudden movement by an observer, or convulsion by a neighbouring animal. In rough order, these symptoms include: restlessness; increased hyperexcitability or response to stimuli; bouts of trembling; rapid, shallow breathing; incontinence[involuntary passing of urine and/or faeces] or diarrhoea; excessive salivation; twitching of the facial muscles; nystagmus (involuntary eyeball movement exposing the whites of the eyes)or bulging eyes with large (dilated) pupils and rapid blinking plus, in domestic cats, discharge of mucus from the eyes); slight lack of coordination or balance; abrupt bouts of vocalisation; and finally, sudden burst of violent activity such as racing around the cage, or biting the cage mesh or other objects. All affected animals then fall to the ground in a tetanic seizure, with hind limbs or all four limbs and sometimes the tail extended rigidly from their arched bodies. At other times the front feet are clasped together, clenched or used to scratch frantically at the cage walls. This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the animals lie and kick and ‘paddle’ with the front legs and sometimes squeal, crawl around or bite at objects. During this phase the tongue and penis may be extruded, the eyes rolled back so that only the whites show and the teeth are ground together. Breathing is rapid but laboured, with some animals partly choking on their saliva. Finally such animals begin to relax, breathing more slowly and shallowly and lying quietly with the hind legs still extended but apparently semiparalysed (paresis).

From then on individual animals either: (1) gradually recover; (2) die shortly afterwards; (3) after a short or long delay (e.g. 5 min or 3-4 h) experience another one or two series of convulsions and then die shortly afterwards or eventually recover; (4) remain lying quietly, scarcely breathing or moving, until death up to 6 days later.

It is noteworthy that in McIlroy’s observations on carnivorous marsupials exposed to sub-lethal doses of 1080, he noted that animals that did not die but ‘remained weak for 2 or more days’. From this we can infer that the sub-lethal consequences of 1080 poisoning may therefore affect an animal’s ability to evade predation by other animals and affect their ability to find safe refuge.

McIlroy also makes the following observations:

“The pouch young of tammar wallabies are significantly more susceptible to 1080 than adults (P>0.01. The pouch young of brush-tailed possums and northern native cats, Dasyurus hallicatus, similarly appear to be more sensitive than adults. More pouch young pouch young possums than adults died at each dose level, although only their mothers were dosed with 1080; presumably the young ingested lethal amounts of 1080 in the milk. The eight pouch young of one northern native cat also died within 24 h after their mother received a non-lethal dose (84% of a LD50 )but the five pouch young of a tiger cat, Dasyurus maculatus, survived in similar circumstances (74% of a LD50 ). [There are] similar reports of young rats killed by milk from their poisoned mothers.” (McIlroy 1981).

Fox entry into Tasmania

Fox entry into Tasmania has ALWAYS been a biosecurity/biodiversity risk for Tasmania, yet it is remains unclear whether foxes have established breeding populations in Tasmania.

Despite the unsubstantiated stories of intentional introductions of foxes the most likely source of single-fox introductions into Tasmania has been slack and inadequate quarantine measures. In the decades of inadequate quarantine measures at our ports, any foxes that have arrived and escaped into Tasmania, the questions remains which locations have the highest frequency of receiving fox-risk materials?  Might these be the places where foxes might just get lucky and breed?

Over fifty years of 1080 use in Tasmania to control native herbivores like Bennett’s wallaby, Tasmanian pademelon and brush-tail possum coupled with the high sensitivity of red foxes to secondary 1080 poisoning (i.e. through eating a poisoned carcass) is rarely acknowledged.

Where will they ‘get lucky’ in the landscape? Closest to the farms & feedlots that have historically received container-loads of stock feed grain; agri-businesses that transport or deal with used farm equipment; freight forwarding depots. The highly reliable sighting reports of foxes in remote areas (where 1080 poisons have not been used) like the western Central Plateau or our National Parks must be the basis for intensive investigation. Maybe the remote camera used by the DFT team can be now deployed for fox studies.

It ALWAYS comes down to validating the risk assessment.

References:

1. McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison I. Intraspecific variation and Factors affecting Acute Toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
2. McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison II. Marsupial and Eutherian Carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.

David Obendorf

With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100730.

[© 2009 CFA. The koala dubbed ‘Sam’ who only temporarily survived

the worst bushfire tragedy in Australia’s history in February 2009.

 

The final findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission into the bushfire management of the February 2009 firestorm are due to be publicly released tomorrow.

What will government do to prevent a repetition?  This must be the ultimate question, else what has it all been about?   The recurring history of bushfires followed by enquiries shows that little is done to prevent a repetition.  The risk of over reacting and incinerating vast swathes of habitat is a likely immature kneejerk response.   The bunker suggestion is a last ditch tactic, but it is not a strategy.  It is not the needed transformation of bushfire management.

Emergency management funding is not priority government funding for the head of the Victorian Government in Australia, Premier John Brumby.

The despicable reality of government bushfire management policy across Victoria and indeed Australia is:

‘You’re On Your Own’ – before, during and after!

 

It is government policy Australia-wide, played out in repeated wildfires, investigations, coroner enquiries, royal commissions in Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, Northern Territory as it has been, is and remains.

The only way to change callous government attitude is to change government – and to keep changing the government until the government attitude to our life, assets, public responsibility and environmental responsibility changes.

Across Australia, the official bushfire management ‘Stay or Go‘ policy has become a government euphemism for government neglect.

Bushfire and natural disaster is not just the lot of Victorians.  Disaster and mass trauma is an Australian national issue, that statistically re-occurs every year and is trending climatically to get worse.

Australia needs a national force for handling national emergencies.  It has to become professional to cope. It has to be given resource capability to cope, to plan, mitigate and to crisis manage the after effects of disasters.  Not just bushfires, but damaging storms, floods, and any disaster situation across Australia and responsibly throughout  our immediate Oceanic Region.  All emergency services across Australia need to be rolled up into a single co-ordinated national and professionally paid force.

Australia needs a professional, national Emergency Management Australia.

Emergency Management Australia needs to be set up now as a fully multi-skilled, world-class professional paid force as a new forth arm of Australia’s Defence Force integrated with the Army, Navy and Airforce.  It is time Australian governments cease shirking responsibility and despicably hand balling crisis management to noble charities like the Salvation Army, Red Cross and Country Womens Association.

Emergency Management is the task of government.  This is what our taxes are for!

To be serious the annual budget needs to be what Australia is wasting on America’s selfish military crusade in Afghanistan.

To do less is to continue to sacrifice local family volunteers financed by chook  raffles, resourced by drip feed, only so they can helplessly piss into the flames.

To do less is to continue to see government dispense crisis management to local charities and when it is all over to present a public servant scapegoat for public stoning to pacify those who have lost everything.

Else it’s same old, same old government neglect of its public and environmental responsibilities.

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100702.

 

[The information in this article has been sourced from United Nations Environment Programme World Environment Day website]

http://www.unep.org/wed/2010/english/

---

World Environment Day is a environmental event initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) aimed at stimulating worldwide awareness of the environment and encourages political attention and action. It is commemorated on 5th June each year and first started back in 1972.

The approach of World Environment Day is “to give a human face to environmental issues and enable people to realize not only their responsibility, but also their power to become agents for change in support of sustainable and equitable development.”

---

World Environment Day 2010

The theme of WED 2010 is ‘Many Species. One Planet. One Future.’

It echoes the urgent call to conserve the diversity of life on our planet and encourages all people to carefully consider the actions each person needs to take to help preserve all life on Earth..and prevent increasing extinctions.

‘A total of 17,291 species are known to be threatened with extinction – from little-known plants and insects to charismatic birds and mammals.

The reason? Human activities. With our present approach to development, we have caused the clearing of much of the original forest, drained half of the world’s wetlands, depleted three quarters of all fish stocks, and emitted enough heat-trapping gases to keep our planet warming for centuries to come. We have put our foot on the accelerator, making species extinctions occur at up to 1000 times the natural rate.

For this reason, the United Nations has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. It is an opportunity to stress the importance of biodiversity for human well-being, reflect on our achievements to safeguard it and encourage a redoubling of our efforts to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss.’

---

The State of the Planet’s Biodiversity

Key Findings from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:

• Scientists have no clear idea of how many species — from algae to blue whales — live on earth. Estimates are up to 100 million of which only about 1.8 million have been named so far. Humans are but one of those species.
• Though the exact number is impossible to determine, an unprecedented mass extinction of life on Earth is occurring. Scientists estimate that between 150 and 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours.
• There have always been periods of extinction in the planet’s history, but this episode of species extinction is greater than anything the world has experienced for the past 65 million years – the greatest rate of extinction since the vanishing of the dinosaurs.
• This mass extinction is due, in large measure, to humankind’s unsustainable methods of production and consumption, including the destruction of habitats, expanding cities, pollution, deforestation, global warming and the introduction of “invasive species”.
• “Climate change is forecast to become one of the biggest threats to biodiversity,” the UN Convention on Biological Diversity said in a statement marking May 22.
• “Approximately 20-30 per cent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at greater risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 Celsius” (2.7 to 4.5 Fahrenheit), according to a report in April 2007 by the UN climate panel. Beyond that, it said ecosystems would face ever more wrenching changes.
• Biodiversity contributes directly or indirectly to many aspects of our well-being, for instance, by providing raw materials and contributing to health. More than 60 per cent of the world’s people depend directly on plants for their medicines.
• Over the past century, many people have benefited from the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land and from the exploitation of biodiversity.  Although many individuals benefit from activities that lead to biodiversity loss and ecosystem change, the full costs borne by society often exceed the benefits.
• World leaders agreed at a 2002 UN Summit in Johannesburg to “achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.”
• To achieve greater progress towards biodiversity conservation, it will be necessary – but not sufficient – to urgently strengthen actions on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

---

What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity (biological diversity) reflects the number, variety and variability of living organisms and how these change from one location to another and over time. Biodiversity includes diversity within species (genetic diversity), between species (species diversity), and between ecosystems (ecosystem diversity).

Biodiversity is important in all ecosystems, not only in those that are “natural” such as national parks or natural preserves, but also in those that are managed by humans, such as farms and plantations, and even urban parks. It is the basis of the multiple benefits provided by ecosystems to humans.

---

Where is biodiversity?

Life, and thus biodiversity, is essentially everywhere on Earth’s surface and in every drop of its bodies of water. The best known dimension of biodiversity is the classification of animals and plants into species, which mainly focuses on animals observable to the naked eye.

---

What is the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services?

Ecosystem services are the benefits obtained by people from ecosystems.

These include:

• provisioning services such as food, clean water, timber, fiber, and genetic resources;
• regulating services such as the regulation of climate, floods, disease, water quality, and pollination;
• cultural services such as recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits;
• supporting services such as soil formation, and nutrient cycling.

Biodiversity plays an important role in the way ecosystems function and in the services they provide. The local loss of an essential species can disrupt ecosystem services for a long time. Changes in the interactions between species can also lead to negative impacts on ecosystem processes.

The preservation of resident species can enhance resistance of a wide range of natural and semi-natural ecosystems against invasive species.

There have been worldwide declines in the diversity of pollinating insects that are essential for the reproduction of many plants.

Biodiversity, in particular the diversity of plant forms and the distribution of landscape patches, influences climate at local, regional, and global scales. Some components of biodiversity affect carbon sequestration and thus are important in fighting climate change.

The ecosystem’s ability to control pests is strongly dependent on biodiversity and benefits food security, rural households, and national incomes of many countries.

The microbes living in the sea contribute to pollution control by removing toxic substances from the environment, but how species diversity influences this removal is not well understood.

---

Why is biodiversity loss a concern?

Biodiversity is essential for the benefits the ecosystems can provide to humans and hence for human well-being. Its role goes beyond ensuring the availability of raw materials to include security, resiliency, social relations, health, and freedoms and choices.

Biodiversity loss has direct and indirect negative effects on several factors:

• Food security: The availability of biodiversity is often a “safety net” that increases food security and the adaptability of some local communities to external economic and ecological disturbances.
• Vulnerability: Many communities have experienced more natural disasters over the past several decades. For example, because of the loss of mangroves and coral reefs, which are excellent natural buffers against floods and storms, coastal communities have increasingly suffered from severe floods.
• Health: A balanced diet depends on the availability of a wide variety of foods, which in turn depends on the conservation of biodiversity.
• Energy security: Wood fuel provides more than half the energy used in developing countries. Shortage of wood fuel occurs in areas with high population density without access to alternative and affordable energy sources. In such areas, people are vulnerable to illness and malnutrition because of the lack of resources to heat homes, cook food, and boil water.
• Clean water: The continued loss of forests and the destruction of watersheds reduce the quality and availability of water supplied to household use and agriculture. In the case of New York City, protecting the ecosystem to ensure continued provision of clean drinking water was far more cost-effective than building and operating a water filtration plant.
• Social relations: Many cultures attach spiritual, aesthetic, recreational, and religious values to ecosystems or their components.
• Freedom of choice: Loss of biodiversity, which is sometimes irreversible, often means a loss of choices. The notion of having choices available irrespective of whether any of them will be actually picked is an essential constituent of the freedom aspect of well-being.
• Basic materials: Biodiversity provides various goods – such as plants and animals – that individuals need in order to earn an income and secure sustainable livelihoods. In addition to agriculture, biodiversity contributes to a range of other sectors, including ecotourism, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and fisheries.

---

What competing goals can affect biodiversity?

When humans modify an ecosystem to improve one of the services it provides this generally results in changes to other ecosystem services. For example, actions to increase food production can lead to reduced water availability for other uses, and degraded water quality. In the long term, the value of services lost may greatly exceed the short-term economic benefits that are gained from transforming ecosystems.

---

What is the value of biodiversity for human well-being?

Unlike goods bought and sold on markets, many ecosystem services do not have markets or readily observable prices. This means that the importance of biodiversity and natural processes in producing ecosystem services that people depend on is not reflected in financial markets.

Degradation of ecosystem services could be significantly slowed or reversed if their full economic value were taken into account in decision-making.

A way of assigning monetary values to them is to rely on non-market valuation methods. These methods have been applied to clean drinking water, recreation, or commercially harvested species.

Non-market values can be either the value to society from the active use of the asset or a “non-use” value, which reflects the value of an asset beyond any use, such as the value of existence of species.

The private use value of biodiversity and ecosystem services by individuals will typically ignore the “external” benefits of conservation to society in general. For example, a farmer may benefit from intensive use of the land but generally does not bear all the consequences caused by leaching of excess nutrients and pesticides into ground or surface water, or the consequences of loss of habitat for native species.

Intensive use of ecosystems often produces the greatest short-term advantage, but excessive and unsustainable use can lead to losses in the long term. A country could cut its forests and deplete its fisheries, and this would show only as a positive gain to GDP, despite the loss of capital assets, because of the income generated by the sale of those products.

Moreover, many ecosystem services, such as groundwater, are available freely to those who use them and so again their degradation is not reflected by standard economic valuation methods.

---

How are the impacts of biodiversity loss distributed geographically?

The changes in ecosystems are harming many of the world’s poorest people, who are less able to adjust to these changes and who are affected by even greater poverty, as they have limited access to substitutes or alternatives. For example, poor farmers often cannot afford using modern methods for services previously provided by biodiversity.

Poor people have historically disproportionately lost access to biological products and ecosystem services as demand for those services has grown. The transfer in ownership of ecosystem resources often excludes local communities, and the products of their exploitation are not destined for the local market.

---

What are the current trends in biodiversity?

For all aspects of biodiversity, current pace of change and loss is hundreds of times faster than previously in recorded history and the pace shows no indication of slowing down.

Virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through human actions, for example, 35% of mangrove and 20% of coral reef areas have been lost.  Across the world, ecosystems have continued to be converted for agricultural and other uses at a constant pace over at least the last century.

Species extinction is a natural part of Earth’s history. However, over the past 100 years humans have increased the extinction rate by at least 100 times compared to the natural rate. The current extinction rate is much greater than the rate at which new species arise, resulting in a net loss of biodiversity.

---

What factors lead to biodiversity loss?

Some of the key drivers include land use change, climate change, invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, and changes in human population, incomes or lifestyle.

Changes in biodiversity are driven by combinations of these drivers that work over time, on different scales, and that tend to amplify each other. For example, population and income growth combined with technological advances can lead to climate change.

Historically, habitat and land use change have had the biggest impact on biodiversity in all ecosystems, but climate change and pollution are projected to increasingly affect all aspects of biodiversity.

Overexploitation and invasive species have been important as well and continue to be major drivers of changes in biodiversity.

---

How is climate change affecting biodiversity?

Recent changes in climate, such as warmer temperatures in certain regions, have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. They have affected species distributions, population sizes, and the timing of reproduction or migration events, as well as the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks.

Projected changes in climate by 2050 could lead to the extinction of many species living in certain limited geographical regions. By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may become the main direct driver of overall biodiversity loss.

How might biodiversity change in the future under various plausible scenarios?

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment developed four plausible scenarios to explore the future of biodiversity and human well-being until 2050 and beyond. The different scenarios are based on either increased globalization or increased regionalization, and an either reactive or proactive way of addressing environmental issues.

Overall, in all four scenarios, agricultural land will expand and forest cover will shrink, particularly in developing countries. This will lead to a continuing decline in local and global biodiversity, mainly as a result of habitat loss. More proactive approaches to the environment will be more successful in slowing these trends.

Human well-being will be affected by biodiversity loss both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include an increased risk of sudden environmental changes such as fisheries collapses, floods, droughts, wildfires, and disease.

Changes will also affect human well-being indirectly, for instance in the form of conflicts due to scarcer food and water resources.

Though the average income per person (GDP) is projected to rise in all scenarios, this can mask increased inequity for instance in terms of food security. Major decisions will have to address trade-offs between competing goals, for instance between agricultural production and water quality, or between water use and aquatic biodiversity.

---

What actions can be taken to conserve biodiversity?

Protected areas are an essential part of conservation programs, but they are not sufficient by themselves to protect the full range of biodiversity and can be difficult to enforce. To be successful, sites for protected areas need to be carefully chosen, ensuring that all regional ecosystems are well represented, and the areas need to be well designed and effectively managed.

Market tools, such as direct payments for ecosystem services or transfers of ownership rights to private individuals, can provide economic incentives to conserve biodiversity and to use ecosystem services sustainably.

Prevention and early intervention have proven to be the most successful and cost-effective way of tackling invasive species. Once an invasive species has become established, its control and particularly its eradication through the use of chemicals or through the introduction of other species is not necessarily effective and is extremely difficult and costly.

To be conserved, biodiversity must be integrated into the agriculture, fishery, and forestry sectors. These sectors are directly dependent on biodiversity and affect it directly. The private sector can make significant contributions, for example by adopting certain agricultural practices.

International agreements need to include enforcement measures and take into account impacts on biodiversity and possible synergies with other agreements. Most direct actions to halt or reduce biodiversity loss need to be taken at local or national level.

Informing all of society about the benefits of conserving biodiversity, and explicitly considering trade-offs between different options in an integrated way, helps maximize the benefits to society. Ecosystem restoration is generally far more expensive than protecting the original ecosystem, but is becoming increasingly important as more areas become degraded.’

> Further Reading

> Ecosystems and Human Well-Being – Biodiversity Synthesis

---

Global Host Country 2010:  Rwanda

The World Environment Day 2010 programme was hosted by Rwanda and took place from 29 May – 5 June2010.

Rwanda is hilly and mountainous country located in Central Africa near the equator. It has a humid climate with an average rainfall is about 1,250 mm p.a. It covers an area of 26.338 km2, with an extreme  human population density averaging 321 people per km2.    Its central plateau includes the volcanic Virunga range in the northwest, home to what is estimated to be a third of the world’s remaining 750 mountain gorillas.

‘Environment is a very important and sensitive factor in the socioeconomic, political and cultural development of the country; Rwanda is naturally endowed with water, biodiversity and landscapes that have shaped the livelihoods, economic and social structure of the country over centuries. These landscapes are, however, fragile and over the years, they have been severely degraded, thereby affecting the quality of livelihoods and economy.

Environmental degradation and climate change impacts have been recognized at the highest political level, as some of the main barriers to realizing Rwanda’s medium and long-term development aspirations enshrined in the Vision 2020 and in the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy ( EDPRS) respectively. This realization has been translated into a resolve of the Government of Rwanda (GoR) to effectively control pollution, conserve biodiversity, and restore productive ecosystems.

Current state of Biodiversity of Rwanda

Rwanda has a remarkable variety of ecosystems and of flora and fauna. Its location at the heart of the Albertine Rift eco-region in the western arm of the Africa’s Rift Valley is a contributory factor. This region is one of Africa’s most biologically diverse regions. It is home to some 40 per cent of the continent’s mammal species (402 species), a huge diversity of birds (1,061 species), reptiles and amphibians (293 species), and higher plants (5,793 species).

The most biologically diverse habitats in Rwanda lie within three protected areas including Volcanoes National Park, Akagera National Park, and Nyungwe National Park. The last is known to be the largest mountain rainforest in Africa and covers around 1013 Km2of rugged terrain, ranging in elevation from 5,200–9,680 feet, including tall, closed-canopy forests, bamboo thickets, and open, flower-filled marshes. This ecosystem maintains the hydrological system of not only the country but also the region.

Rwanda shelters 151 different types of mammal species, eleven of which are currently threatened and none of which are endemic. Among them are the primates (14 to 16),with half of the remaining world population of mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla berengei). The gorillas are found in the Volcanoes National Park.

The Natural Mountainous forests, concentrated in the Western Province which also harbors the Lake Kivu, are home to golden monkeys, the white and black colobus monkey, the owl faced monkey which is on the red list of IUCN to mention but a few. In the East, the relief is characterized by a vast monotonous region cut up in big hardpan strips strewn with a multitude of lakes and marshes which are habitat to various natural resources including hippos, giraffes, zebras, leopards, crocodiles, and nearly 600 species of birds.

Rwanda is one of the top birding countries with 670 different birds having been recorded. Four of species of birds in Rwanda are threatened with extinction: the shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) found in Akagera; Grauer’s rush warbler (Bradyptrus graueri) found in Volcanoes National Park in Nyungwe and in the swamps of Rugezi; the Kungwe apalis(Apalis argentea) found in Nyungwe; and the African or Congo barn owl (Phodilus prigoginei) found along Lake Kivu.

This rich biodiversity is mainly conserved in protected areas (three national parks, natural forests, wetlands). Despite its size and high population density, almost 20 per cent of the national territory is dedicated as protected areas.

With the highest population density in Africa, coupled with its dependence on natural resources,  the major threats to the biodiversity and genetic resources in Rwanda are mainly linked to population pressure and the problem of land scarcity. Other threats to the biodiversity are linked to human activities such as loss of habitat by conversion of natural habitats, mining, agriculture and the introduction of alien species.

The rich biodiversity of Rwanda, provide an opportunity for the development of the tourism sector in Rwanda. Rwandan tourism is mainly based on visits in national parks, with the Volcanoes National Park, the most visited.

Rwanda’s Green Initiatives

Under the leadership of President Paul Kagame, who is one of Africa’s strongest voices on environmental sustainability, Rwanda has developed a visionary strategy for sustainable development and environmental protection, with a spate of new policies and laws for environmental management.

Rwanda’s green initiatives include:

• Environment organic law promulgation
• Establishment of Rwanda Environment Management Authority
• Biodiversity and wildlife policies development
• Programmes aimed at halting the effects of climate change, including preserving wetlands and forests as well as a countrywide tree-planting
• Protection of river banks and lake shores for biodiversity conservation
• Tourism revenue sharing scheme for communities surrounding Protected Areas.
• A country-wide ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags
• Nationwide community works known as Umuganda which include activities like litter cleanups tree-planting and greening of cities.
• Trash collection in Kigali, with the litter recycled into cooking bricks as an alternative to firewood.
• Development of renewable energies (Biogas, solar, hydropower) and Rainwater harvesting in schools, household and in public and private institutions

---

Rwanda’s Endangered Mountain Gorillas

Dian Fossey & Karisoke Research Centre, Rwanda

‘Dian Fossey founded the Karisoke Research Center on Sept. 24, 1967, in Rwanda’s Volcanoes National Park between Mt. Karisimbi and Mt. Bisoke. She recalled this historic event in her book, Gorillas in the Mist.’

‘…There she began a long-term scientific study of the endangered mountain gorillas. She pioneered ways to approach the gorillas so they would accept human observers, and she learned to identify individual gorillas by the wrinkles on their noses. She also promoted active conservation, protecting the gorillas through measures such as armed anti-poaching patrols. At that time, she feared that the mountain gorilla might become extinct by the end of the 20th century, as her mentor, Dr. Louis Leakey, had warned. A census published in 1981 found that the population had fallen to 242 individuals, from a 1960 estimate of 400-500. Now, 40 years later, Fossey might be surprised to learn that some 380 mountain gorillas are known to inhabit the Virunga mountains (according to a 2003 census), a significant increase since her time.’

‘The Fossey Fund currently employs a staff of 125 at the Karisoke Research Center including gorilla trackers, researchers and anti-poaching patrols.’

Will the mountain gorilla survive?

‘The year 2002 marked the 100th year since the mountain gorilla was first scientifically identified as a distinct subspecies of gorilla. The future of the gorillas is most dependent on the protection and survival of the forests in which they live, since they depend on this land for food, safety and normal activities. But the forests are often in danger from growing human populations, and from civil war in the region.’

Threats to Gorilla Survival

‘All types of gorillas in Africa are endangered, primarily due to human activity such as poaching, disease transmission, and habitat destruction. Ultimately, human poverty is the greatest threat to gorillas. Gorillas live in countries in Africa with some of the highest population densities and lowest adult life spans, literacy rates, and standards of living in the world. The challenges that such intense poverty brings to gorilla conservation vary depending on where in Africa the gorillas live. Western gorillas, which inhabit 11 west African countries from Nigeria to Angola, are primarily threatened by illegal hunting for food, habitat loss from logging, and disease specifically the Ebola virus, which has a roughly 95% mortality rate in gorillas. Eastern gorillas are found only in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and are not generally hunted for food like their western counterparts. They are primarily threatened by habitat loss when their forests are converted to farmland and pasture; local civil unrest; poachers’ snares set for other animals such as antelope; respiratory and other diseases probably transmitted by humans; and poaching for the gorilla infant trade.

The only type of gorilla that is known to be increasing is the mountain gorilla. Between 1989 and 2003, the Virunga mountain gorilla population increased by 17% and nearly all that increase occurred within the sector of the park protected by The Fossey Fund. This is astounding, particularly given that civil wars occurred in both Rwanda and Congo during portions of this time period. This increase is attributed to the intense conservation efforts of the national park authorities in Rwanda, Congo and Uganda as well as the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International and its partners.’

Gorilla Rehabilitation & Grace

‘Since Dian Fossey’s time, gorilla conservationists have sometimes had to care for infant gorillas confiscated from poachers. But these young gorillas are physically and emotionally fragile, and have usually suffered from extremely traumatic conditions. It is assumed that at least four gorillas have been killed to obtain an infant: certainly the mother, likely the silverback and probably other family members coming to protect their kin.’

The Fossey Fund cares for many young orphaned gorillas rescued from poachers or armed conflict, with the goal of one day returning them to the wild. Raising the gorillas for release will provide genetic diversity critical for a healthy species.’

A new state-of-the-art facility was just opened in Kasugho, Democratic Republic of the Congo called GRACE (Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education center). This Fossey Fund facility will be a haven for up to 30 rescued Grauer’s gorillas, where they will live in a group similar to those in the wild and ultimately, we hope, will be released into the wild as their own family. The center is on land donated by the local community. The gorillas will have access to 20 hectares (49 acres) of forest when construction is complete.’

The first four gorilla residents arrived at GRACE on April 27th by UN helicopter. The infants had been living in a temporary facility in Goma with their human care staff who must take on the role of both silverback and mother for the youngsters. The gorillas instantaneously seemed at ease, after a stressful travel day, when they were allowed to roam their new forest home. They started eating forest foods that they hadn’t seen since they were taken from the forest and even started building nests. Six more orphaned gorillas will arrive at GRACE in mid-June.’

The GRACE Center will have an impact beyond the rehabilitation of rescued gorillas. Studies have shown that gorilla rehabilitation centers in other areas have helped to discourage the illegal trade in live gorilla infants. Authorities are quicker to confiscate poaching victims if they know there is a place that will receive them. In addition, the center will welcome researchers and students, and house a conservation education and public information program designed by the local university, the Tayna Center for Conservation Biology (TCCB).’

Helping People Help Gorillas

‘Helping people in Africa thrive helps endangered gorillas survive, too.

Poverty reduction, health promotion and conservation education are irrevocably linked to environmental protection. The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International has developed programs to help people in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo where we protect gorillas, to address many of these issues: alleviating extreme poverty; developing public-private partnerships; increasing access to essential medicines; combating disease through intestinal parasite treatment and educational prevention; empowering women; helping children go to school; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; assisting in environmental stability and reversing loss of environmental resources. The Fossey Fund’s people programs have four major goals:

• To provide a healthy environment for local people living around protected areas.
• To enhance environmental protection and conservation of endangered species living in Volcanoes National Park.
• To improve awareness and understanding of the role of community projects in successful natural resource conservation.
• To ensure sustainability of community projects and community ownership of the projects through capacity building and local involvement.’

Copyright 2010 The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International. All rights reserved.

 

^ Further Information:   The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International

---

Environmental Partners

Biomimicry Institute

In support of World Environment Day, the Biomimicry Institute provided scientific information for the WED 2010 poster series. The Biomimicry Institute (TBI) is a 501c3 non-profit organization dedicated to nurturing and growing the global community of people learning from, emulating, and conserving life’s genius to create a healthier and more sustainable human existence on this planet.

^http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/

---

CinemAmbiente

In support of WED 2010, CinemAmbiente, Italy’s prime environmental film festival directed by Gaetano Capizzi and co-organized by the National Museum of Cinema, has moved its customary autumn date forward to spring to coincide with WED. CinemAmbiente will run from 1-6 June in Torino, Italy. In addition, CinemAmbiente, in collaboration with agencies and associations, will hold special film screenings in 20 cities throughout Italy on 5 June.  CinemAmbiente is the head of the Environmental Film Festival Network (EFFN) and Europe’s first zero-emission festival.

^http://www.cinemambiente.it/splash.php

---

Clean Up the World

In support of World Environment Day 2010, Clean Up the World will invite its member organisations around the globe to conduct environmental activities with a focus on protecting and promoting biodiversity in their communities. Activities such as planting native trees, cleaning up local parks and waterways, conducting nature walks or organising environmental education exercises will be undertaken. Members will also register their local activities with UNEP.

Now celebrating its 18th year, Clean Up the World, held in conjunction with UNEP, mobilises an estimated 35 million volunteers from 120 countries annually making it one of the largest community based environmental campaigns in the world. While its Member’s activities can be conducted throughout the year, including World Environment Day, Clean Up the World’s flagship event is Clean Up the World Weekend, 17-19 September 2010. Clean Up the World is a not-for-profit, non-government, apolitical organisation that unites communities with a common focus to clean up the world. For more information, please contact e-mail: info@cleanuptheworld.org

^http://www.cleanuptheworld.org/en/

---

Green TV

In support of WED 2010, Green TV is promoting WED 2010 video materials throughout their online channels, including GreenTV News, iTunes, Blinkx, MySpace, YouTube and Metacafe.  Green TV is the world’s leading online TV channel for ‘green’ video. New films are available every day from organisations working around the world. Green TV is proud to be partnered with UNEP and is supporting World Environment Day by promoting WED films and covering relevant stories in its weekly news broadcast.

^http://www.myspace.com/mygreentv

---

ENERGY Globe Award

In support of World Environment Day 2010, the Energy Globe Awards will be held during the World Environment Day celebrations in Kigali, Rwanda. The ENERGY GLOBE Award TV Gala – a WED partnership project – will take place on 3 June. It will be broadcast worldwide.  The ENERGY GLOBE Award was initiated by the Austrian Mr. Wolfgang Neumann and has been awarded annually since 2000. It distinguishes projects from all around the world that conserve natural resources and utilize renewable or emission-free sources. The goal of the ENERGY GLOBE Award is to create the necessary awareness concerning solutions to our environmental problems and to demonstrate that each of us can make a positive contribution. The ENERGY GLOBE Jury is headed by Congresswoman Maneka Gandhi, former Indian Minister for Environment.

^http://www.energyglobe.com/en/energy-globe-award/

---

National Geographic Society

In support of WED 2010, the National Geographic Society and GlobeScan presented the 2010 results of the annual Greendex consumer behaviour study. This quantitative consumer study of 17,000 consumers in 17 countries (14 in 2008) asked about such behavior as energy use and conservation, transportation choices, food sources, the relative use of green products versus traditional products, attitudes towards the environment and sustainability, and knowledge of environmental issues. The Greendex measures the impact of the average consumer in each country surveyed; it does not measure the environmental impact of a total country.

The National Geographic Society is one of the world’s largest nonprofit scientific and educational organizations. Founded in 1888 to “increase and diffuse geographic knowledge,” the Society works to inspire people to care about the planet. It reaches more than 375 million people worldwide each month through its official journal, National Geographic, and other magazines; National Geographic Channel; television documentaries; music; radio; films; books; DVDs; maps; exhibits; live events; school publishing programs; interactive media; and merchandise. National Geographic has funded more than 9,200 scientific research, conservation and exploration projects and supports an education program combating geographic illiteracy.

^http://www.nationalgeographic.com/

---

GlobeScan

GlobeScan is an international opinion research consultancy. Companies, multilateral institutions, governments and NGOs trust GlobeScan for its unique expertise in reputation research, sustainability, and issues management. GlobeScan provides global organizations with evidence-based insight and advice to help them build strong brands, manage relations with key stakeholders, and define their strategic positioning.

^http://www.globescan.com/

---

The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International

In support of WED 2010, the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International has assisted in organizing events in Rwanda. In addition, the Fossey Fund has kindly contributed photographs for use in WED related materials.  The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International is dedicated to the conservation and protection of gorillas and their habitats in Africa. Founded by Dr. Dian Fossey as the Digit Fund and renamed after her death, the Fossey Fund operates the Karisoke Research Center in Rwanda, and maintains a staff of scientists, trackers and anti-poaching patrols in Volcanoes National Park. The Fund also works with community-managed reserves and national parks in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and operates extensive education, health and other community outreach programs.

^http://gorillafund.org/

---

Treehugger

In support of World Environment Day 2010, Treehugger is working with UNEP to raise awareness about WED celebrations. Treehugger partnered with UNEP and Racepoint Group (on behalf of the Government of Rwanda) for the WED Blogging Competition which will see one lucky blogger win a free trip to Rwanda for the WED celebrations from 3-5 June 2010.  TreeHugger is the leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream. Partial to a modern aesthetic, we strive to be a one-stop shop for green news, solutions, and product information.

^http://www.treehugger.com/

---

World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)

In support of WED 2010, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) is promoting WED by encouraging members to take part in WED through an on-line information page.

WAZA is the unifying organisation for the world zoo and aquarium community. Its mission is to provide leadership and support for zoos, aquariums, and partner organizations of the world in animal care and welfare, conservation of biodiversity, environmental education and global sustainability. WAZA supports biodiversity conservation and is partnering with CBD, the Convention on Biological Diversity on the occasion of the International Year of Biodiversity 2010. For WAZA and its members biodiversity is the theme for 2010 and zoos and aquariums worldwide are joining in with numerous events and activities. WAZA therefore fully supports the related activities for WED 2010, information and supporting material is provided on www.waza.org

^http://www.waza.org/en/site/home

---

Further Information on World Environment Day

UNEP World Environment Day

THE UNITED NATIONS IN GENEVA IN GREEN

Pittsburgh — A United Nations World Environment Day Host City

UNEP World Environment Day in South Korea

Millions of Pieces: Only One Puzzle

Highlights from WED 2010

Wikipedia – history of World Environment Day

Greenfest (Australia)

United Nations Association of Australia (Victorian Division)

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100605.

…on the 2nd weekend in May each year

2010 Theme:    ‘Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!’

Source:   http://www.worldmigratorybirdday.org/2010/

---

Threats to migratory birds and their habitats include:

• Loss (reclamation) and degradation of habitat
• Human disturbance
• Poaching
• Introduced predators
• Invasive plants
• Climate change

---

About

‘World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was initiated in 2006 and is a annual awareness-raising campaign highlighting the need for the protection of migratory birds and their habitats. On the second weekend each May, people around the world take action and organise public events such as bird festivals, education programmes and birdwatching excursions to celebrate World Migratory Bird Day.’

‘World Migratory Bird Day activities take place in many different countries and places, but are all linked through a single global campaign and theme.’

‘Every year WMBD focuses on a different topic; this year’s theme is “Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!” – aims to raise awareness on globally threatened migratory birds, with a particular focus on those on the very edge of extinction – the Critically Endangered migratory birds. In line with the International Year of Biodiversity, the 2010 WMBD theme also highlights how migratory birds are part of the biological diversity of our world and how the threat of extinction faced by individual bird species is a reflection of the larger extinction crisis threatening other species and the natural diversity that underpins all life on earth.’

 

---

History

‘World Migratory Bird Day was initiated by the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) Secretariat in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) in 2006.’

‘Originally, the idea of designating a day for migratory birds arose in the United States in 1993, when the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology initiated celebrations of the ‘International Migratory Bird Day’ (IMBD), which encourages bird festivals and education programmes across the United States and other parts of the Americas. Although this day continues to be successfully celebrated in the western hemisphere, something similar was missing for the rest of the world.’

‘On the occasion of its 10th anniversary in 2005, the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (UNEP/AEWA) – a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) administered environmental treaty, initiated the Migratory Waterbird Days (MWD) which were held in Africa, Europe and parts of Asia. As this event was well received in the African-Eurasian region, the idea arose to broaden the scope into a commemorative day which celebrates the phenomenon of migration and all migrating birds, including waterbirds on a global scale.’

‘Hence, the very first World Migratory Bird Day was launched by AEWA and CMS on the weekend of 8-9 April 2006 on Ms. Kuki Gallmann’s famous wildlife reserve ‘Ole Ari Nyiro’ in Laikipia, Kenya. The central launching event called WINGS was inspired by the phenomenon of bird migration and was attended by a number of international personalities from the worlds of art, business and conservation.’

‘Since then, World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) has been celebrated in an increasing number of countries and has steadily grown in popularity each year. While the annual WMBD campaigns are prepared and coordinated centrally by the AEWA and CMS Secretariats, national authorities and NGOs worldwide, in particular BirdLife International and its partners, help to encourage individuals and organisations around the world to celebrate World Migratory Bird Day and to incorporate each year’s theme into their awareness-raising programmes and festivals.’

‘Through the help of thousands of committed individuals, organisations and government authorities – World Migratory Bird Day has turned into a truly global commemorative event, which helps turn the world’s attention to the wonders of bird migration and the need for their conservation in a concentrated and global scale each year.’

---

WMBD 2010 “Save migratory birds in crisis – every species counts!

‘The United Nations declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB). This is an appreciation of the value of biodiversity for our lives. However, it is not only a celebration, but also an invitation to take action to safeguard the variety of life on earth. Our planet’s biological diversity is very rich and amazing. It is the result of billions of years of evolution and forms the complex web of life of which we are part and upon which we totally depend. Humankind relies on this diversity, because it provides us with food, fuel, medicine and other essentials which we need every day.’

‘Regardless of that, species are disappearing because of human activities and there are a lot of species that are in danger of becoming extinct. These losses are irreversible and the decline of biodiversity endangers our livelihood. The current rate of extinction is a thousand times faster than the natural one. Normally, only one bird per century becomes extinct, but during the last thirty years 21 bird species disappeared. At the moment 192 birds are classified as Critically Endangered as a result of habitat loss, hunting, pollution, climate change, human disturbance and other reasons. These threats are directly or indirectly man-made. Without immediate action, many of these endangered species will not be here in a few years time. The Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), for example, is expected to become extinct within a human generation due to fisheries by-catch. And there are several other species which are extremely rare. The population size of Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris), New Zealand Storm-petrel (Oceanites maorianus) as well as Rueck’s Blue-flycatcher (Cyornis ruckii) is under 50 individuals.’

‘Therefore in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, World Migratory Bird Day focuses on Globally Threatened Migratory Birds and especially on those thirty-one migratory bird species, which are classified as Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List. These are birds, which face extinction. Migratory birds rely on several different habitats; they need different locations for breeding and raising their young, and for feeding. Some of them migrate up to thousands of kilometers to find suitable areas and cross many different habitats, regardless of any political borders. Thus, saving migratory birds means saving their required habitats and that benefits other species as well. Because birds are found nearly everywhere and, with more than 10,000 described species, being the best known and best-researched taxon, they serve as vital indicators of distribution and state of biodiversity and the ecosystems they inhabit. If a bird species becomes threatened by extinction it is a clear sign that the conditions of, or the ecosystem itself, have changed and that other species that depend on this ecosystem may be affected as well. Saving every species is therefore essential, because if one species becomes extinct, the whole ecosystem will be affected.’

---

WMBD 2009              “Barriers to migration”

‘On 9-10 May 2009 World Migratory Bird Day was celebrated in over 50 countries around the world. Under the main theme “Barriers to migration”, 130 registered events took place. These events helped to raise awareness on man-made barriers and demonstrated that obstacles like wind turbines, power lines and tall buildings pose a threat to migratory birds.’

---

WMBD 2008              “Migratory Birds – Ambassadors for Biodiversity”

‘In 2008, World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for the third time on 10-11 May 2008. Over 136 activities took place in 59 countries around the world to mark World Migratory Bird Day in 2008 and the events helped spread the idea of migratory birds as messengers for the conservation of biodiversity worldwide.’

---

WMBD 2007              “Migratory birds in a changing climate”

‘In 2007, World Migratory Bird Day was celebrated in more than 58 countries and with more than 100 different events all across the planet on 12-13 May. The central theme “Migratory birds in a changing climate” helped to focus the world’s attention on the plight migratory birds are facing due to global warming. WMBD activities highlighted the effects that increasing temperatures, altered rainfall and vacillating weather conditions have on migratory birds.’

---

WMBD 2006              “Migratory birds need our support now!”

‘The first World migratory Bird Day took place on 8-9 April, 2006. At the time, migratory birds were receiving very negative media coverage as a result of them being falsely believed to be the main cause for the spread of Avian Influenza (H5N1) around the world. So the idea arose to use the first World Migratory Bird Day to counter some of the negative and often unbalanced publicity migratory birds were receiving at the peak of the Avian Influenza discussion. For this reason the theme of the first World Migratory Bird Day in 2006 became: “Migratory birds need our support now!”. The centre of the campaign was a launching event called WINGS which took place on the edge of the Great Rift Valley in Kenya and was hosted by Ms. Kuki Gallman, a famous writer and conservationist. Altogether, 68 other WMBD related events took place in all corners of the world to support the launch and the very first WMBD campaign.’

---

African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement  [AEWA]

^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/

About AEWA

The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) is the largest of its kind developed so far under CMS. It was concluded on 16 June 1995 in the Hague, the Netherlands and entered into force on 1 November 1999 after the required number of at least fourteen Range States, comprising seven from Africa and seven from Eurasia had ratified. Since then the Agreement is an independent international treaty.

The AEWA covers 255 species of birds ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle, including many species of divers, grebes, pelicans, cormorants, herons, storks, rails, ibises, spoonbills, flamingos, ducks, swans, geese, cranes, waders, gulls, terns, tropic birds, auks, frigate birds and even the south African penguin.

The agreement covers 118 countries and the European Union (EU) from Europe, parts of Asia and Canada, the Middle East and Africa. In fact, the geographical area covered by the AEWA stretches from the northern reaches of Canada and the Russian Federation to the southernmost tip of Africa. The Agreement provides for coordinated and concerted action to be taken by the Range States throughout the migration system of waterbirds to which it applies. Of the 118 Range States and the European Union (EU) currently 63 countries (as of 1 February 2010) have become a Contracting Party to AEWA.

Parties to the Agreement are called upon to engage in a wide range of conservation actions which are describes in a comprehensive Action Plan. This detailed plan addresses such key issues as: species and habitat conservation, management of human activities, research and monitoring, education and information, and implementation.

At the fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties, which took place from 15-19 September 2008 in Antananarivo, Madagascar, a number of important decisions were taken. For more information on Resolutions adopted at MOP4 click here.

Although the Agreement only entered into force a few years ago, its implementation is well underway. The European Union, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and United Kingdom increasingly support the implementation of AEWA. In addition to this support, the GEF council approved the African-Eurasian Flyways Project in November 2003 and its implementation started in July 2006. This project which is executed by Wetlands International in close cooperation with BirdLife International especially focuses on: capacity building, cooperative research and monitoring and communication activities.

---

AEWA Background

Throughout history, migration of animals has been a universal phenomenon. Many animals migrate in response to biological requirements, such as the need to find a suitable location for breeding and raising their young, and to be in favourable areas for feeding. In some cases, these specific requirements are fulfilled in locations separated by distances of thousand of kilometres.

During their migration, these animals cross political boundaries between nations; boundaries that have no inherent meaning for animals, but which have a dramatic influence on their annual life-cycles and their individual survival chances, due to the great differences that exist between countries in conservation policy. Migratory species are dependent on the specific sites they find at the end of their journey and along the way. Increasingly these sites are threatened by man-made disturbances and habitat degradation. Migratory animals may also fall victim to adverse natural phenomena, such as unfavourable climatic conditions.

The above mentioned influences are aggravated by the fact that it has long been held that migratory species legally do not fall within the jurisdiction of one particular country which could be held responsible for any harm occurring to them.

1972 In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, recognized the need for countries to co-operate in the conservation of animals that migrate across national boundaries or between areas of national jurisdiction and the high seas. This recommendation resulted in the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

1983 This Convention, commonly referred to as the Bonn Convention, (after the German city where it was concluded in 1979), came into force in 1983. The goal of the Convention is to provide conservation for migratory terrestrial, marine and avian species over the whole of their range. This is very important, because failure to conserve these species at any particular stage of their life cycle could adversely affect any conservation efforts elsewhere. The fundamental principle of the Bonn Convention therefore, is that the Parties of the Bonn Convention acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved and of Range States agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, paying special attention to migratory species, the conservation status of which is unfavourable, and taking individually or in co-operation appropriate and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitat. Parties acknowledge the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered. In particular, the Parties:

*shall endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix I;

*shall endeavour to conclude Agreements covering the conservation and management of migratory species included in Appendix II.

Agreements are the primary tools for the implementation of the main goal of the Bonn Convention. Moreover, they are more specific than the Convention itself, involve more deliberately the Range States of the species to be conserved, and are easier to put into practice than the whole Bonn Convention.

---

AEWA History

The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement is an international agreement aiming at the conservation of migratory waterbirds.

1988 After the first Conference of Parties of the Bonn Convention, where it was decided to prepare an Agreement for the Western Palearctic Anatidae, in 1988 the Dutch Government began developing a draft Western Palearctic Waterfowl Agreement as part of its Western Palearctic Flyway conservation programme. During the process of drafting and consultation, the name of the Agreement was changed into the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), emphasizing the importance of Africa for migratory birds.

1994 The first consultative meeting of Range States of AEWA was held in Nairobi in June 1994. This meeting strongly supported the concluding of AEWA, and consensus could be achieved on almost all matters of substance.

1995 In June 1995 the final negotiation meeting was held in The Hague. The Meeting adopted the Agreement by consensus and accepted with appreciation the offer of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to act as Depositary, to provide at its own expense until 1 January 1999, an Interim Secretariat and to host the first session of the Meeting of the Parties. For more information go to Agreement page.

1996 The Dutch Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, established the Interim Secretariat on 1 January 1996. On 15 August 1996, the Agreement was opened for signature at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

1999 In accordance with Article XIV, in 1999 the required number of at least fourteen Range States, comprising at least seven from Africa and seven from Eurasian, was achieved and the Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1999. Only a few days later the first Session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP1) took place in Cape Town, South Africa. The Meeting of the Parties is the governing body of the Agreement. For more information on this Meeting you are referred to the meetings section.

2000 As adopted by the Meeting of the Parties, a permanent Secretariat was established and co-located with the Convention Secretariat in Bonn. Following the decision of the Meeting of the Parties, this Secretariat is administered by UNEP.

2002 The second Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 25 – 27 September 2002 in Bonn, Germany. The Proceedings of the Meeting can be downloaded here.

2005 The African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, which was concluded under the aegis of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals in The Hague, the Netherlands, on 16 June 1995 celebrated its 10th Anniversary.

2005 To mark the 10th anniversary of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) the Standing Committee of AEWA has established the AEWA Waterbird Conservation Award in order to recognise and honour institutions and individuals within the Agreement area that have significantly contributed towards the conservation and sustainable use of waterbirds.

2005 The third Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 23-27 October 2005, in Dakar, Senegal. For more information please visit the meetings section on the AEWA website.

2006 AEWA, together with the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and other partner organizations, launched the first World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) on the weekend of 8-9 April 2006.

2007 World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for second time in 56 countries and at more than 100 different locations all across the planet on the weekend of 12-13 May 2007. With these numbers, AEWA has managed to surpass the number of events and participating countries in 2006 (70 registered events in 46 countries)! During the course of summer of 2007, the AEWA Secretariat received 157 drawings from children from all over the world, who took part in the Drawing Competition. The children up to the age of 16 years were requested to portray their thoughts on this year’s WMBD theme “migratory birds in a changing climate” and to express their fears and visions on paper.

2008 World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) was celebrated for the third time on 10-11 May 2008 and this year more than 136 events were registered in 59 countries around the world.

2008 The fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties took place from 15-19 September 2008 in Antananarivo, Madagascar. For more information on the outcome of the meeting please visit the meetings section on the AEWA website.

2009 The fourth World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) took place on 9-10 May 2009 and motivated thousands of people in over 50 countries to conduct special events and activities to mark this global celebration.

The central theme of this year’s WMBD: “Barriers to migration” helped to highlight the increasing threat posed by man-made structures on migratory birds, such as wind turbines, power lines, windows and tall buildings etc. Over 130 different WMBD events, which took place in all corners of the world, were registered on the WMBD website (www.worldmigratorybirdday.org).

---

AEWA Contracting Parties  (total 63)

(as of 1st February 2010)

No.	Range State	Date of Entry into force
EURASIA
1	ALBANIA	01-09-2001
2	BELGIUM	01-06-2006
3	BULGARIA	01-02-2000
4	CROATIA	01-09-2000
5	CZECH REPUBLIC	01-09-2006
6	CYPRUS	01-09-2008
7	DENMARK	01-01-2000
8	ESTONIA	01-11-2008
9	EUROPEAN UNION (EU)	01-10-2005
10	FINLAND	01-01-2000
11	FRANCE	01-12-2003
12	GEORGIA	01-08-2001
13	GERMANY	01-11-1999
14	GREECE	14-05-1998*
15	HUNGARY	01-03-2003
16	IRELAND	01-08-2003
17	ISRAEL	01-11-2002
18	ITALY	01-09-2006
19	JORDAN	01-11-1999
20	LATVIA	01-01-2006
21	LEBANON	01-12-2002
22	LITHUANIA	01-11-2004
23	LUXEMBOURG	01-12-2003
24	MACEDONIA FYR	01-02-2000
25	MOLDOVA	01-04-2001
26	MONACO	01-11-1999
27	NETHERLANDS	01-11-1999
28	NORWAY	01-09-2008
29	PORTUGAL	01-03-2004
30	ROMANIA	01-10-1999
31	SLOVAKIA	01-07-2001
32	SLOVENIA	01-10-2003
33	SPAIN	01-11-1999
34	SWEDEN	01-11-1999
35	SWITZERLAND	01-11-1999
36	SYRIA	01-08-2003
37	UKRAINE	01-01-2003
38	UNITED KINGDOM	01-11-1999
39	UZBEKISTAN	01-04-2004
AFRICA
1	ALGERIA	01-10-2006
2	BENIN	01-01-2000
3	CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)	01-11-1999
4	DJIBOUTI	01-05-2004
5	EGYPT	01-11-1999
6	EQUATORIAL GUINEA	01-12-1999
7	ETHIOPIA	01-02-2010
8	GAMBIA	01-11-1999
9	GHANA	01-10-2005
10	GUINEA	01-11-1999
11	GUINEA-BISSAU	01-11-2006
12	KENYA	01-06-2001
13	LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA	01-06-2005
14	MADAGASCAR	01-01-2007
15	MALI	01-01-2000
16	MAURITIUS	01-01-2001
17	MOROCCO	19-11-1997 *
18	NIGER	01-11-1999
19	NIGERIA	01-07-2004
20	SENEGAL	01-11-1999
21	SOUTH AFRICA	01-01-2000
22	SUDAN	01-11-1999
23	TANZANIA	01-11-1999
24	TOGO	01-11-1999
25	TUNISIA	01-10-2005
26	UGANDA	01-12-2000

*Date of Signing, agreement not yet entered into force in this country.

---

AEWA Publications

^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/publications/index.htm

---

AEWA Partners

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. It is an advocate, educator, catalyst and facilitator, promoting the wise use of the planet’s natural assets for sustainable development.

^ http://www.unep.org/

---

The United Nations General Assembly declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. The goals of this special year are to raise awareness of the importance of biodiversity, highlighting the fact that it continues to be lost, and to celebrate novel solutions being carried out around the world for its conservation and sustainable use, and the equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources. The Year 2010 was chosen to coincide with the biodiversity target agreed by world leaders in 2002. During the Year scientists will report on a global trend on biodiversity.

^ http://www.cbd.int/2010/welcome/

---

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS; also known as the Bonn Convention)aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Since the Convention’s entry into force, its membership has grown steadily to include 113 (as of 1 January 2010) parties from Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Europe and Oceania.

^ http://www.cms.int/

---

African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)is an intergovernmental treaty developed under the CMS dedicated to the conservation of migratory waterbirds. The Agreement covers 255 species of birds, ecologically dependent on wetlands for at least part of their annual cycle. The treaty covers a large geographic area, including Europe, parts of Asia, Canada, the Middle East and Africa. So far 63 out of the 118 countries (as of 1 February 2010) in this area have become Contracting Parties to the International Agreement.

^ http://www.unep-aewa.org/

---

BirdLife Internationalis a global partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity. BirdLife International has long been committed to the conservation of migratory birds and the habitats upon which they depend. The BirdLife Partnership is engaged in migratory bird conservation at numerous scales, from projects focused on individual species or key sites, to broader policy and advocacy work to promote migratory species conservation, and involvement in flyway-scale projects.

^ http://www.birdlife.org/

---

Wetlands Internationalis an independent, non-profit, global organisation, dedicated to the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Wetlands International works globally, regionally and nationally to achieve the conservation and wise use of wetlands, to benefit biodiversity and human well-being.

^ http://www.wetlands.org/

---

The Partnership for the East Asian – Australasian Flyway– Launched in November 2006, the Partnership is an informal and voluntary initiative, aimed at protecting migratory waterbirds, their habitat and the livelihoods of people dependent upon them. There are currently 21 partners including 10 countries, 3 intergovernmental agencies and 8 international non-government organisations. The Partnership provides a framework for international cooperation, including: (1) development of a Waterbird Site Network (for sites of international importance to migratory waterbirds), (2) collaborative activities to increase knowledge and raise awareness of migratory waterbirds along the flyway, and (3) building capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of migratory waterbird habitat along the flyway.

^http://www.eaaflyway.net/

---

The World’s Rarest is a not-for-profit initiative that aims to highlight the plight of the most threatened species on Earth and to raise funds to support their conservation. During 2010, the project will be focussed on birds and contribute to BirdLife International’s Preventing Extinctions Programme. The project is based on a prestigious international photo competition, with exciting prizes, entry to which is open to anyone. Images submitted to the competition will be feature in a new book entitledThe World’s Rarest Birds, which is due to be published by the not-for-profit UK publisher WILDGuides in 2011.

^ http://www.theworldsrarestbirds.com/

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20100526.

So what has the long trusted conservation brand of the National Parks and Wildlife Service come to represent in New South Wales?

Does tourism and revenue matter more than conservation?

The NSW Keneally Government’s Tourism Bill threatens to introduce specific tourist development provisions into the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, including a long shopping list of facilities to allow for such things as fast food joints, supermarkets, golf courses, rifle ranges, conference centres and resorts of all sorts.  It is tantamount to prostituting our National Parks. Instead of Parks and Wildlife being the custodian of wildlife and wilderness, it will become an ‘eco-pimp‘ – procuring visitation to protected areas that exploits and harms fragile ecology for commercial gain.

Keneally’s eco-pimp bill threatens to prevent future court appeals against bad developments in our precious National Park. Our Courts should retain the power to thrown out developments, such as private universities and wedding reception centres that don’t belong in our national parks.

Like the precursor  Part 3A Planning tyranny bill before it,  Keneally’s eco-pimp bill invites construction of new private accommodation facilities inside National Parks.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that private development in national parks will boost the tourism industry or provide extra funds for park management. A stronger nature tourism industry for NSW with more people enjoying the parks is best achieved by encouraging tourism investment in nearby towns where it most benefits regional communities.

There should be bi-partisan support to strengthen national park laws, not to weaken protection so as to facilitate commercial development. With our rapidly growing population, the integrity and protection of our parks is more important now than ever before.

The cost of visiting National Parks should remain small, to ensure parks can be accessible to all.

The environmental credentials of any party that supports Keneally’s Exploitation Bill, or any aspect of it, would be permanently tainted.

Keneally is blind to the motives of this anti-environment bill.  Take her out of her sheltered urban environment and to experience some of our magnificent wilderness  first hand may allow her to realise the precious values of the natural world and the wicked folly of this bill.

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain