Ian Mott

MDBA Submission

2010-12-10T11:30:00.002+10:00

Submission in respect of the Guide to the proposed

(Murray-Darling) Basin Plan By Ian Mott

With specific direction to:

Chairman, Michael Taylor, and, Dianne Davidson, Diana Day, Robert Freeman, David Green and Barry Hart

Comprising evidence and issues that are capable of establishing that the process outlined in the document described as the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan is;

A. A grossly improper exercise of power within the meaning of Sections 5 & 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/adra1977396/s5.html and,

B. A planning process that is in serious breach of both the letter and the spirit of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nepca1994432/sch1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="intergovernmental%20agreement%20on%20the%20environment" and,

C. Conduct that is in grossly negligent abrogation of Professional Duty of Care to take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent entirely foreseeable and avoidable harm to all persons with an equitable interest in the proper management of all waters of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Overview:

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has misinterpreted the objects of the Water Act, 2007 in a way that assumes that only the fresh water resources of the basin are available for achieving the purposes of that Act. The interaction of fresh and tidal waters of the Coorong and Murray mouth is the critical element in ecosystem health and end of system dynamics. Yet, the character, frequency and volumes of these tidal flows have not been included in the inventory of Basin water resources and no meaningful attempt has been made to consider the enhanced management and augmentation of this resource for achieving the objects of the Water Act, 2007.

This appears to have its roots in one of the most appalling intellectual cop-outs ever incorporated into a policy process, the second conclusion of Walker [1](2002) who said;
“The build-up inside the mouth is believed due to a combination of inadequate river flows and near shore coastal processes related to wave and tide climate. Engineers and managers have no control over the latter”.

The second sentence is a gross, and inexcusable, misstatement of fact, by omission of the incredible range of works carried out all over the world, and over more than 3000 years of history, to mitigate and manage the impacts of wave, tide and storm events.

Executive Summary:

A. The major determinants of the condition of the Murray River mouth are the asymmetric tidal patterns and storm induced wave heights that produce a build up of beach sediments in a standard “flood tide delta” inside the mouth.

B. Half of all daily tide patterns (week about) involve approximately 8 hours of rapid inflow that deposits sand, followed by 16 hours of slow outflow that doesn’t remove it.

C. The shear stress of a flow (its capacity to move sediment) increases at approximately the square of the flow speed. So an inflow that is twice as fast as the outflow will transport four times more sand than the outflow will remove.

D. Half of all river flows take place at times of each lunar cycle when the tidal variation is minimal and the capacity to remove sediment is severely retarded. So half of the 3 million ML of buy-back water will not do the job intended for it. Nor will half the 5 million ML of existing flows.

E. An increase in total river flows that removes sand will simply increase the capacity of tides and storms to put it back again.

F. The function required of increased outflows is purely hydrological. It can be done equally well by additional sea water that has not already come through the mouth. Sea water is in essentially unlimited supply and comes at zero cost.

G. Storm events compound the deposition problem by increased turbulence (transportability) and increasing inflow volume and velocity. Of the annual average 77 storm events, only 38 coincide with large tidal variances and only 14 of those have their storm surges coinciding with rapid tidal intakes. The latter can deposit up to 46,000m3 of sand in a single event and cause most of the deposition problem.

H. These events can only be countered by timely and fully proportionate outflows that negate the deposition multipliers. A continuous modest flow after or between these events cannot redress the original deposition problem.

I. Large dimension, unidirectional pipes under the dunes, with intakes below the wave zone and above sea bed sand, can passively deliver the volumes of clean sea water needed to ;
a. First, retard deposition through reduce volumes and velocities of river mouth inflows as a larger portion of the tidal prism is supplied via the pipes, and
b. Then produce the increased volume and velocity of outflows by blocking the reverse flows back out the pipes so the outflow is diverted to the Murray mouth where its greater volume and velocity will increase sand removal to equilibrium levels.

J. Two pipes at the far end of the Coorong, and one north of The Narrows, could produce a complete cyclical discharge of the hypersaline volume of both lagoons out through the Murray mouth, and its replacement with cool, oxygenated sea water.

K. Less than 13 pipes either side of the Murray mouth could negate the deposition of all major storm events and do a better job, much cheaper, than all current river flows and additional buy-back water combined. Dredging will reduce the number of pipes required.

1.0 General Principles:

1.01 No legislation, policy or plan should be framed or interpreted in a way that gives effect to an improper exercise of power.

1.02 Improper exercise of power includes;
(a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;
(b) failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of a power;
(c) an exercise of a power for a purpose other than a purpose for which the power is conferred;
(d) an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith;
(e) an exercise of a personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person;
(f) an exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case;
(g) an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power;
(h) an exercise of a power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain; and
(j) any other exercise of a power in a way that constitutes abuse of the power.

1.03 The proper exercise of power in respect of environmental planning is in major part informed by the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992 which states that;
3.3 The parties consider that strong, growing and diversified economies (committed to the principles of ecologically sustainable development) can enhance the capacity for environmental protection. In order to achieve sustainable economic development, there is a need for a country's international competitiveness to be maintained and enhanced in an environmentally sound manner. And,
3.4 Accordingly, the parties agree that environmental considerations will be integrated into Government decision-making processes at all levels by, among other things:
(i) ensuring that environmental issues associated with a proposed project, program or policy will be taken into consideration in the decision making process;
(ii) ensuring that there is a proper examination of matters which significantly affect the environment; and
(iii) ensuring that measures adopted should be cost-effective and not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed.

1.04 The objects of the Water Act, 2007 are entirely consistent with the principles outlined above. The MDBA is required to;
- Give effect to relevant international agreements
- Protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystems services of the Basin
- Promote the use and management of Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes
- Ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction for water resources that are over allocated or overused
- Maximise net economic returns to the Australian community from the use and management of Basin water resources while protecting, restoring and providing for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Basin.

1.05 However, the term, “Basin water resources” includes fresh water sourced from outside the Basin catchment that has been, or could be, introduced to the Basin by human intervention (e.g., by pipeline from the Snowy River catchment). And it must also include sea water that has been, or could be, introduced to the Basin by human intervention.

1.06 The provision for adequate introduction of sea water into the Coorong and other parts inside the Murray mouth is clearly a core ecological value and ecosystem service in its own right. It clearly falls within the meaning of the first Mandatory Decision required by the Water Act, which is to;
- Determine the amount of water needed for the environment, known as the environmental water requirement, to protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Basin.

This obligation clearly includes determining the amount of sea water needed to provide for the estuarine ecological values and ecosystem services. But the MDBA only includes it as an outcome, not as a tool for achieving outcomes.

1.07 Once the sea water environmental water requirement has been determined then there is a clear obligation under the objects of the Water Act 2007, and under Clause 3.4 (iii) of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment to examine the most cost effective means of introducing that water and ensuring that the water is delivered in the correct proportions to the need for it.

1.08 The consideration of all practical options for the substitution of sea water, to perform tasks that have been historically performed by fresh water, clearly falls within the obligations of proper exercise of power, of ensuring cost effective and proportionate measures under the IGAE, and the discharge of professional duty of care. But neither the process outlined, nor the diagram, on page xiii of the guide includes any provision for examining alternative options.

2.00 Essential Facts:

2.01 A purely hydrological function like the transportation of sand and sediments can be, and currently is, performed with equal effectiveness by equal volumes and velocities of sea water or fresh water.

2.02 Fresh water is a comparatively scarce resource and is subject to substantial variation in supply. Any ecosystem service that is dependent on the supply of fresh water will be subject to substantial periods of non-delivery of that service.

2.03 Competition for the use of fresh water resources will continue to increase over time with resultant increases in the market price for that water.

2.04 The current spot price of irrigation water is in the order of $200 per megalitre while the capital cost of an annual allocation, that may or may not actually be available, is in the order of $2,000/ML.

2.05 If the future supply of fresh water is reduced, by either reduced rainfall or reduced run-off, or is limited by water buy-backs then demand pressures will increase the cost of water. Supply pressures, as the cost of storage and delivery infrastructure is defrayed over a smaller supply volume will also contribute to rising prices of fresh water, and through it to rising costs of ecosystem services provide by fresh water.

2.06 Sea water is one of the most abundant natural resources on the planet. Its supply is only limited by distance from the ocean, the height above sea level of the use it is put to, the presence of impediments to its transport and the cost of capture and delivery. An ecosystem service that is dependent on the supply of sea water need not be subject to any significant periods of non-delivery.

2.07 Competition for the use of sea water resources is minimal. This competition may grow over time but this will have minimal effect on the abundance of the resource or its price. There are no foreseeable market pressures for cost increases on ecosystem services delivered by sea water.

2.08 The current spot price of sea water is zero dollars per megalitre and the capital cost of an annual allocation, that will always be available, is also zero dollars/ML.

2.09 When sea water can be substituted for fresh water the limit to the annual cost of any infrastructure required in its capture, transportation and delivery to the place of use is defined by the spot price/ML of the fresh water it is replacing. The capital cost of infrastructure for the delivery of sea water is defined by the market price/Ml of a fresh water allocation, plus an additional premium for the substantially improved reliability of sea water supplies.

2.10 The difference between the market price of fresh water and the delivered cost of sea water is the marginal profit from the substitution process. The gross profit from the substitution is the marginal profit x the volume of all fresh water supplied.

2.11 The historical range of variation in the proportions of fresh and sea water that have delivered the essential ecosystem service of maintaining adequate tidal flows inside the Murray mouth is from zero fresh water and 100% sea water, in times of extended drought, to 100% fresh water and zero sea water in times of major flood.

2.12 According to Harvey[2] (1996) the tidal prism inside the Murray mouth has declined by 87-96% since the introduction of the Barrages, from an original volume estimated by Walker[3] (1990) of 20,000 ML.

2.13 No comprehension of the true interplay of tidal flows on the state of the Murray mouth is possible without reference to the Goolwa Beach tidal curve below.

This graph is the Goolwa Beach tide chart represented as a curve. It shows the tidal range, as well as tide height for different times of the day. The tide height data is provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National Tide Tables for standard ports. See http://tides.willyweather.com.au/sa/fleurieu-peninsula/goolwa-beach.html

Wed Nov 10 Nov 11 Nov 12 Nov 13 Nov 14

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0

2.14 This graph shows the transition between the two predominant tidal patterns that prevail at the Murray mouth. These patterns alternate for approximately a week each with two of each type in each lunar orbital cycle.

2.15 At left, (Nov. 10 & 11) we see the asymmetric pattern with maximum inflows over 8 to 9 hours followed by maximum outflows over 16 to 17 hours. This produces a substantially higher flow velocity on the inflow compared to the outflow and clearly illustrates why the sand build up inside the Murray mouth is driven by tidal dynamics.

2.16 At right, (Nov. 14) we see the alternate pattern of minimal tidal flux with minimal capacity to move sand in either direction. At these times the water in the mouth is deeper and slower, with neither volume nor velocity on a scale that is capable of moving sand. As these minimal tide variations take place every second week, it follows that 50% of all river flows occur when they cannot perform the ecosystem service they are intended to perform.

2.17 There is also a 20cm annual variation in mean sea level with lowest levels in Summer/Autumn, which coincide with periods of lowest river flows, and highest levels in Winter/Spring, which coincide with highest river flows.

2.18 The maximum potential for discharge water to carry sand out through the Murray mouth is when mean sea level is lowest. Potential for sand removal is lowest when mean sea level is highest.

2.19 The peak river flow volumes take place at a time of year when the capacity to remove sand from the mouth is declining.

2.20 The maximum potential for deposition of sand within the Murray mouth is when mean sea level is highest. According to Webster[4] (2005),
“The modelling and measurements presented by WBM Oceanics[5] (2003) show that this transport is likely to be particularly intensive under conditions of high waves and spring tides.”

2.21 Webster then advised that;
“In a two week period between 14-28 May 2002, which included a storm having offshore significant wave heights of ~4m and spring tides, approximately 46,000m3 of sand was deposited in the shoals and channels inside the mouth.”

2.22 According to Chappell[6] (1991) there were 3,849 significant storms between 1940 and 1990, mostly frontal systems, an average of 77 each year and evenly spread.

2.23 Only very large river flow volumes can balance water levels inside and outside the Murray mouth during storm surges in a way that would counteract the hydrological forces in major sand deposition events. Walker[7] (2002) graphed the damping of the tidal signal at Goolwa by a large river flow from 1-7 October 1990. This produced mean water levels 0.44m above that of Victor Harbour on a flow of 2,658GL/month. This is a full 1,100 GL/month more than his claimed natural peak flows of 1550 GL/month from August to November each year.

2.24 Once large sand volumes obstruct the mouth then the capacity of combined river and tidal flows to remove that sand is seriously impaired.

2.25 Storms during periods of lower river discharge, historically from February to June, deposit the most sand volumes because the imbalance between ocean and estuary water levels is greatest. The reduction in river flow volumes has expanded this window from November to July and even medium storms now cause deposition.

2.26 The addition of an evenly distributed 3,000 GL/year (250 GL/month) from water purchases will not substantially alter this window, even if it is combined with extra releases from the Barrages.

2.27 The build up of sand within the mouth has produced events described as “mouth closure” as shown below. (From Walker, 2002)

Figure 2.2 River Murray Mouth in April 1981 showing full blockage at the Mouth and restriction of water exchange between the Goolwa (left) and Tauwitchere (right) Channels.

2.28 The width of the Goolwa Channel at left is approximately 400 metres with the moist portion of the mouth being about 200m wide. A 46,000m3 volume of sand at a nominal depth of 1m, as described by Webster (2.11 above) as being deposited in a single storm event, would occupy the rough square feature bounded by shoals in the mid-left of centre of the picture.

2.29 This image was clearly taken at the lowest tide of the month at a time of year when mean sea level is also low. It only appeared this way for less than four hours of that 24 hour period. Just 8 hours later the mouth was very much open again, with an additional 1.2 metres of water depth and less than a week later there was an almost constant 0.6m depth.

2.30 Human intervention can alter the natural constraints of the site. If this were a river mouth anywhere in NSW or SEQ there would be a breakwater to manage sediment deposition by both river and beach.

2.31 A more recent image of the Murray mouth in May 2007 shows the contribution made by a rather modest dredging operation in a period of severe drought.

2.32 Despite this open mouth the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Coorong are not being maintained. Periodic very large flows may have been able to protect these values but it is simply the distance from the mouth that has most influence on the intrusion of the fresher tidal waters on which this ecosystem depends.

2.33 According to Webster[8] (2005) only the long term trends make it into that system.
“Low frequency water level variations in Encounter Bay, such as those associated with the passage of weather systems, penetrate more effectively through the mouth and along the Coorong than more rapid level fluctuations such as those due to the tides. Similarly, the width and depth of the mouth affect its ability to transfer water level fluctuations into the Coorong.”

2.34 The distance from the Murray mouth at left of the photo below to the start of the North Lagoon at the lower far right is 15km and the channel width averages about 300m for a surface area of approximately 500ha. There is another 320ha over 7.2km in the Goolwa channel further left.

2.35 A Manning Equation for this channel is difficult due to roughness variations. But if a uniform, 3.6 metre pipe covered this distance, and the upper half of the tidal range (0.5m) was used to define the slope for a Hazen-Williams[9] formula for a gravity fed pipe flow then the flow velocity would only be 0.425m/sec and discharge only 4.33m3/s or 15.6 ML/hour. It would take 9.8 hours for water to flow the full length of the pipe, by which time the tide would already be on its way back out again. http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g

2.36 In reality the slope of a tidal inflow is much less than half the tidal range. The natural tidal flow has difficulty fully supplying the potential tidal prism. Flow distance is critical. The further from the mouth the greater the variance between the potential and the actual prism as the tidal signal gets weaker and weaker.

2.37 The same size pipe extending from 200m out to sea (beneath the low tide wave influence) for 1500m under the dunes at lower right corner would flow three times faster (1.47m/sec) and discharge at 15.0m3/sec. The water would arrive only 17 minutes after entering the pipe and discharge 54 ML/hour.

2.38 Similar pipes under the narrower dunes closer to the mouth in either direction and with a length of only 600m would have a velocity of 2.4m/sec and discharge 24.6m3/sec. The water would arrive only 4 minutes after entering the pipe and discharge 88 ML/hour.

2.39 During storm surges the velocity and volumes of pipe flows would be much greater. If a storm surge added 0.5m to the slope then velocity in the pipes at 2.38 above would increase to 3.5m/sec and the discharge rate would be 35.8m3/sec. The water would arrive 2.85 minutes after entering the pipe and discharge 129 ML/hour.

2.40 The fundamental contradiction in the current management of the Murray mouth is the fact that the more open (wider and deeper) the mouth is made by a large river flow, the greater the ensuing tidal movements become and the more able the tide and storm forces get to dump sand back to close the mouth up again. Tinkering with the volumes will not alter this dynamic.

2.41 Open Channels through other parts of the dune system have been proposed as a means to improve ecological values in the Coorong but this is problematic. Channels must function in the littoral zone and would be subject to all the same natural processes that currently block the Murray mouth. In the absence of any countervailing river outflows, they would silt up even faster than a river mouth.

2.42 Any form of additional openings to the sea would only deliver a useful ecological service if they flowed in one direction only, in from the sea and along the existing channels and out through the mouth. This one-way flow would increase the total volume and velocity of tidal outflows and perform exactly the same equilibrium ecological service that fresh water discharges have done in the past. This is the only way to increase total tidal inflows without dragging extra sand into the mouth itself and closing it up again.

2.43 However, the absence of reverse flows in a channel system would only serve to ensure that the artificial gap in the active dune system closed even faster.
2.44 Pipes under the dunes, on the other hand, have major advantages over open channels for delivery of additional sea water to barrier estuarine systems;

- They can deliver precise and standardised volumes of sea water over a much shorter distance in a fraction of the time taken by passive tidal systems,
- They can be replicated to deliver sea water to any desirable location along a barrier system,
- They can provide variable delivery of sea water to optimise flows in the system,
- They can be completely covered once in place to restore visual values,
- Their oceanic intake can be placed lower than the wave zone to reduce risk of storm damage,
- The oceanic intake can project a sufficient distance out of the sand body to ensure that it free of sand in suspension and hence, sand will not be transported through the pipes in any sea condition or intake velocity.
- The pipe will not form a groyne-like barrier to lateral movement of sand along the beach and no (internal) flood tide deltas will form at the other end that would otherwise continually restrict the pipes function.

2.45 Such a system would operate passively, responding immediately to various levels of tidal flux without management input and in direct proportion to the height of any storm surge. But the presence of a simple valve system would also enable complete or partial shutdown if or when required.

2.46 The system could function at a number of levels;
- As a simple source of fresher water to overcome seasonal hyper salinity and replace evaporation losses in the closed end system.
- As a general augmentation of existing volumes into the far reaches of the Coorong to produce an increase over normal water levels and create a net outflow which will discharge excessive and unsustainable saline build-up out through the river mouth.
- As a tool for accurate, timely and proportionate adjusting of flows in and out of the mouth so normal rates of sand deposition can be reduced and countered by increased rates of sand discharge.
- As a tool for timely and proportionate responses to reduce the extent of major storm surge sand deposition events as and when they occur.

2.47 The Coorong is now a closed end system. Variations in water levels at the front of it have minimal impact at the far end. In the absence of pre-settlement flows along its length from the South East Drainage System, no amount of fresh water flows adjacent to the northern end can deliver adequate ecosystem services.
2.48 The North Lagoon is 48km long. Its average width at AHD is 1.5km, depth is 1.2m, surface area is 7,200ha and volume is 86,400 ML (CFMI[10], 1992). Mean annual pan evaporation is 16 ML/ha so the actual (80%) is more like 12.8 ML/ha. Mean annual rainfall is 5 ML/ha giving a net evaporative loss of 7.8 ML/ha. It requires an average 56,160 ML each year (65% of volume) to replace net evaporation losses.

2.49 Even if all this volume came from fresh water delivered over the Tauwitcherie Barrage in the upper left corner it would only serve to temporarily dilute saline levels rather than reduce existing salt loads. The current, totally inadequate, policy of reliance on tidal “sloshing” of fresh water to maintain water quality requires a much greater volume of fresh water that is delivered in a poorly targeted manner by an extremely inefficient method.

2.50 Year round direct injection of tidal water to the southern end of the North Lagoon, in volumes capable of keeping pace with mid summer evaporation rates, by pipes will fully restore and maintain all ecological values and ecosystem services through a complete replacement of water volume.

2.51 Summer evaporation is 0.056 ML/ha/day with a gross loss of 403 ML/day. In the absence of storm surges only half the days of each cycle will have tidal variation capable of producing useful inflows so the daily pipe flow must be in the order of 806 ML/Day, over an 8-9 hour high tide interval.

2.52 The passive flow rate will vary as the tide height outside the dunes rises and falls in relation to the mean sea level inside the dunes. An average cycle of the type shows at left of the graph at 2.13 above would have two hours (first and last) of a 10cm drop, 2 hours each of a 20cm, 30cm and 40cm drop, and a peak hour of 50cm drop that defines the rate of inflow.

2.53 Over a single1000m pipe of 3.6m diameter this would produce passive flow of;
2 hours @ 7.83m3/sec for 56 ML
2 hours @ 11.39m3/sec for 82 ML
2 hours @ 14.18m3/sec for 102 ML
2 hours @ 16.56m3/sec for 119 ML
1 hours @ 18.68m3/sec for 67 ML
For a total discharge of 426 Megalitres a day.

2.54 A 20cm storm surge on such a day is likely to add another 295 ML to the peak flow and 168 ML to the lower flows, taking the daily discharge to 890 ML.

2.55 An annual 180 days of such normal flows would inject 76,600 ML to the North Lagoon. Add the mean annual rainfall of 36,000 ML and the total water increment is 112,600 ML. Deduct the evaporation loss of 56,200 ML and we are left with a minimum net injection of 56,400 ML each year, or a 65% turnover of the original volume.

2.56 Based on normal flows only, this 76,600 ML would deliver in full, and well, the ecosystem services that a much larger volume of fresh water spilled over the Barrage does only partially, and poorly.

2.57 This volume of repurchased irrigation water, even if it could be delivered, free, to the southern end of the North Lagoon to produce a proper flushing outflow to the mouth, at $200/ML, would have an annual value of $15.3 million and the capital purchase price of the allocation required for continual use would be in the order of $153 million. The value of storm surge inflows would increase these comparative values.

2.58 The South Lagoon is separated by a string of shoals called the narrows (below) where the inward “sloshing” of tides is even more restricted. It is 40km long and has an average width of 2.5km, a depth of 1.4m, a surface area of 10,000ha and a volume of 140,000 ML (CFMI[11],1992). Annual net loss to evaporation in the South Lagoon is 78,000 ML (55.7% of volume).

2.59 This evaporative loss is not matched by inflows during mid-summer when water levels can fall as low as 0.5m below AHD.

2.60 A single 3.6m pipe of 1000m length as described above would not replace the net evaporative loss under normal discharge rates. But the additional flow produced by storm surges is likely to produce a net discharge into the North Lagoon.

2.61 If half the annual 77 storm events reported by Chappell[12] (at 2.22) took place during the peak tidal variation periods, and each event only lasted one day, and the mean tidal surge was only 0.2m, and there were no additional benefits from surges during neap tides, then there would be 38 days on which inflows would increase from 426 ML/day to 890 ML/day. This would add another 18,000 ML to the normal inflow to produce a total of 94,600 ML and an annual discharge, after net evaporation loss, into the North Lagoon of 16,600 ML.
2.62 This would represent an annual exchange of just less than 12% of the South Lagoon’s 140,000 ML normal volume. And it would take eight years to completely replace this volume and bring salinity levels back to that of sea water.

2.63 A second pipe would achieve that outcome in less than a year.

2.64 The delivery of the same ecosystem service with 94,600 ML of fresh water, if it were available from the SE Drainage System, would cost $18.9 million a year and require a capital outlay for allocation buy-backs of $189 million.

2.65 A shorter length of pipe, or a larger diameter of pipe, or the construction of a wider open channel, part of the way through the dune system from the discharge (Coorong) side, to link with a shorter pipe, would increase the volume and velocity of tidal inflows further.

2.66 It is improbable to the point of disbelief that the construction and emplacement of a single kilometre of pipe would cost more than the capital cost of the fresh water irrigation allocations such a pipe would replace.

2.67 This point is doubly important in light of the fact that none of the 3,000,000 ML of additional river flows requested by the MDBA will actually be delivered to the South Lagoon, and very little to the North Lagoon. Yet, it is the very hyper-salinity and associated habitat degradation in the Coorong that has been provided as the primary justification for that additional flow.

2.68 Indeed, even in the unlikely event that the through life cost of a pipe was as high as the value of the fresh water volume it replaced, the 3,000,000 ML proposed by the Guide would purchase more than 31 pipes.

2.69 But given that half of that proposed 3,000,000 ML buy-back will flow out the mouth at times when tidal flows provide almost zero hydrological assistance, and it will be unable to respond in kind to the critical storm surge deposition events, and the fact that there are no value chain adverse economic impacts, including adverse tax base impacts, from substituting sea water for fresh water, then pipes will still be a superior option at triple that cost.

2.70 Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert are the portions of the original tidal estuary that have been converted to fresh water lakes by the Barrages. They have a surface area of approximately 65,000ha, an average depth of 3m, a volume of 1.95 million ML, and are maintained at about 0.5m above AHD when fresh water is available. Gross evaporation is in the order of 832,000 ML/year which is off-set by mean annual rainfall of 325,000 ML, for a net loss of 507,000 ML/year.

2.71 Many people, including myself in the past, have criticised this evaporative loss as a waste of fresh water which had formerly been supplied from tidal flows. But this is based on a misconception that past sea water in tidal inflows was at the surface and extended to cover most of the lake surface. In fact the colder, denser sea water would have intruded under the warmer, fresh water and, even with no loss of tidal signal, would only have extended to 30% of the lake area.

2.72 Historical anecdotal reports that all of the Lake area was fresh water, all the time, were most likely based on hand sampling of surface water from boats that did not sample the sea water tidal intrusion below the surface. Webster[13] (2002) refers to observed current examples of salinity stratification in the North Lagoon.

2.73 Calls for the removal of the Barrages, including my own in the past, have been based on the mistaken belief that this larger tidal prism would produce larger flows through the Murray mouth that would then help maintain the mouth in an open state. But the tidal asymmetry shown at 2.13 above makes it clear that a larger prism would simply increase both the volume and velocity of inflows but maintain the imbalance with the volume and velocity of outflows. The result would be an increased potential and incidence of deposition inside the mouth.

2.74 The Barrages have actually reduced the scale of the deposition problem by reducing the size of the tidal prism. And this reduction has been most valuable during the major storm surge deposition events.

2.75 Open Barrages during periods of severe drought, and after evaporation losses have reduced lake levels to below AHD, can certainly contribute to maintaining ecosystem services and preventing impacts like acid sulphate leaching.

2.76 But it is surprising that, given official certainty of sea level rises of up to 1.0m by 2100, there has been no consideration of the implications of this on Lake management. If AHD is to rise by 40cm by 2040, then the level of the Coorong will then be only 10cm lower than inside the Barrages. And the capacity to discharge fresh water past the Barrages will be severely restricted. The clear implication will be that an extensive network of additional bunds will need to be constructed right around the perimeter of the Lakes to preserve a continually diminishing 50cm height differential inside the Barrages to preserve the capacity to discharge fresh water through the mouth.

2.77 Clearly, the use of fresh water as the primary tool for managing sediment deposition in the Murray mouth will require substantial additional capital outlays in the medium term simply to preserve the functionality of this tool.

2.78 It is also possible that an additional Barrage, extending the short distance from the eastern end of the Tauwitcherie Barrage, to the dune system may be needed. This could be left open for most of the time to maintain tidal movement into the North Lagoon. But in storm surge deposition events it could be closed to substantially reduce the tidal prism and thereby retard the potential for major sand build up.

2.79 This would limit the tidal area to just 820ha and would limit the rapid inflow volume in a peak tide to something in the order of 9,000 ML and 13,100 ML in a storm surge. And when combined with as few as 6 additional pipes under the dunes, could see more than half this total inflow diverted from the mouth while the total outflow could do its important sand removal work on its way out.

2.80 Dredging of sand has been[14] “non-stop in the Murray mouth since the mouth almost closed in October 2002. In those eight years 5.9m m³ of sand has been pumped at an estimated cost of $40m, ensuring an exchange of water between the ocean and the Coorong.”
http://www.earthmover.com.au/news/2010/newswire/november/november-4th/other-top-stories/dredging-reduced-at-murray-mouth

2.81 The contract manager, Campbell[15] (2008) advises that 5.0m m3 had been shifted in the first five years at an average $6.6 million a year or $6.60/m3. By deduction, the last 0.9m m3 has cost $7 million over three years at $7.78/m3, reflecting the higher marginal cost from lower volume removals after the second dredge was stood down.

2.82 The lower removals after completion of the channels are in a context of zero fresh water discharges over the Barrages since 2006. It is now an incontestable fact that this single dredge maintained a functioning river mouth through the most testing circumstances in post-settlement history, and with annual removal of only 300,000 m3 and a cost of only $2.33 million a year.

2.83 The objectives for this project, set by the MDB Ministerial Council (9/2002), and noted by Campbell[16] (2008) were to:
- Lower the elevated water levels in the Coorong,
- Re-establish tidal variations, and
- Provide stable channels.
To achieve three ecological objectives:
- An open Murray Mouth – to ensure that there is connectivity between the Coorong and the sea,
- More frequent estuarine fish spawning and recruitment – preserving existing species and numbers for both economic and ecological reasons,
- Enhance migratory bird habitats/tidal response – ensuring that tidal fluctuations (providing cool oxygenated water) are preserved to protect the mudflats within the Coorong.

2.84 The Sand Pumping Technical Committee (SPTC) was formed to oversee the project. They “considered a range of alternatives for keeping the mouth open. Twelve options were evaluated including dredging, sand by-pass, pumping, jetting, breakwaters, transferring water from the Upper South East, construction of a new mouth and piping the mouth. Conventional dredging was the cheapest option with the lowest level of risk”.[17] This evaluation does not appear to have been published.

2.85 The design called for a channel 80m wide and 3m deep from the mouth to the Tauwitcherie Channel and a 40m wide and 3m deep channel connecting the Goolwa side. And this was achieved by May 2006.

2.86 Campbell[18] concludes, “The project has been, and continues to be, successful in achieving the primary objectives of keeping the Murray mouth open to maintain a tidal variation in the Coorong and to deliver cool oxygenated water into the Coorong, thus helping to maintain the ecological integrity of this internationally significant site”.

3.00 Assumptions

3.01 The plan embodied in this submission is based on the assumption that the MDBA, and the political interests directing it, are capable of acting in good faith.

3.02 It is assumed that the scientific community involved in this issue is capable of lifting themselves above the eco-Neanderthal belief system that would have it that any measure to protect or restore environmental values must come at the cost of pain and sacrifice by mankind in general, and farmers in particular.

3.03 It is assumed that everyone involved in the decision making process is capable of comprehending the fact that nature quite often operates within a highly inefficient set of parameters. And that by far the proudest aspect of human achievement has been their capacity to work with nature to deliver the same or improved ecological services with fewer, or better targeted, natural resources, to then enable themselves and their dependent species to make better use of the resulting ecological profits.

3.04 It is assumed that the well recognised and documented propensity of the resource management bureaucracies to snatch mediocrity, failure and substantial budgetary waste from the jaws of excellence, achievement, and profit, will not raise its ugly head in this instance.

4.00 What else do we need to know?

4.01 The average duration of storm surges, (i.e., the time taken for frontal systems to pass) and their range of variation, needs additional study, as does their mean height and their range of variation in height. Without this information the more accurate determination of the likely range of passive flow pipe yields cannot be made.

4.02 For the proper management of Murray mouth sand deposition we need to know the proportion, number, and range of scale variations, of storm surges that coincide with the periods of peak tidal variation. Storm surges that coincide with ebb and neap tides are likely to produce much less deposition because their rising inflows counteract the tidal outflows. Storm events where maximum surge takes place during maximum tidal inflow will present the highest volume and velocity inflows and produce the highest volumes of sand deposition.

4.03 We then need to know the extent to which these major deposition events must be negated and the extent to which their deposition volumes can be carried forward for remedial action by subsequent normal tidal outflows and benign phase storm surge outflows. This information will be essential for the ultimate design specification.

4.04 We need to know the proportion of total inflows that will need to come via conduits other than the Murray mouth to ensure equal deposition and removal on each tidal cycle. That is, when the combined outflows through the mouth can remove the deposition that took place on the previous inflow. At Alternative 5.50 below, we have assumed this to be 50% but the actual is likely to be much less because a unidirectional diversion system reduces deposition by diverting mouth inflows to the alternative conduit and increases sand removals by increasing the total volume of mouth outflows via improved efficiency of the tidal prism.

4.05 We need to know the optimum size, volume, cost relationships in both pipe construction and installation. This analysis has used 3.6m diameter pipes as a standard but we need to know, for example, if smaller ones provide substantially lower cost advantages that outweigh the resulting reduced flow volumes. It may also be possible that larger pipes produce flow gains that outweigh their increased cost and installation difficulties.

4.06 Optimum pipe size will also be influenced by installation issues on the seaward side with questions over a single large prefabricated sub-surface interface or an on-site construction with coffer dams etc.

4.07 The trade-offs between large capacity passive flow systems that only function for part of the time, and smaller capacity pump based systems that can function all of the time would also merit detailed consideration.

4.08 The full evaluation of alternatives for keeping the Murray mouth open, carried out by the Sand Pumping Technical Committee in 2002 must be made public to properly inform the policy process. Some of these options, while appearing to be more costly than dredging appeared to be in 2002, may prove to be valuable contributors in a combined approach. For example;
“The Southern Alexandrina Business Association[19] has sent (9/04/09) a proposal to SA Water Security Minister Karlene Maywald for a break-water for the neighbouring Coorong. Association president John Clark says the cost would be roughly the same as dredging but would have longer-term benefits for the internationally-recognised Coorong wetlands”. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/09/2540147.htm
If the local Business Association’s costing is anywhere near the reality then a mix of pipes, dredging and breakwaters is likely to be even more effective than each option in isolation. And the cost is certain to be substantially less than the MDBA’s perverse fresh water fetish.

5.00 Alternatives:

5.10 The Buyback of 3 million ML of irrigation water to maintain a higher continuous outflow. This option has a total cost in the order of $6 billion, with annual costs of $600 million. It uses high value, and highly variable supplies of fresh water to do a simple hydrological function. It wastes more than half the total volume supplied because it is delivered at a time when there is next to zero assistance in sand removal from tidal outflows.

5.11 It is incapable of responding in the time and scale needed to deal with the key storm surge deposition events. It is a continuous, static solution to a set of dispersed, variable impacts. And it will not alter the fact that the capacity of the tides to fill-in the Murray mouth is in direct proportion to the degree to which the river flows might open it.

5.12 In economic terms it is an even bigger waste. It takes water that is currently put to profitable use in an important national value chain. It involves water that must be purchased at considerable cost to the Commonwealth and it involves a significant ongoing reduction in the tax base and a serious undermining of the cost base for major storage infrastructure like Dams etc.

5.13 It will achieve little additional benefit to what has been delivered by a single dredge for the past three (worst case) years at an annual cost of $2.33 million.

5.14 And none of the wealth transfers involved appear to be incorporated into the Commonwealth Grants Commission processes, the body responsible for the fair and equitable distribution of Commonwealth funds between the states.

5.15 And it will not go anywhere near to restoring the ecological values of the lower Coorong, the very wetland used to justify the use of this water.

5.20 Removal of the Barrages to restore the tidal prism. This option has been promoted as the obvious solution to the major evaporative losses that take place within the lower lakes in severe drought.

5.21 But in a context of a current 5 million ML mean annual discharge of fresh water out the Murray mouth, and the prospect of an additional 3 million ML from buy-backs for the same end, the increase from a pre-settlement 400,000 ML fresh water evaporation to a current 500,000 ML net figure, makes this very much a second order issue.

5.22 The contribution of partial openings during drought to maintain internal water levels etc is certainly an option that needs proper consideration.

5.23 However, the permanent opening of the Barrages will actually exacerbate problems of excess deposition in the mouth by increasing the volume and velocity of the tidal inflows.

5.30 The construction of open channels through the dunes to introduce more sea water into the Coorong Lagoons. This option would be comparatively cheap to implement but would be quite short lived. If the Murray mouth, with its additional discharges of fresh water, cannot combat the internal sand build-up from tidal inflows and storm surges then additional man made channels will be closed by the same forces in even less time. Open channels must function in the same littoral zone as the Murray mouth and the resulting exposure to the forces at play in that zone would require continual maintenance expenditure and render the option unviable.

5.31 The closure of open channels would take place even faster if gates were fitted to allow for unidirectional flows.

5.40 The installation of large diameter, in-flowing pipes under the dune system to the Coorong, one supplying the North Lagoon and two supplying the South Lagoon, each delivering approximately 100,000 ML of sea water each year, sufficient to produce a net flow along the full length of the system and ultimate discharge through the Murray mouth.

5.41 The two, located near Fig Tree Crossing, would be capable of replacing all annual evaporation losses and, within a single year, push the entire hypersaline volume into the North Lagoon. The third pipe, just north of the Narrows, could then push the remaining volume out through the Murray mouth.

5.42 It is the first step in restoring the essential ecological values, especially normal salinity levels, to the system. The reliance on “tidal sloshing” has proven to be a consistent failure, especially for the South Lagoon. The delivery of fresh water from the Murray to the most useful parts of this system cannot be achieved without considerable additional capital outlays. And the volumes required cannot be sourced from the Upper South East Drainage Scheme.

5.43 This option substitutes a comparatively small amount of cheap, well targeted, sea water for a very large and indeterminate volume of expensive, poorly targeted fresh water that does not even perform the function assigned to it.

5.44 With this direct injection of tidal water into the Coorong system the full suite of environmental values and ecosystem services can be maintained with a substantially higher level of certainty. And the system can be maintained in a circumstance that remains connected too, but is no longer dependent on, the vagaries of Murray mouth hydrodynamics.

5.45 If the overriding aim of the MDB Guide’s requirement for 3 million ML of expensive buy-back water is to keep the Murray mouth sufficiently open so tidal sloshing might keep the Coorong ecosystem just above the point of ecological collapse then the need for this entire mouth open objective can be negated by just 300,000 ML of cheap sea water delivered directly to its point of maximum benefit.

5.46 The capital buy-back value of fresh water is $2000 per megalitre so the opportunity cost of a pipe that delivers 100,000 ML of sea water to do a better job is $200 million. Any capital outlay less than $600 million on these three pipes represents good value. Given that the concrete in a 1000m pipe of 3.6m diameter and 20cm thick only amounts to 2,400m3, and costs only $720,000 at retail prices, one must conclude that it would take some seriously monumental departmental bungling to push the installed cost above $100 million a pipe.

5.47 This option serves the first two functions outlined at 2.46 above, that is;
- As a simple source of fresher water to overcome seasonal hyper salinity and replace evaporation losses in the closed end system.
- As a general augmentation of existing volumes into the far reaches of the Coorong to produce an increase over normal water levels and create a net outflow which will discharge excessive and unsustainable saline build-up out through the river mouth.
5.50 The provision of additional pipes under the dunes either side of the Murray mouth to improve the management of normal flows and to respond in time and scale to retard the impact of storm surge deposition events.

5.51 These would need to be in sufficient number to deliver half the total tidal prism that would result from the onset of a 0.5m storm surge during the nine hour inflow phase of a 1.1m peak tide or 16 ML/ha. The total inflow would be 13,000 ML so the capacity of the pipes must be 6,500 ML over the same period to ensure that the volume flowing out the river mouth is double the volume flowing in the mouth.

5.52 Unlike pipes flowing into the Coorong where the outlet water level remains near AHD, pipes near the mouth would start inflows from the moment the low tide turned, and would continue to the tidal peak. The water velocity and discharge rates would be defined by the slope obtained from the water levels on either side of the dunes. And in the absence of more detailed analysis we should assume this to be a drop of 0.1m over 700m of pipe.

5.53 This would discharge 9.5m3/sec, or 34.2 Ml/hour, or 308 ML over a nine hour tidal inflow. The 6,500 ML capacity in that circumstance would require 21 pipes. This would mean one pipe for each 39ha of tidal area so the Goolwa channel would need 8 while the Tauwitcherie channel would need 13 pipes.

5.54 This would reduce the storm surge flow through the mouth to the same volume as a modest 0.8m tidal flow under natural conditions. A normal peak tide of 1.1m range would produce the even more modest 0.55m tidal inflow through the mouth with the full 1.1m outflow.

5.55 This across the board halving of river mouth inflow volume and velocity would produce a much more than proportionate decrease in sand deposition. The increase in river mouth outflow volumes and velocity through improved efficiency of the tidal prism would also produce an increase in sand disposal. And this gives us strong grounds for suspecting that this number of pipes may be significant over-kill.

5.60 Maintain dredging in a post flood open Murray Mouth. Once the mouth is open, it is an incontestable fact of history that a single dredge was able to maintain that open mouth during a period of zero fresh water discharges at a cost of only $2.33 million a year. The current capacity to move a minimum of 2000 m3 of sand in a 24 hour day along a pipeline up to 2km in length, is an asset that could be used elsewhere in the estuary to enhance the tidal prism. The sand bank just outside the Eastern end of the Tauwitcherie Barrage is a good first candidate and modification of The Narrows would also be justified. A system of pipes and breakwaters may produce additional need for dredging too.

5.61 It is obviously more economical to prevent a channel from degrading than it is to open a channel that has already closed. The current flood discharges have already opened the channels much wider than the dredge ever could but in subsequent years this maximum opening must contract. In a $10 Billion budget with $1 billion annual outlays, this $2.33 million punches well above its weight.
6.00 Conclusions

6.01 The option that least serves the purposes of the Water Act 2007 is option 5.20 Removal of the Barrages. The restoration of the original tidal prism may provide a temporary improvement in tidal sloshing into the North Lagoon but this would be a very short lived improvement as the asymmetric tidal patterns will increase deposition at the Murray mouth and substantially retard the efficiency of that enlarged tidal prism. Any benefits to be gained by introducing sea water into the Lower Lakes during drought can be achieved by simply opening the Barrages. Their removal is not necessary.

6.02 Option 5.30 Construction of open channels to the Coorong does not serve the purposes of the Water Act 2007 any better. The benefits of direct injection of sea water into the hypersaline ecosystem would be very short lived as the same processes at play at the Murray mouth would close any open channels even faster. This option would require continual maintenance at great expense.

6.03 Option 5.10 the buy-back of 3 million megalitres to increase regular flows is a static, continuous response to a variable, intermittent need. It also demands the scarcest and most valuable water to do a simple hydrological task that can be done better by cheap, abundant and reliable sea water. The scientific community has made no secret of their view that the volume is totally inadequate for the requirement. But the need to balance ecological, social and economic values for the up-stream communities will ensure that the required amount will not be forthcoming.

6.04 Option 5.60, Dredging, has already demonstrated its capacity to maintain an open Murray Mouth, at very low relative cost, and in worst case river flow circumstances. It has clearly earned the right to be included in any mix of solutions and is entirely compatible with other options as an outcome multiplier.

6.05 Option 5.40, Pipes under the dunes to the two Coorong lagoons, deals directly with the need to restore and maintain ecosystem services by delivering sufficient volume of fresh, fully oxygenated sea water to the exact locations that will meet the obligations under the Water Act 2007. It does so in a way that is in direct proportion to the need and it considers the highly relevant matters of timing, flow direction, adequacy and efficacy of water volumes delivered. It maintains the ecological integrity of the whole system but with a fully flexible stand alone management system. It operates in an incremental framework that deals with the most pressing ecological problem, South Lagoon hypersalinity, first and can then play its part in the broader issue of maintaining the Murray mouth.

6.060 Option 5.50, Pipes under the dunes to manage the Murray mouth, becomes a lesser priority once the ecological integrity of the Coorong has been restored by Options 5.40 and 5.60. The health of the Coorong need no longer be dependent on the state of the Murray mouth.

6.061 However, any pipes near the mouth will be better than no pipes because every pipe will enhance the contribution already made by river flows. The economics of trenching and subsequent dune restoration dictate that three or four pipes should be installed in each excavation. And the need for balanced hydrology in both channels would demand a minimum of eight pipes with four on each channel. The reality is that sea water is a superior, more abundant, lower cost, less disruptive and more proportionate substitute for all fresh water discharges through the Murray mouth. And there is no excuse for not doing so.

6.062 If the Australian community has already accepted a budget in excess of $6 billion for the buy-back then the mandate is already in place to spend up to the same amount on pipes to do a much better job.

6.063 When that $6 billion opportunity cost of the 3 million megalitre buy-back is spread over the estimated 16 pipes needed to completely restore the Coorong and keep the Murray mouth wide open we get an extraordinary $375 million for each pipe. The $200 million/pipe figure used in 5.46 above does not factor in the improved water use efficiency delivered by proportionate sea water over disproportionate fresh water.

6.064 And given the savings to be gained from placing 3 or 4 pipes side by side in the one excavation we can safely conclude that the cheapest and best option is undoubtedly the pipes.

6.065 In fact, with the Barrages in place for more than 70 years now, the demarcation of sea and fresh water ecosystems is well established. And this means that further substitution of sea water for existing flows is also feasible as a source of additional fresh water for up-stream wetlands. With adequate sea water systems in place there is no longer any justification, either logical or ecological, for a single drop of fresh water to go over the Barrages. All of existing fresh water outflows (up to 5 million ML) could be used for delivery of up-stream ecological services at zero cost to the economic, social and ecological values of the Basin.

6.066 I advise accordingly, and request that the MDBA considers all relevant matters outlined in this submission, and takes all reasonable and practical steps, to ensure that it does not;
- give effect to any improper exercise of power, or
- apply measures that are not cost effective, or
- apply disproportionate measures, that may
- cause entirely foreseeable, and avoidable detriment to people or communities in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Copyright: Ian Mott, 8th December 2010.
38 Jellicoe Street Manly West QLD 4179
Ph. (07) 3893 0612
talbank@bigpond.net.au

References:
[1] Walker, DJ. (2002) ‘The Behaviour and Future of the River Murray Mouth’ pp 14

[2] Harvey, N. (1996) ‘The significance of coastal processes for management of the River Murray Estuary’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol.34, no. 1, pp 45-57.

[3] Walker, DJ. (1990) ‘The role of river flows in the behaviour of the Murray Mouth’. South Australian Geographical Journal, vol. 90, pp. 50-65.

[4] Webster, IT. (2005) An Overview of the Hydrodynamics of the Coorong and Murray Mouth. Technical Report #/2005. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. pp 4

[5] WBM Oceanics (2003), Murray River Mouth – Morphological Model Development Stage 2 – Model Set Up, Calibration and Verification, Report prepared for Murray-Darling Basin Commission & SA Dept. for Water, Land & Biodiversity Conservation.

[6] Chappell, J. (1991) Murray Mouth Littoral Drift Study, Report prepared for the Engineering and Water Supply Department, South Australia.

[7] Walker, DJ. (2002) op. cit. Fig. 4.3 pp 7

[8] Webster, IT. (2005) op. cit. pp 7

[9] http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g

[10] CFMI (1992) Mathematical Modelling of the Hydrodynamics and Salinity in the Coorong Lagoons, Report CNG-1-12-12/92 prepared for the Engineering and Water Supply Department, South Australia.

[11] CFMI (1992) ibid.

[12] Chappell, J. (1991) op. cit.

[13] Webster, IT. (2005) op. cit. pp 16-17

[14] Dredging reduced at Murray Mouth, Earth Mover Magazine, (11/2020)
http://www.earthmover.com.au/news/2010/newswire/november/november-4th/other-top-stories/dredging-reduced-at-murray-mouth

[15] Campbell, T. Brown, R. Erdmann, B. (2008) Murray Mouth Sand Pumping: Keeping the Tided Flowing. Report by the Contract Manager, SA Water Corporation. pp 1

[16] Campbell, T. Brown, R. Erdmann, B. (2008) op. cit. pp 6

[17] Campbell, T. Brown, R. Erdmann, B. (2008) ibid. pp 6-7

[18] Campbell, T. Brown, R. Erdmann, B. (2008) ibid. pp 12

[19] The Southern Alexandrina Business Association. (2009) Submission to SA Water Security Minister on construction of Breakwaters. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/09/2540147.htm

Who killed free market oil salvage?

2010-06-23T10:16:00.012+10:00

How to turn an industrial mishap into an ecological disaster. Just add bureaucrats.

We have all seen the unfolding disaster of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill as it spreads to the southern coast of the USA. The bill for damage appears likely to reach US$20 to $40 billion but a close look at the actual base numbers at play here makes it very clear that it is the collective failure of the American intellect that has turned an industrial mishap into an ecological and financial catastrophe that could punch a serious hole in the retirement savings of many Britons.

We are provided with potent images of a virulent discharge of oil and continually reminded of the estimated 30,000 - 60,000 barrels a day that is lost. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/bp-reinstalls-cap-after-robot-crash/story-e6frg90o-1225883840263 Like a car on an ice bound motorway, everyone from the media, the US EPA, to the politicians, all slide towards an apparently unavoidable collision with an ecological disaster with minimal avoidance effort. They are so transfixed by the assumed end result that even the most elementary mitigation options are left undone. And foremost amongst the institutional "stunned mullet" are the respective state and federal environmental protection authorities, the very same organisations that have held themselves out to the budget process as the agencies of first response.

The fatal flaw of these organisations is that their singular overriding perspective is pessimistic. Their sole focus is on the identification of environmental problems and the implementation of regulations to minimise any associated harm. Their collective myopia is so severe that they are incapable of even recognising an economic opportunity, let alone using open, functioning, minimally regulated markets to first solve the problem and eliminate harm.

Someone forgot to tell them that

"Where there's muck there's money".

But in fact, someone did. It has recently come to light that, back on the 4th of May, two Dutch companies had approached the authorities for approval to enter US waters with equipment capable of capturing a large portion of the oil as it first escaped to the surface next to the sunken platform. But no such approval was given. It seems authorities were concerned that the method left small droplets of oil when the cleaned water was returned to the sea. See http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster and http://www.iceagenow.com/US_refused_Dutch_oil_skimmers.htm

and http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/28/giant-cleanup-ship-met-with-puny-response-from-bureaucrats/ [courtesy Bill Pounder]

But lets take a close look at what we are actually dealing with here. A vast reservoir of crude oil worth billions of dollars, 65% owned BP, is leaking into the ocean. Each of these 30,000 barrels of oil is worth US$76.50 each so some $2,295,000 worth of valuable salvage is made available every day. Each barrel equates to a volume of 159 litres so there are 6.29 barrels in each cubic metre of oil. And the daily discharge amounts to 4,770 M3. Each cubic metre has a value of $480 and as there is 5 standard 200 litre, 44 Imp gallon or 55 US gallon, drums in each M3, then each drum full is worth $96.00 on the world crude market.

According to the RNW link above, the US authorities favoured a chemical treatment that broke down the oil, thereby extinguishing its salvage value. But Dutch research had already concluded that this method caused more harm to wetlands than the oil itself.

In contrast, each 200 litre drum of oil is of equal value to half a days pre-tax pay for an American worker earning $24/hour. Tens of millions of Americans earn much less than this, especially the 10% of the workforce who are out of work altogether. There appears to be no valid reason why an average American could not collect two drums of oil in a normal working day. But the logistics of the exercise may complicate the equation somewhat. Add an open boat, fuel and storage capacity and the break even capacity gets greater, as does the minimum effective number of workers in each team. A 3 person team with boat etc would see the minimum daily collection target go out to about ten drums, or 2m3/day worth $960, from each team. And this, aside from the obvious ecological cost minimisation imperatives, means a bigger boat to cover a wider area and renders the economics of small patch oil collection marginal. This is the volume of oil one might find in a 400m2 patch of oil that is 5 mm thick. It would require at least 300 metres of floating barrier and a pump capable of processing the 40 tonnes of water in the top 10cm.

But this only applies to American wage rates. Lets not forget that this oil spill is in the Gulf of Mexico, and there are 109 million Mexicans who are closer to this problem than most Americans. The Mexican GDP per capita is $13,600 but this obscures the fact that 60% of the population share just 26% of the GDP. And that makes 65 million people with an average share of $6,000 a year each. That works out at $116/week, or just under $24/day or $3.00 an hour. At this rate, a crew of three on a small local craft might start to lose interest in the exercise if it took them a whole day to collect a single 200 litre drum of oil worth $96.00. This is the volume one would find in a 40m2 (5m x 8m) patch of oil that is 5 mm thick.

Most could collect a whole lot more using nothing but frying pans, especially if larger storages were maintained close to the collection area. Indeed, even if there were no larger industrial scale collection efforts in operation, the entire daily discharge volume could be collected by the number of Mexicans who try to cross the US border each week.

The leaking well is just 800km, or two days by slow boat, from the coast of Yucatan where the most disadvantaged Mexicans live. And the further the oil drifts eastward to the Alabama and Florida coasts the more dispersed and fragmented the oil patches become and the more imperative the use of free market, non-american labour, becomes. The exclusive use of American labour may have some traction when dividing the benefits of production but it has no traction, nor even logic, in minimising serious ecological harm.

The worlds poor, and the not so poor, have willingly scavenged for items of value from maritime disasters for millenia. Everything from shipwrecked cargo to drifting planks and sailcloth has been removed from the environment and returned to human use, both personal and through resale. Even beached whales were seen by early humans as a plentiful bounty, and a time of opportunity, for hundreds of millenia. But for some extraordinary reason we now have a collective intellect that is capable of compartmentalising our problems in a way that leaves us wringing our hands, transfixed by an approaching disaster when a normally functioning market place would instantly recognise an opportunity and proceed to exploit it to the point where the problem disappears altogether.

For some reason, apparently beyond the comprehension of reasonable men, this oil is deemed to be still in the possession of BP when it is clearly abandoned salvage on the high seas. Yes, BP has a legal obligation to clean up the mess but why is it being deemed to remain the exclusive property of BP?

If it were not so serious it would be high comedy. The US Coast Guard and the relevant Environmental Protection Agencies have diligently applied exclusion laws, that were designed to protect fish stocks, to an abnormal outbreak of oil stocks. With scant regard for the actual ecological outcomes, they carefully 'protected' their newly discovered mobile oil patches from rapacious foreign scavengers. Well done, fellas, (wave that flag, cue photo op).

BP has every right to argue that the bulk of the responsibility, and liability, for the harm that has befallen the southern coast of the USA rests squarely on the inactions of their own agencies. The means to collect the largest oil patches when it first came to the surface was available to them, at minimal net cost after sale of salvage proceeds, courtesy of the Dutch. But this offer was declined or not responded to in a timely manner.

The means to collect medium sized patches, again at minimal net cost after sale of salvage proceeds, by their own local fishing fleet, was also declined or not acted upon in a timely manner. And the means to collect even the smallest, dispersed oil patches was also available to them, at minimal net cost after sale of salvage proceeds, courtesy of the thousands of low income Mexican fishermen who lived within three days slow transit of the discharge zone.

This proper functioning of a salvage market would have been quite capable of capturing the overwhelming majority of the discharge for as long as it takes to relieve the pressure on the discharge site with additional drill holes. And BP itself would have been the logical buyer for all that salvaged oil which it could then on-sell to its existing customers at little more than the cost of consolidating volumes. Instead, one of the best run companies on the planet now has a huge financial exposure thanks to the collective intellectual lard of the US environmental protection industry who simply cannot understand that there is always a place for free market ecology to turn entrenched notions on their head and convert imaginary problems into real opportunities.

More sinister is the revelation in the last paragraph of the Dutch article above. "In 1989, a Dutch team and equipment had already been flown in to tackle the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster off the coast of Alaska. But in the end the US authorities sent them home." This technology has been around for more than 21 years but it is standard operating procedure for the US environmental protection authorities to reject proven harm minimisation options. One can only conclude that they seek some sort of perverted publicity gain from an unrestrained ecological disaster.

The BP legal defence team needs to take a good hard look at the option of laying formal charges of gross negligence on US authorities.

Half Truths in Retirement Saving

2010-03-22T14:50:00.007+10:00

Be careful now, they are after even more of your money.

The entire funds management industry has been guilty of gross misrepresentation of fact in relation to the future retirement funding of Australians. They assume that retirements will only be funded through formal savings plans, less their own commissions, of course.

But they, and their self appointed champion, Paul Keating, forget that most Australians have parents, who own a house. And by the time each of us approaches retirement age our parents will be passing on and leaving the overwhelming majority of us a share of, at least, the median house price. This is currently in the order of $400,000 depending on where they live. And the further into the future we go the larger that average share will become because the average family size is declining.

So people born in 1950 are likely to inherit a quarter of the median house price. Those born in the 1970s will inherit a third and those born in the 1990s will inherit half of whatever the median house price is when they retire in the 2050s. Add those funds to a 9% superannuation scheme and very few Australians will be anywhere near underfunded in retirement.

So forget about the market spivs and all their scams for using the equity in your own house to fund a long retirement. The equity in your parent's house will arrive at about the same time as you will need it.

It is so painfully obvious that it is downright shocking to note that we currently have a retirement savings policy that is completely devoid of all consideration of inheritance and intergenerational transfers. It is doubly shocking because inheritance remains the key element of capital formation in most families, on the whole planet. It is almost like someone forgot to input this basic element of wealth accumulation into the cyber based mindset. Along with the absence of a site from which to download common sense, the role of inheritence in retirement funding has also slipped below the cyber radar.

One must ask, which planet has Keating been on all these years? And what, exactly, has been his purpose in building his own wealth, if not to ensure the future wellbeing of himself, his children and his grandchildren?

Or is it simply the case that the sons and daughters of no-hopers that now make up a large part of the Australian Labor Party had no idea of the concept of family wealth creation in the first place? And have shaped policy for the rest of us, entirely on the basis of their own ignorance?

First posted at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/paul-keating-ridicules-nutter-tony-abbott/story-e6frgczf-1225841256973

More on IPCC Himalayan Glacier blunder

2010-01-18T17:24:00.004+10:00

The story has just broken on the complete absence of scientific evidence for the IPCCs claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have all melted by 2035. But there is much more to the story than has been covered in the mainstream media.

In, "United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed", Chris Hastings and Jonathan Leake from The Australian (January 18, 2010 12:00AM) said;

THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist.
The 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming, appears to have simply adopted the untested opinions of the Indian glaciologist from a magazine article published in 1999.
The IPCC report claimed that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish inside 30 years. But the scientists behind the warning have now admitted it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Mr Hasnain, who was then the chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
The revelation represents another embarrassing blow to the credibility of the IPCC, less than two months after the emergence of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which raised questions about the legitimacy of data published by the IPCC about global warming.
One email written by a scientist referred to ways of ensuring information that doubted the veracity of man-made climate change science did not appear in IPCC reports.
Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 IPCC report, said on the weekend he was considering recommending that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
"If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments," Professor Lal said.
The IPCC's reliance on Mr Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Mr Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine.
"Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain," Pearce said. "The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.
"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words, it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers, not the whole massif."
The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when environmental group WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper.
Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Professor Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.When published, the IPCC report gave its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.
Glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of metres thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise.
Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "A small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120m thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300m thick so to melt one at 5m a year would take 60 years."
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Professor Lal admits he knows little about glaciers."

What the reports don't mention is the fact that most of these glaciers, like the largest, Siachen, go from altitude 6000m to 7000m. And most junior high school geography students will know that temperature declines by 1 degree C for each 100 metre increase in altitude. And that means the top of these glaciers are a full 10C colder than the bottom. It also means that temperatures would need to rise by a massive 10C for the glaciers to melt completely.

One must ask, what body of science is currently claiming that CO2 emissions will be so high as to produce the kind of CO2 levels (2000ppm or more) that would produce a 10C increase in global temperature? Answer: None. IPCC head, Pachauri, has obtained funding for his own consulting business on the basis of a completely preposterous claim.

Young Ghosts by an old country Cenotaph

2009-11-11T10:32:00.003+10:00

It is November 11 again. My eldest son is just 9 weeks shy of his 19th birthday. He is the only one in the family line to carry the name of his Great Grandfather who went off to the western front at the same age. So please forgive me. When I think about the dreadful sacrifices made by almost every farming family I can only ask if we are still worthy of the rights and liberties that were protected at such a cost.
I think about the rights that have already been taken without so much as a single bloody nose, or even a hurled egg or tomato. I wonder if those boys are still watching us now. I wonder what they would think about the people who claim to represent us but who give up so meekly and then pose for the camera, doing all they can to provide our persecutors with the veneer of good governance their voters still expect of them.
I wonder why it is that those who have had so little of life can give so much. And why those of us who have had so much of life will pay so little to hang on to what has already been paid for in full.
I still can't get over what an incredible bond of trust and belief in the inherent worth of their own community there must have been for parents to let their kids go into something like that. If Rudd & Wong, Bligh & Beattie, Carr and all the rest are the litmus paper of the nation we have become then, I'm sorry to say it, but these people are not worth the death of one good man, let alone 65,000, and just as many in continuous care some 3 decades later.
I was the last Cadet Officer of my school Cadet Unit before Whitlam shut it down in 1973, so I missed the draft by 2 years. But there was never any doubt as to where my duty lay. This was no mistake on my part, nor any moral fall from grace, as the left would have history record. You see, I was the son of a farmer who also rented land to other, poorer, farmers. And there were these people who knew nothing about farming who had consistently chosen to shoot folks like me and my family, without trial, every time they had the chance. And it was solidarity with people just like us that reinforced the need to fight murderers at their own place, not our's. Just as we now fight murderers in their own place today.
When I got to Uni I found that there were people with academic tenure who were quite capable of justifying my arbitrary dispossession and execution on the grounds of some illdefined "greater good". The students who were taught by those academics have reinvented themselves and now run our state and federal governments. And it is with the profoundest regret that it has come to the point where I could break both my son's legs before I would let them risk their lives for these leaders and the nation that elected them.
We all need to examine our consciences and ask if we have done enough to look those young ghosts in the eye as we pass them by at all those little country Cenotaphs. It is no good remembering them on just 2 days of the year while squandering their inheritance for the rest of it.

Livestock in Riparian Zones - Reality vs Greenspin

2009-09-15T11:02:00.005+10:00

How a picture can tell a thousand lies.

A green blogger recently provided a link to a NSW Catchment Management Authority web site as “evidence” of the degraded condition of “our” environment due to grazing of stock in riparian zones. But in reality, the site provides a very good example of how a few pictures and sloppy captioning can tell a thousand lies. See;
http://www.cw.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Information/BMPs/CWCMA_Information_BMP_0288_ripariansheet_livestockmanagement.pdf
The introductory text said;
“Inappropriate livestock grazing is one of the most significant causes of degradation to the land-water interface in Australia. Livestock have long been part of the Australian landscape. Cattle, sheep, horses, goats and pigs arrived with the first settlers in the 1780s and moved with them across NSW into the Central West. Settlements sprang up along river systems supported by clean water and fertile floodplain soils. Since that time, livestock have caused damage to the most sensitive part of the landscape – our riparian lands.”

This picture was captioned;

"The access of livestock to waterways has many detrimental impacts on riverbank stability and water quality. (NSW DPI)"

True, we see cattle by a creek and some exposed soil which would lead most urban punters to conclude that this picture is representative of the entire length of the creek on that farm and representative of all grazed creek banks on all farms.

But we can be quite certain, given the proven MO of CMA’s and their staff, that the picture shows worse than average impacts. A random inspection of the first, second and third order farm streams that account for most of the riparian interface in the landscape is unlikely to provide a single example of conditions like those shown. It is also highly improbable that anything like those conditions would be replicated over the entire length of that particular stream. Indeed, there may be only one or two such examples on the entire property.

It is also quite certain that the conditions produced in the photo represent the sum of all cattle damage over a period of more than 100 years. Once the landform modification has been made by the stock to match their normal level of traffic, the rate of change (called degradation) will reduce to a minimum. Most of the modification shown in the photo would have been done in the first decade after settlement.

Stock can produce physical modifications to a small portion of a riparian zone when they are first introduced to a landscape or when a major increase in animal traffic at a particular point takes place. If the stocking rate has essentially remained the same and the number of access points is not reduced in a way that increases traffic on the remaining access points then there is minimal on-going impact. But the CMA text merely indicates that this “significant” damage has taken place “since that time” (ie implying it is on a continuous basis, in the past and in future). It converts an historical event as evidence of a future threat.

And it begs the question, do we regard a road culvert as evidence of land degradation? Or do we regard it as a piece of infrastructure that is a normal and necessary part of the prevailing use of the land as a road? Clearly, we view it as the latter. So why do we regard customary tracks (roads) made by cattle for their own continuing use as anything different to our own road culverts?

Both involve an initial excavation that exposes soil and both then involve only minimal soil disturbance for many decades after. And just like our road system, the more traffic cattle tracks have, the greater the visual impact. Do we begrudge Elephants or Caribou their right to shape creek crossings? No, only domestic stock.

To its credit, the site does include some helpful tools for minimising on-going soil movement. And just as for our own road culverts, this involves paving the most prone parts of the road with rock and concrete. The irony is that this simple, logical solution can only be carried out with the approval of DPI and the additional cost and effort that involves. And it is also fairly obvious that any approval for such works would only come with very significant and expensive conditions like fencing off the entire riparian zone and installing unnecessary watering points and piping.

Don’t get me wrong, additional watering points away from streams and dams make very good sense as they spread the grazing intensity more evenly over the entire area. But when faced with baseless, ideologically driven demands to render existing in-stream watering points redundant as a condition of approval for your voluntary good works, most farmers, justifiably, opt to let the authorities continue abusing themselves.

This photo was captioned;
"Sheep are said to have a greater impact than cattle in the riparian zone. (NSW DPI)"

It shows a fairly normal steep bank of a deep riverine cross section. Yes, there are sheep in the picture but one is left to wonder what, exactly, is the impact of those, or the past century of previous sheep, on the steepness of the river bank? Sure, they graze on the grass and may also graze on any tree seedlings that might germinate there. But the chances of such stems surviving the first flood event are quite low as they are more rigid than grass and much more likely to get tangled with passing debris.

Are we to seriously believe that without the sheep this river bank would be steeper? No.
Is there any evidence that the bank is not maintaining its form? No.
Would the bank structure be any different if there were trees atop the bank? No
In fact, if trees were present we would probably observe exposed roots as evidence that additional erosion had taken place. The area of exposed soil would be greater because the grasses would be competing for moisture with the trees and this would present a more erodible face to flood waters with greater potential for snags.

The third photo is just as misleading. We are told; “This creek was severely polluted with sediment and animal waste laden run-off. The rapid increase in nutrient levels caused a massive toxic blue-green algae bloom, rendering the creek water unusable for stock or domestic consumption.”
But what they do not tell us is that this is a temporary condition that starts at the beginning of a dry season and will only last until the pool dries up later in the season. More importantly, they do not mention that most high faecal E. coli counts and algal blooms are the result of self reproduction in the warm stagnant water. As was found to be the case with Canberra’s Lake Burley Griffin, most algae in a bloom is of a secondary or “regrowth” nature.

The severity of an algal bloom or the ultimate concentration of faecal E . coli, is not a function of the initial volume of coli being supplied to the pools in runoff. Rather, the longer the dry season, the warmer the temperature, the shallower the pools and the less frequent the intermittent runoff events take place, the greater the exponential rate of bacterial and algal growth becomes.
Algae reproduce faster and more often in favourable conditions, get used to it, folks.

The official CMA summary is in black type, below. It does not present a true and fair view so we have added a few comments in green to get closer to the truth about the impacts of grazing on riparian zones;

The real impacts of riparian grazing

On-site:
• isolated, once-off loss of vegetation cover in the first few years exposure to grazing
• once-off soil compaction at a few specific points and initial erosion
• once-off bank instability followed by long term stability of the modified landforms
• isolated instances of reduced water quality
• no evidence of reduced property values from the presence of stock modifications
• enhanced germination of native tree species in hoof depressions etc

Off-site:
• localised instances of poor water quality (increased turbidity, nutrients and salinity)
• very localised loss of in-stream habitat
• isolated, once-off changes to river channel shape of minor consequence
• minor silting of rivers and creeks compared to that produced by unsealed roads
• enhanced natural regeneration of native trees along previously cleared creek banks

Clearly, a picture can, indeed, tell a thousand lies. And government and green pictures seem to tell the most lies of all.

New State for North Qld - 69% support

2009-09-08T15:00:00.006+10:00

In a glaring indictment of Premier Bligh's metrocentric governance, a Brisbane radio poll has shown overwhelming support for a new state for North Queensland. Brisbane talkback radio 4BC ran the poll on 4th September 2009 and at 2.00pm Thursday 10th September, support for the new state option was running at 69% in favour to 30% against. See http://www.4bc.com.au/

Radio 4BC online staff advised that "this is by far the largest response they have had for a poll in a long time". Responses also included a lot of text messages suggesting that the metropolitan SE corner of the state should be given back to NSW with the border of the "real Queensland" placed just above Noosa.

This poll demonstrates how more and more voters, including those in SEQ, now recognise that the government they elected is over extended just in dealing with urban SEQ issues, let alone those of the rest of Queensland. The government's bungling of regional issues, especially regional health services, has produced the extraordinary situation where half of all new settlers in the SE corner of the state now come from regional Queensland, not from interstate. This was not the case in the past when regional drift to the South East was less pronounced and was offset by interstate and overseas migrants who settled in the regions. This new settlement pattern can no longer be characterised as healthy or sustainable growth. It is clearly "cancerous growth", at the expense of more balanced regional growth.

Many take the view that this is a logical consequence of an urban electoral majority, electing an urban centred government to deliver the narrow centralised, governance that conforms to their limited urban perspective. The remaining 1/3rd of the states 4 million people must now put up with this "one-size-fits-all" approach and wear the associated costs. They are constantly reminded of the need to avoid "duplication" of services but no-one ever mentions the futile waste involved when an MP from Cooktown, Townsville or Mt Isa has to travel all the way to Brisbane and sit through endless parliamentary debate about the Tugun Bypass (on the NSW Border) or Brisbane's second Gateway Bridge. Don't tell me there is no better use for their time.

SEQ residents are starting to understand that it is the very rapid pace of population growth that is driving the congestion based decline in their quality of life and the explosion in government debt. If only 200,000 new settlers in the state had been diverted to a new state capital region in the north over the past two decades then the second gateway bridge and a whole raft of other expensive infrastructure would not be needed for another five years. And the cost of providing services and infrastructure to those 200,000 diverted settlers in the new capital would be a small fraction of the compounded costs involved when they are added to an existing metropolitan region. From the moment governments start considering hugely expensive tunnels as the only alternative to traffic grid lock it is clear that serious diseconomies of scale have set in. The point when costs no longer increase by addition is long past. From here on they will only multiply, and compound exponentially.

There would have been no so-called "water crisis" if effective decentralisation through devolution had already been in place because the existing system would easily have coped with a more balanced pace of growth. The hugely unpopular Traveston Crossing Dam, the expensive folly of the desalination plant, the tunnels, the bridges and the vast expanses of concrete are all monuments to an almost pathological centralism. Each new cohort of 200,000 settlers in the SE corner means another 10% of Moreton Bay is closed for fishing.

But they just don't get it. The dominant aim of government has never been to create an ever bigger, uglier and less liveable metropolis. No mandate has ever been given for this option but it pervades and perverts every major policy. And to give the appearance of addressing the issue the government has implemented a regional plan that manipulates the symptoms while exacerbating the causes.

And to anyone who might still hold doubts as to the viability of one, or two new, states in regional Queensland it is worth reflecting that we already have a working example. There is one region in Australia that is not run by a distant metropolitan elite. It has a population less than 500,000 people. And because most of its people live within 3 hours drive of the seat of government the tax money circulates through the entire economy, not just the capital district. It does not have a doctors shortage because it has its own medical school and the supply of trainees is matched to local needs, not those of a distant city. Its government has full control over its fair share of federal GST funds and they set their own spending priorities rather than make the best of priorities set by a distant elite. And their political parties adopt policies that differ from those of their metropolitan counterparts to better serve the interests of their local community.

We refer to that independent "regional state" as Tasmania. And you would spend a very long time there trying to find some sad, lonely soul who yearns to be governed by supposedly more enlightened folks in Melbourne. True, Tasmania gets some additional federal fiscal subsidy but this is to compensate for the additional costs imposed by Bass Straight. A similar self governing region on the mainland would not need as much budget support because of their existing road and rail links.

And it is also worth noting that the absence of major metropolitan congestion costs in Tasmania’s budget framework ensures that the purchasing power of their tax revenue is higher than in other states. Greater Hobart’s population of 195,000 is only 40% of the state population. The difference in the cost of office space between Hobart and Sydney, or between Townsville and Brisbane, for example, has a major bearing on the capacity to deliver real government services. Add to that the huge advantages of implementing policy down a shorter, leaner chain of command and the oft repeated ‘duplication’ bogeyman slinks away.

Regional states were always intended by our nation's founders. Prior to federation, the British Crown ensured that each region had the right to decide its own self determination as a new colony within the Empire. This was done in the interests of the same "peace, order and good governance" that were enshrined in the objects of the Queensland Constitution. Indeed, it was this very principle that allowed Queensland to obtain self governance over the objections and active sabotage of NSW just 40 years earlier.

Ironically, it was only after the blatant blackmail by Brisbane interests at federation, who threatened to torpedo the new nation itself, that a States veto over the formation of new states within its boundaries was added to the Commonwealth Constitution. This affront to democratic principles was driven by then Qld Governor Griffiths who was clearly acting in breach of his oath to serve all Queenslanders equally, not just Brisbane interests. This “improper exercise of power” by way of “callous disregard for the rights and liberties of regional Queenslanders”, can hardly fall within the meaning of his oath to “well and truly serve”. Prior to this the Crown could disregard the fact that such a clause may be present in the constitution of an existing colony, as it does in the Queensland one.

It is also worth noting that just 48 years later the Commonwealth ratified the UN Charter which also reaffirmed the people of any regions right to determine its own status free of any veto by an existing authority.

This clearly establishes that the major stumbling block to the formation of new states, the veto of the existing metropolitan power, has no moral authority in either historical Westminster principles or under the United Nations covenants. A State Premier who would disregard the legitimate aspirations of a region for their own state within the commonwealth, and exercise a veto power that was obtained under duress, would place themselves among some of the most infamous, ruthless and undemocratic lowlife that history has ever served up.

The interesting question is whether urban Queensland and their first female Premier has the gall and hypocrisy to veto a new state for North Queensland. For in doing so she would commit the political and moral equivalent of denying a battered wife her right to a just, fair and timely divorce. In both cases there was once a time when such vetos were acceptable but, hopefully, we have come a long way since then.

Copyright, Ian Mott 08/09/09

Ice Sheets Calve, Get Used To It

2009-05-24T11:30:00.003+10:00

In early April 2009 a large portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica broke away. And Jennifer Marohasy, at http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse/#comments was moved to ask;

"Given it is still really cold at the Antarctic, is it really very scientific to blame global warming for the likely collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf? How good is the evidence supporting this hypothesis as the possible cause of the possible shelf collapse, as opposed to, say, ice growth generating internal stress or undersea volcanic activity?"

To which I responded, "Ice sheets calve, get used to it."

The reason they calve is that the annual precipitation on the Antarctic coast is over 200mm a year, or 2 metres per decade, or 10 metres every half century. If the ice sheet was not attached to land based ice, and water temperatures remained below zero C, then the floating sheet would drop by 9 metres every half century as the total ice mass adjusts equilibrium in water.

But when the ice sheet is attached to land ice it cannot adjust it's mass in water (sink) without severing the attachment to the land ice. Ten metres of ice weighs 9 tonnes per square metre, 90,000 tonnes per hectare and 9 million tonnes per square kilometre. And that makes for an absolute $hitload of weight to be defying gravity with.

And the wider the ice shelf is, the more powerful the leverage becomes at the interface between land and shelf ice.

Interestingly, ocean surface temperatures for this area in March 2009 were zero C. Below the surface, at the bottom of the floating ice, the temperature was lower still. And if the break had taken place in January there may have been a very slim case in support of warming as the cause of the calving. But Southern Hemisphere temperatures have declined over the past decade to a greater extent than Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

So how can the Wilkins Ice Shelf calving be caused by global warming when there has been no warming for the past ten years?"

Our best fire fighting tools - the axe and chainsaw?

2009-02-26T17:00:00.006+10:00

I have lost count of the number of published images of the Victorian fires that provide clear and damning evidence of our legislator's role in the manslaughter of so many innocent Australians. Almost every image of a burned out home also exhibits the unmistakable signature of ill-informed social engineers who have abused their legislative powers to compel, what is now clearly proven to be, one of the most destructive social changes ever forced upon a minority community.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow_ajax.aspx?sectionid=9016&sectionname=slideshowajax&subsectionid=150966&subsectionname=bigfires
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow_ajax.aspx?sectionid=9016&sectionname=slideshowajax&subsectionid=150966&subsectionname=bigfires
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow_ajax.aspx?sectionid=9016&sectionname=slideshowajax&subsectionid=150966&subsectionname=bigfires

The facts clearly establish the case that the Victorian and other state governments around the country have made a direct contribution to the character, scale and intensity of the wildfires, and the death and destruction they have caused. They made critical choices as to the form and content of seemingly unrelated legislation which has banned the use of some of our most readily available and effective fire risk management tools.

And they have not just implemented that legislation in a manner that has prevented efforts to improve fire management and lower the associated risks. These people have established a policy architecture that has actively discouraged, on pain of penalty, rural people from preventing the state sponsored deterioration of fire management conditions and all the increase in risks associated with it.

Those cheap, simple to use and extremely effective fire management tools that are owned and operated by almost every householder who is exposed to the risk of wildfire are the humble axe and the chainsaw. The various native vegetation "protection" laws around the country have effectively outlawed their use, even in the most extreme emergencies.

Yet, in the days when large fires were fought and defeated by men and women without machinery, pumps, water bombers or GPS, the axe was an essential tool for reducing the height of the fire face at key defensive positions. My own father, the late T.R. Mott, spent most of the 50 years of volunteer firefighting, that earned him an Australia Medal, carrying the day with axe and hoe.

And the proper exercise of legislative power has always demanded the full consideration of all relevant matters, especially matters of entirely foreseeable risk or detriment. But our vegetation management laws all ignore the fact that any tree, let alone a number of them, within 100 metres of a house, in extreme fire weather, is a very dangerous thing. Any tree is most dangerous when all its leaves and branches remain on top of the trunk where they raise the height of the fire front, greatly extend its zone of radiation and assist in projecting embers far and wide.

Yet, almost every image of a burned out house has a backdrop of young trees, also charred, right next to the smouldering heap. Most of the trees are a long way short of "pristine old growth", as the greens would have us believe. They are rarely more than 20cm in trunk diameter with most of them only 6 to 10cm thick, less than 10 metres high, and easily dispatched with an axe, let alone a chainsaw. They are usually close together which means they have been in fierce competition for soil moisture and with much drier leaves than would be the case with more widely spaced stems. This renders these trees even more dangerously combustible than normal.

The simple, dare I say it, inconvenient truth is that any tree poses the least risk of all when it is not there at all. But unbeknown to the greens and the legislators, there are numerous options between these two extremes, of no trees and too many trees, that the metrocentric policy processes have completely ignored.

Any tree will present a smaller portion of its maximum fire risk when it is not in fierce competition for soil moisture with closely spaced neighbours. A broader root area means a larger volume of available moisture, and this means that moisture is available for a longer portion of the interval between rainfall events. And that means that the leaves retain their moisture for a longer portion of that interval, thereby making the tree less combustible for a greater part of the year. It also reduces the amount of leaf fall in dry times. And in most of the photos of burned out houses, the amenity of the site would not have been reduced in any way if half of those trees had been removed long ago. But in fact, all of them should have been removed, some of them long ago and others just before the fire came.

It is trite but true that any tree presents only a fraction of its maximum fire risk when it is on the ground, or when all or part of the trunk remains standing but all the branches and leaves are on the ground. The height of the fire face is substantially reduced, the exposed surface area is reduced, the zone of radiation is seriously diminished and the height and distance of ember projection is reduced. More importantly, the fuel in the branches and leaves can then be moved to a safer place, preferably down wind, or concentrated in one place where the resulting fire can be contained. Indeed, if action is taken early enough then this fuel can be eliminated with a bonfire, buried, or completely removed from the site long before the fire season.

Yet, as far as the vegetation management legislation is concerned, the moment any single native tree, even a sapling that has only grown this past year, is cut, topped, lopped or otherwise damaged, it is classified as "broadscale clearing" which, apart from a few exceptions, can only take place with the consent of the relevant authority. Eskimos have numerous words for snow but here in Australia our legislation has only one word for tree management, "clearing". And this consent to clear, of course, has absolute "Buckley's Chance" of being obtained in the short interval between a wind change and an ember storm. And even if a determination was given in time, in most cases the proposed action would be rejected.

Governments have gone out of their way to completely eliminate this highly contributive fire management option from the community's collective wit. So even when it is absolutely certain that every tree in the path of a megafire has less than half an hour of life remaining, the legislation persists in defining any person who cuts down or lops just one of those trees as a criminal.

Even when the trees have grown in a paddock or roadside verge long after a house was built in good faith, in a safe, open paddock, the legislation has actively prevented the homeowner from removing that regrowth to maintain the conditions of fire safety that were present when the house was built. And we then get assorted "experts" who assume that all trees were always there and that it is the home owner who has been at fault for building in a silly place.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that even diseased trees will resprout with vigorous coppice growth after they have been either burned to the ground or cut down, the legislation persists with this incredibly ignorant urban green delusion that the whole tree, roots and all, has been destroyed, never to regenerate or be replaced. But this is clearly not the case. In fact most lignotuberous eucalypt species have specifically evolved to do this naturally. See

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/9e58661e880ba9e44a256c640023eb2e/af5d42812b06d215ca256f16001beff3/$FILE/AG0814.pdf

The vegetation policy milieu also has an overwhelming fetish, if not monomania, for connecting gaps in forested vegetation in some ignorant belief that it somehow enhances habitat value. Despite uncontested historical evidence that most of our forests were widely spaced grassy woodlands for 50 millennia prior to European settlement, the legislation has imposed the closed canopy as the key attribute that must be "preserved" and encouraged under all forest management regimes.

Despite clear evidence that the majority of forest dwelling species are dependent on the grassland-tree interface, the legislation imposes arboreal dominance. Birds dependent on grass seeds or grass eating insects for survival are allowed to starve as closer and closer canopy cover provides a dubious visual reward to our remote "eyes in the sky" while understorey diversity crashes.

Despite clear evidence that species like Koalas will cross pastured gaps more than a kilometre wide, and forest dwelling birds that have no problem with a 10 or 20km gap, a home owner who maintains a 50 metre gap between forested clusters for fire management purposes is regarded with a certain suspicion as to his ecological bona fides. And anyone who would like to create such a gap, that would present absolutely zero barrier to the movement of dependent species, is closely monitored after his application is rejected and prosecuted if he does so without seeking a consent that would never be provided anyway.

It is about this point in the narrative that all those who are most culpable will seek to divert attention from what they dismiss as "the blame game". The most culpable will maximise the coverage of themselves as sympathisers and mourners to produce maximum perceptual distance between themselves and their guilt. Others will whip up some serious public fury at arsonists. But make no mistake, the responsible legislators and their green masters had a choice as to what sort of regulatory approach they would take. And they must accept full responsibility for the entirely foreseeable consequences of the poor choices they have made.

Put briefly, any vegetation management legislation option was required to interface with the planning legislation. The primary architecture of this legislation is based on the concept of "development" and the powers only extend to controlling of development. There is no power to compel changes to, or require consent for, existing lawful uses. This term "development" means new uses of land or premises or "material changes" to existing uses.

As far as the cutting of trees is concerned, this could constitute a new use of land, as with clearing of untouched forest for cultivating crops. Or it could constitute a normal and necessary part of an existing lawful use, such as the removal of a few trees to supply replacement fence posts from a woodlot that had been set aside for that very purpose. In the latter case the tree cutting could not be classed as development because the action did not amount to a "material change" in the nature of the use.

If the farm was sold to a housing developer, and the entire woodlot was removed to make more room for houses, then this would amount to both a new use of the land and a material change in the use of the woodlot. The planning legislation already picked up and required consent for this change and with it came the power to impose conditions on the new use, such as retaining the woodlot, or a reasonable portion of it if it covered a large part of the property.

But if the farmer had cut down and sold all the trees in the woodlot but had earlier completely renounced any option of selling some or all of the wood, even in a financial emergency, or major contingency like medical expenses or Uni fees etc, then this might constitute a material change in use. But in most cases landowners wisely do not limit their options in this way.

In fact, such were the climatic and economic vagaries of past times that just about every piece of forested land on private property was set aside for just such a circumstance. Woodlots were never left purely for habitat purposes as numerous departmental spivs would encourage people to do today. Yes, the farmers enjoyed the improved amenity and habitat value of their forested portions but, in the absence of a welfare system, the woodlot was also the reserve of last resort, to be exercised when re-stocking after drought or just before the bailiffs came a-calling.

And when the mostly urban based legislators tried, briefly, to get their distracted brains around the problem of defining material change to such a broad range of lawful uses they simply gave up. Just and equitable legislation that was consistent with established principles of the overriding planning framework was all too hard. They took the cop-out instead, the easy way out, and opted for a blunt instrument wielded by the myopic, or the downright malicious. They declared that the cutting or even pruning of any single tree to be "development" and deluded themselves that by providing certain stated exemptions they would avoid most of the adverse consequences for most of the time.

The problem is that bushfires don't occur "most of the time" but preparation for them is best done during that "most of the time". And trees produce seeds during that "most of the time" and the wind blows those seeds onto adjoining land most of the time. And birds eat seeds most of the time and deposit those seeds all over the place most of the time so that young trees grow where they are not intended, most of the time. The complete failure to recognise this fact meant that the legislation was slowly imposing a material change of use, by way of additional tree cover, on just about every piece of land that was not ploughed or mown on a regular basis.

And as with all regulatory regimes based on compulsion rather than incentives, the framework has acquired a completely debilitating, counterproductive, and clearly destructive focus on the detection of breaches and the prevention of loopholes. So even when the use of the humble chainsaw will make no material change and actually improve the survival prospects of both the tree itself and its owner, the legislation continues to criminalise reasonable men and women seeking nothing more sinister than their own survival and the protection of their core assets in a circumstance of extreme emergency. And they have done such a thorough job of it that none of the people that were victim to the fire appeared to have given the slightest consideration to the tree lopping or dropping option.

At a time when more than 500,000 hectares has been burned to ash, with almost every one of the resident wildlife incinerated with it, the regulators are apparently concerned that someone, somewhere, might take advantage of a bushfire management loophole to get rid of a tree that he just doesn't like. And to top it all off, Premier Brumby still has the gall to make reference to those "pristine" native forests.

If all this, in its entirety, is not within the definition of callous, grossly negligent and downright culpable governance at the behest of a bunch of deluded green sickoes then I don't know what is. If Brumby is serious about putting all the cards on the table in the review of this disaster then he and his advisors need to get right back to core principles based on real and relevant material change in vegetation management and apply proportionate responses, justly and equitably. And by their deeds (and their omissions) shall we know them.

Reflections on a mud hut

2009-01-28T16:51:00.003+10:00

A recent photo of a Kenyan mud hut with grass thatch roof on Jennifer Marohasy's blog highlights an under appreciated aspect of third world poverty and vulnerability to climate variation.
See http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hut-sudan.jpg

Looking at that hut, one can only reflect on how many third world households are unable to collect the free, clean, drinking water that lands on their own roof but who then spend a huge amount of time and precious calories in transporting contaminated water from a distant source.
Even in an arid 500mm rainfall zone, that (approx 28m2) roof would receive 14,000 litres each year, if only they had effective guttering and reliable storage. That would amount to 40 litres each day which is about double the volume that is seen on most photos of third world folk fetching water. In many places it would save about two hours of work each day, one of those hours being heavy carrying which requires recovery time.

Add to that the additional time spent collecting the extra firewood needed to boil drinking water and it is clear that about a third of a full time job is wasted in each household due to this problem.

And no, they don’t need a 14,000 litre plastic water tank that costs more than 10 times their annual household income. They wouldn’t even need a 5,000 litre tank that fills up 2.8 times each year. All they need is a 5m3, partial hole in the ground, partially raised wall above ground, a lid, and a durable plastic liner that costs less than one persons annual income.

This investment of one person's annual income saves a third of a person's labour each year. That is a reliable and continuous 33% return on investment over the life of the plastic liner, even before accounting for the reduced incidence of disease and lost productivity from improved water supply.

This simple addition to the family’s household capital would enable them to maintain a vastly improved water supply and general wellbeing even if climate change were to reduce annual rainfall from 500mm to only 400mm. They would still have the same volume of water that they currently bring from the contaminated source but their lives will still be very much improved and with a great deal more certainty and security.

Take look at the rainfall chart at http://www.catsg.org/cheetah/07_map-centre/7_1_entire-range/thematic-maps/annual_rainfall_Africa.gif
and then do a population overlay from
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://na.unep.net/globalpop/africa/images/p00.png&imgrefurl=http://na.unep.net/globalpop/africa/Appendix_6e.html&usg=__7eogNyQpJnFRyKCHTWzAXUwJnw0=&h=747&w=800&sz=405&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=YWnF5foEbtgxUM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAfrican%2Bpopulation%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address%26rlz%3D1I7SUNA_en%26sa%3DG.

It is absolutely clear that, aside from the irrigated Nile valley and major cities, African population is distributed in association with rainfall. The other exceptions being extremely high rainfall in tropical forests.

Note that Kenya, where the above mentioned hut is located, has a rainfall ranging from 200mm in the NE to more than 1000mm in the SW. Note as well, all the other countries with high populations that also have rainfall above 400mm. That is, right in the block-hole for my above post.

This is why climate cretinism is such a cruel and expensive joke on humanity. It diverts attention and resources from real problems and truly sustainable solutions. Africa does not have a water supply problem. It just has a lack of collection infrastructure.

We should all know that the closer one gets to the problem, the closer one gets to the best solution. Instead, the climate zombies demand that we all follow a sorry bunch of second rate climate Shaman, searching the stars and the stratosphere in the vain hope of finding an atmospheric solution to an on-ground problem. All the time making senseless human sacrifices to climate jihad.

Possums Martyred for Climate Jihad

2008-12-13T13:59:00.003+10:00

This commentary took place on Jen Marohasy's blog and is reproduced in part for the record. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/white-possum-probably-not-extinct-from-global-warming/?cp=all

If one was sincerely looking for a reason why Lemuroid Possums may be extinct then there are much more likely causes than Global Warming. Indeed, the most likely culprit, if there is a culprit, is the far more likely natural event, Tropical Cyclone Larry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Larry
“Severe Tropical Cyclone Larry (JTWC designation: 17P) was a tropical cyclone that made landfall in Australia during the 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. Larry originated as a low pressure system over the eastern Coral Sea on March 16 and was monitored by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in Brisbane, Australia. The low-pressure area formed into a tropical cyclone two days later and quickly strengthened into a Category 5 storm on the Australian tropical cyclone scale. Larry made landfall in Far North Queensland close to Innisfail on March 20 as a Category 4 with wind gusts reaching 240 km/h (150 mph) and dissipated over land soon after. The total effects of Larry were nearly A$1 billion in damage and one fatality.[1]”

Another noted impact was the almost complete defoliation of trees, exposed, high altitude rainforest trees in particular due to the relative softness of their wood. And if the particular transects used by the researchers were defoliated then the possums would have moved to more sheltered locations where the food supply was more reliable, and many would have remained there.

The more interesting point is to ask why it was that our designated custodians of vulnerable species didn’t get around to assessing the impact of an event like Larry until two and a half years after the event? The species was listed as vulnerable long before Larry hit but it doesn’t seem to have dawned on them that these particular “state wards” might need a helping hand. It was, after all, well known that the species was reluctant to cross gaps in the canopy and making gaps in a conopy is one of the things that level 5 Cyclones do best.

Could it be that we have another instance where negligent and possibly culpable public sector “Lord Protectors” are seeking to avoid responsibility for their omissions and inaction by shifting blame to Global Warming?

This temperature line was always bull$hit because possum kind have always dealt with hot daytime temperatures by SLEEPING THROUGH THE WORST OF IT. It is what nocturnal species do. Get used to it.

It should also be pointed out that another consequence of the mass defoliation of rainforest by cyclone Larry would be the subsequent regrowth of leaf mass on a grand scale in the months and years afterwards. This is likely to have produced a much wider spread of suitable food sources for the possums. So one reason why they may not be found in the same old transects is because they have dispersed over a much wider territory.

Chris Johnson, a researcher in the field from JCU, Townsville responded on December 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Ian, Cyclone Larry passed a long way south of the distribution of the lemuroid ringtail possum. If it had any impact, it would have been mainly in the southern part of that species distribution, not the north where the white ones are (or used to be).

But Chris, the Carbine Tablelands are only 150km from Innisfail. And as the winds were recorded as being in the order of 240km/hour at the epicentre then we can safely assume that the winds at 150km radius and at altitude, were at least in the order of 180+km/hr.
In fact, See http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/qld/cyclone/tc_larry/ which advises that the top of Bellenden Ker Tower (1450m) recorded wind speed of 294km/hr against only 113km/hr at nearby Mareeba. The Carbine peaks are at altitudes of 1200m to 1320m so any suggestion that they did not cop a real hiding in TC Larry is pure bunkum.

But there is another far more relevant fact that Chris and his colleague, Williams, have completely ignored. They talk about hot tropical daytime temperatures and we all think 35C+ and link this to our supposedly heat stressed little fuzzies. The only problem with this scam is that the Carbine tops where the Lemuroids hang out are above 1200 metres and there is no dispute in the fact that temperature drops 1C for every 100 metres of altitude. It follows that when the temperature in Cairns hits 35C these Lemuroids are supposed to be undergoing serious heat stress at only 23C.

And when we add in the BOM anomaly data we find that in 2005, what might have been a 35C day in Cairns became a 35.5C day instead and what might have been a 23C day in the Carbine tops became a 23.5C day. So the question then comes down to issues of basic animal metabolic temperature. The equilibrium temperature of these possums is most certainly higher than 23C. Indeed, the range for mammals is 30C to 42C. So there is clearly a healthy margin for this animal due to the altitude it inhabits.

So lets pin this down, shall we. When a daytime extreme temperature at sea level hits 42C, the Carbine tops will only be 30C, the very bottom of the range of temperatures that mammal kind can endure. The Lemuroids obviously do not just have a single body temperature, they will have a range of temperatures within which they function. Their capacity to cool themselves when temperatures exceed their upper range may be limited but there is still likely to be some residual capacity there. So assuming their upper range is only 35C then it would have to reach a massive 48C at sea level to pose a threat to them on the Carbine tops.

These shonkademics have shot their mouths off, again, without bothering to check the basic biophysics of the species and the basic climatic variables of their habitat. It is the kind of Bull$hit that only makes sense on a campus or a metropolitan media studio.

Meanwhile, up on the Carbine tops, the population that was decimated by TC Larry is slowly recovering. Old trees with nest hollows were the first to get bowled over in the storm and all the resulting gaps removed not just their food supplies but also their shade, their main method for regulating body temperature.

Meanwhile, the town of Atherton (altitude 752m) has two sets of temperature records. The first, Atherton PO, goes from 1895 to 1972 while the newer one, Atherton, goes from 1992 only.
The January max from the old series is 29.0C while the January max from 1992 to present is only 28.4C. The December max for 1895 -1972 is 29.7C while the 1992 to present max is only 29.0C, indicating a mid-summer cooling over the past 16 years of -0.65C.

Of more relevance is the 3.00pm January Max since 1992 of only 26.2C and the 3.00pm December max of only 26.8C. This information is critical in understanding the nature of this scam because the key claim was that “more than 5 hours of temperatures above 30.0C would be enough to wipe out the species, wank, wank”.

But it is pretty hard to get five hours of continuous temperature above 30.0C when the mid-summer 3.00pm maximum is consistently 2.2C cooler than the daily maximum of 29.0C. If, for example, the maximum continued until 2.30pm then five hours at that maximum would have to begin at a highly improbable 9.30am. A quick look, for example, at the UV index for Mareeba for today (12/12/08) has a maximum mid-day UV reading of 16 but only 11 at both 10.0am and 2.00pm. So the probability of a daily maximum temperature beginning at 10.0am and continuing for the full five hours to 3.00pm is close to zero.

But wait, Atherton is at 752m AHD while the Lemuroid Possums are another 500m higher at 1,250m AHD and therefore 5.0C cooler. So the most likely December maximum in the Carbine tops will only be 24.0C with the 3.00pm December max at only 21.8C.

So the Lemuroid Possum extinction by global warming scam is fundamentally compromised by five key considerations;

1. Recent maximum midsummer mean temperatures are 0.65C cooler than the mean from 1895 to 1972.
2. Current midsummer mean maximum temperature in the Carbine tops is only in the order of 24.0C, a full 6.0C cooler than the claimed critical temperature of 30.0C.
3. The claimed critical temperature for Lemuroids of 30.0C is the lowest minimum body temperature that mammals are known to function at and the assertion that this species will not survive five hours exposure to this temperature has not been put to a proper test, even in a controlled experiment.
4. The duration of the diurnal range in UV levels, combined with recorded data for 3.00pm maximum temperatures, makes it highly improbable that a daily maximum temperature would be maintained for as long as 5 hours. Indeed, to have a 3.00pm maximum of 30.0C would require a daily maximum that was actually 2.2C higher. And this would have to be a massive 8.2C higher than the December Maximum in the Carbine tops.
5. A midsummer maximum of 32.2C in the Carbine tops would require sea level temperatures of 44.2C but there is still no actual experimental proof that this would be fatal to the species.

It should also be kept in mind that these are Ringtailed Possums, by far the most adaptable of all possum species. Other Ringtails are known to shelter in a wide range of sites, including houses, rock caves, rock piles and even disused burrows if they are on steep slopes. And one does not need to go far under ground, or under cliff in shadow, to start enjoying the temporary relief provided by ambient earth temperatures. This is particularly the case on mountain tops where high morning temperatures can be avoided by moving to the shaded side of the hill.

In fact, any nook or cranny on a vertical, south facing cliff or even large rock will remain at ambient temperature throughout the hottest part of the day. So even if a controlled experiment were to prove that all Lemuroids (not just the least fit) will die from five hours of 30.0C+ temperatures it does not in any way confirm that Lemuroids in the field will suffer the same fate.
This whole scam is just another totally speculative climate mafia beat up based on pure ignorance.

T which Tom Melville responded on December 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Very interesting, Ian. It certainly is a scam alright. By the way, has there been any real live research on what these possums actually do to cope on very hot days? Or is this even more speculation?

Thanks, Tom, its amazing how just a little bit of reality can blow these eco-bogans and their claptrap clean out of their tree. No sign of Chris, Sod or Libby yet (blog trolls). Must be comfort time with “Mr Thumb”.

And I doubt if there is any research on Lemuroids conducted during a heat wave because these boofheads only go out at night when they can spotlight, and over the same ground every time.
Clearly, deep tree hollows down inside very big trees would be much favoured by possums in heat waves. And those that just happened to have a thick leaf cover casting shadow between 11.00am and 1.00pm would be even more favoured. But who knows? They might even prefer a loose bunch of sticks that let the breeze through, provided it is in shade. And it is also likely to be the time when they prefer hollows that are closer to the ground so the trunk above the hole maintains shadow and ambient temperature.

Of course, on a mountain top the whole concept of proximity to the ground needs revision because the nearest ground might be out sideways. This whole issue of heat management highlights one of the most desireable features (for the fuzzies) of a nest hollow, multiple entries. A hollow that allows the user to shift around inside the tree as each side heats up and cools down is a much better option than two different hollows that require an external shift during the day.
There are a whole lot of attributes that hollow users value at different times.

They can actually be incorporated most easily in artificial hollows but our ecological lords and masters have decreed that the noble profession of woodland habitat enhancer is one that will never come to be. Can you believe it? What would have to be the most “sustainable” jobs one could ever imagine has been ruled out by the eco-nazis, in the name of “forest protection” no less. Either way, this GW scam is pure fantasy.

This prompted Helen Osborn to say, December 12th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

What a wonderful cool breeze of common sense in the current climate of hot air surrounding this issue. My wish is for people like you to become government advisors. Not that I don’t think we should be caring better for the earth - I do, and I think we should. But let’s not get all hysterical and paralysed as a result, where we end up ’straining out gnats and swallowing camels’

Thanks Helen and good point. But the researchers don’t have clue how they cope in daytime heat because they only go spotlighting at night, and lately, they only go spotlighting where they used to be.

What is now very obvious is that these guys actually want a species to go extinct so they can play it up for the climate scam. Don’t doubt it, these creeps are fully capable of sitting there looking the other way as a species goes extinct for the “greater good” of climate jihad. They clearly want some “climate martyrs” and Lemuroids, being really only a sub-group of the broader Ringtail species, will do just fine.

Note how Chris’ only “solution” to the Lemuroid’s so-called problem was to put the entire planet on a moggadon holiday to make substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. As if that was a realistic prospect any time soon.

If these bogans gave a tinkers cuss (or is that a Cuss Cuss?) then they would design an artificial nest hollow with high quality external insulation and enough thermal mass to keep the fuzzies cool through summer. A nest hollow inside a disused hot water system with a large volume of cold water that can be exchanged once it warmed up, would do the trick. All it would take is a bit of basic plumbing, a thermostat, a small solar pump and an insulated reserve tank and the species will be assured survival into two centuries of imaginary warming. They would probably fight over it. Who knows, when the little ice age hits they could even reverse the process and warm the little goobers up as well.

As Bjorn Lomborg says, adaption is far cheaper than the cure.

Hmmmn, 24 hours and not a word from Libby, 36 hours and not a word from Sod or Chris. The question is, is reality and common sense actually sinking in or are they just in denial?

Native Regrowth the same as Plantations - Scotland

2008-10-13T12:56:00.003+10:00

Forest owners the world over will recognise a serious outbreak of common sense by the Scottish Parliament when it recently gave naturally regenerated forests the same status as plantation forests under their reforms of the crofting system. It is a simple statement of the bleeding obvious that has proven to be far beyond the wit of numerous centralised, metropolitan dominated governments in many parts of the world of late. And it is no coincidence that this newly devolved legislative power was able to cut through the smoke, the spin and the mirrors of urban green agendas to actually focus on the situation on the ground and implement measures designed to expand the area of woodland habitat and enhance the ecological, social and economic values of the community they serve.

The Scottish "crofting system" had evolved from the ancient feudal system with a form of tennant farming by "crofters" who leased a small plot of land from a landowner at essentially unimproved rates. The lease bestowed a right to enjoy the improvements and often came with a right to rent or own outright the cottage that came with it. This crofting lease could be handed down by way of inheritance but it also carried an obligation to maintain farming activities like cultivation of crops etc. If the crofter ceased cultivation (abandoned the use) the lease was forfeited. Crofted land often also came with common grazing lands that were managed by a committee elected by the crofters with each crofter entitled to run a small number of animals in the common herd.

Unlike a sequence of Australian state administrations who have done little to maintain small farming enterprises, the crofting system was maintained as an important tool in keeping small communities viable. Few crofters were full time farmers with most having some sort of off-farm income or trade. In many cases neither of these options were viable on their own due to the small size of the local community but it was the combination of both income sources that kept local families and their community viable.

But as times changed, more and more crofting communities were seeking broader options for the management of both their individual plots and the community lands, beyond traditional farming activities. And foremost amongst those options was the establishment or expansion woodlands for both timber production and ecological ammenity. In the past, any trees on the crofted lands remained the property of the land owner. And much like leasehold land in Australia, any new trees that grew from the seeds of existing trees became the property of the land owner (the state). The crofters were left with no incentive to allow any additional trees to grow and significant incentives to prevent new tree growth with dilligent pasture maintenance activities.

And to their credit, the Scottish Parliamentarians actually consulted with landowners and crofters in a process that was not entirely subordinated to the fiat of distant, illinformed greens, as is the case in Australia. The crofters and landowners understood from their own direct experience that a forested woodland can be established and expanded either by way of planting additional trees or by allowing, and assisting, natural processes to do the job for free.

This is not a radical notion. In 1997, the CIFOR conference on the "Ecology and management of tropical secondary forest: science, people and policy:" see http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications/Detail?pid=561 reached the key conclusion that natural regeneration could only be properly managed and encouraged to expand if it was given the same legal status, and security of harvest, as plantation forest.

Indeed, in the IPA Review (9/1999), "Plantations 2020's myopic vision", I wrote;

"Assisted regeneration of local native species is world best-practice forestry. That was the conclusion of the Second International Pro-Silva Congress, held in The Netherlands in 1997. When possible, regenerating a forest is the best economic and ecological option to expand productive forests—but an unholy alliance of greens, bureaucrats and plantation interests is not keen for this message to spread here."
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/review51-3%20Plantations%202020s%20Myopic%20Vision.pdf

Governments in Australia have given no security of harvest to native forests that have been re-established on previously cleared land and have gone out of their way to deliver unfair advantages to planted forests that deliver lower quality wildlife habitat.

But the Scottish Parliament followed a simple logic. see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/07/croftingreform/7

"5.4 The Land Reform Policy Group (LRPG) recommended that there should be legislation to clarify the right of crofters to plant trees on their land and to give them a clear right to exploit the trees they plant for timber and other purposes including the right to sell the timber and timber products. The aim is to provide that where a crofter forestry scheme has been created the crofter (or crofters where the scheme is on a common grazing) has the exclusive right to cut, abstract, use and sell the timber and other forestry products derived from the woodlands created through the scheme. It should further provide that this should be the case whether the woodlands were planted by the crofter or were the result of a regeneration scheme." (my emphasis)

Essentially, If they want people to grow trees on their land then they must be assured that they can harvest those trees in future. And if more trees are better than some trees then all forest establishment methods must be equally encouraged.

Under section 26 of the "Crofting Reform etc Act 2007", section 50 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 (use of common grazings for forestry purposes)- was amended by, among others, the insertion of ;

"(3B) The reference in subsection (1) above to using as woodlands is to having the right to exclusive economic and recreational use, including (without prejudice to that generality)—
(a) felling, removing, selling and replacing the trees in question;
(b) collecting trimmings, fallen timber, foliage, sap, flowers, fruit, seeds or nuts for use or sale;
(c) grazing animals in the woodlands; and
(d) selling timber, timber products and other forestry products,"

This was followed up by the insertion of a new section "50A Joint forestry ventures etc." with;

(1) A crofter who holds a right in a common grazing, or a grazings committee, may, with the agreement of the Commission, enter into a written agreement with the owner of the common grazing that they shall engage in a joint forestry venture to use woodlands as part of the common grazing concerned; and subject to subsection (4) below that agreement shall bind the parties to it and their successors.

(2) Subject to the terms of any agreement under subsection (1) above, where there are, on part of a common grazing which is to be used as woodlands by virtue of section 50 of this Act, trees other than such as are mentioned in paragraph 11(d) of Schedule 2 to this Act, the owner and the grazings committee may agree—
(a) that those trees are to be sold to the committee at current value; or
(b) that the owner is to be entitled to a share of the timber obtained from such use, being a share which is proportionate having regard to the numbers, respectively, of those trees and of the trees planted (or obtained from planned natural regeneration of the trees planted) (my emphasis) in the course of such use."

And clarified by sub section (8);

"(8) In subsection (2)(b) above “planned natural regeneration” means regeneration which takes place in accordance with—
(a) an agreement entered into under or by virtue of this Act or of any other enactment; or
(b) the conditions of—
(i) any grant for purposes which include such regeneration and which is paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund; or
(ii) such other grant of a public nature as may be prescribed."

The effect of these provisions is to maintain the principle that trees that are actually planted on the crofter's individual leased land remain the property of the crofter. It also ensures that existing natural trees on the individual croft, and planted ones that have since been vested to the landowner, remain the property of the landowner, as do any existing trees on the common grazing lands. But in respect of the common grazing lands, it allows for agreements to be made between the owner and the committee of crofters, that will recognise those situations when the crofters have planned to expand a forestry purpose (a woodland) onto the grazing land by either planting or deliberate and assisted natural regeneration. In these situations the trees produced by both methods, and all their future replacements, are the property of the Crofters.

These legislative tools enable the parties in the crofting scheme to remove all ambiguity in relation to the use of native forest on the subject land.

It confirms the existing lawful use for forestry enjoyed by the landowner in respect of all trees that are present prior to the date of the agreement.

It maintains the default sequence where additional regenerated trees that have not been established under a formal agreement remain the property of the landowner.

It enables a clear and formal statement of intent to expand a native forest on to existing pasture land, or to add additional trees to an existing landscape that has both pasture and trees.

It identifies the lawful purpose to which the trees that are produced will be put to. and

It confirms "the right to exclusive economic and recreational use", including all the normal and necessary attributes of a forestry purpose that are outlined in the new section 3(B)

And as a consequence of these properly conceived and implemented measures, Scotland will get the exanded woodland habitats that their good governance deserves.

The same cannot be said for most states in Australia where the essence of "fraudulent conversion", the denial of existing property rights over regenerated native forest, is the central plank of the policy approach. The cutting or even trimming of a single tree is defined as "Development" that cannot take place without consent. In essence, the pruning of one branch on a single tree, even by the owner of more than ten million trees, is deemed to be a "material change" in whatever existing lawful purpose those trees have been intended to be used for. The meaning of the word "material" has been completely obliterated. And as a consequence of this obliteration of meaning, the most fundamental of rights, to be governed by "reasonable men and women in possession of the facts" has also been obliterated.

Defenders of this abrogation of good governance will claim that these rights are maintained by way of exemptions that enable forestry activities to be conducted in privately owned native forest subject to regulations. But the Queensland "Code for Forest Practices on Freehold Land" is not a regulation at all. It has never been subject to regulatory impact assessment. And, due to a prima facie case of professional misconduct by the Parliamentary Counsel, who is responsible for ensuring legislative and regulatory standards, this "code" is nothing more than a document that is "acceptable to the Minister".

A similar level of malgovernance applies in NSW where the "Code" was implemented without any formal consultation or input from actual forest owners and has been mostly shaped by so-called green "stakeholders". There are numerous ill-conceived prescriptions that will actually cause detriment to the fauna species they claim to be protecting. And there are other prescriptions that demand the least effective, least timely, and most costly method of delivering ecological services as the only option available. And to top it all off, the maximum possible degree of certainty allowed under the code has been reduced to only 15 years.

Yes folks, you did read that correctly. Existing forestry purposes that have traditionally involved two or three generations of one family over more than a century for each full harvest and regeneration cycle, can now look forward to no more than 15 years under each "approval". And all this has been delivered with the most nauseating pronunciamentos on the importance of "intergenerational equity" and concern for "future generations".

The malgovernance, contempt for due process and gross misconduct is of such a scale that those landowners who have restored the most native forest to cleared land in the past now have a deep sense of betrayal. Their distrust of government is so profound that they now do as much as possible to prevent any further expansion of the forests that had once been their proudest achievement. In the past when they found a seedling competing with a tussock in a paddock they usually, almost unconsciously, stooped to remove the tussock and encourage the seedling. Now they go out of their way to rip out the seedling. They understand better than most that for all the seasonal and cyclical events that can improve tree health and forest enhancement, there are just as many that can reduce tree health and exacerbate forest decline.

And this is not restricted by purely economic factors. I know of one landowner who was so outraged by the blatant demonisation of farmers in a recent Courier Mail article on land clearing that he went out and poisoned the twenty biggest trees on his place. Economics had nothing to do with it, this was pure therapy. He had no other way of venting his frustration at biased acceptance of the WWF position. To do nothing would have exposed himself to very unhealthy levels of stress. So instead of burdening the health system with a prescription for Prozac, he opted for the landowners version of the "disgruntled cooks revenge". Just as urine in the stew may not resolve the cooks issues with his employer, the dead trees made the farmer feel a whole lot better after a valuable private victory over his tormenters.

And the community, as usual, got the ecological outcome its governance and media deserves.
By Ian Mott, 12/10/08

Good news on high fuel and food prices.

2008-05-07T14:38:00.003+10:00

The moralising on the supposed evils of converting grain to biofuel and pushing food prices to record levels in a soon to be hungry world has only just begun. It has been described as nothing less than a "crime against humanity" by UN expert, Jean Ziegler and these sentiments were also echoed by the IMF. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm The only thing missing were the "four horsemen of the apocalypse", but give them time, they are only just warming up yet.

Just be sure to take it all with a grain of salt because that is a minority view. The majority of the world's population are still farmers. And under the principles of universal sufferage and one vote one value, it is the farmers perspective of high food prices that must prevail over the bleatings of minority urban panic merchants.

It should not be forgotten that in the entire sweep of human history prior to 90 years ago, almost all non-railway transport fuel was grown on farms and the trade-off between the use of grain for food or transport was a central element of all human commerce. Part of every farm was set aside as the "horse paddock" and part of every oat or corn crop was set aside for both family consumption and horse transport and traction purposes. The family's ride into town was fueled by a stomach full of grass but it was the bag of oats, that was contentedly munched on while the shopping was done, that fueled the ride back home. Every farmer also knew that if they wanted the ploughing done on schedule then they would need a few more bags of supplemental grain to maintain the effort. And all the products the family had bought had been transported by animals whose sole source of fuel was grain that had been bought in the same market where the same grains (of slightly different quality) were sold as food for humans.

In fact, the traditional Amish community are still doing it to this very day. And somehow, lumping them in with the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf and uncle Jo Stalin seems just a wee bit over the top, don't you think? Especially when one considers their low per capita CO2 emissions. And if the Amish are committing crimes against humanity for diverting human food for transport purposes then what does that say about Hindu farmers who, for religious reasons, allow perfectly good cows to die of old age, un-eaten by anyone?

More to the point, there is not the slightest doubt that the presence of this competing demand for agricultural output played a major role in maintaining food prices at levels much higher than these recent "record levels" that have been attributed to rising oil prices. And it was these very same high prices for agricultural produce that ensured that small scale family farming remained as a profitable occupation. It is what maintained most of the population, and the jobs, in rural and regional settlements where their ecological footprint was incapable of producing excess CO2. It took cheap oil, cheap food and the urban megopolis to pull off that stunt.

It was also these higher food and transport prices that played a major role in curbing mankinds propensity for the kind of conspicuous consumption that is having a major impact on the ecology of the planet. These higher prices ensured that houses remained at sensible sizes, used less resources, were easier to heat, cheaper to maintain and were built closer together. People could afford to buy them with just one income. This produced denser housing in more compact towns and cities where walking, bicycling and public transport were more viable. They formed stable, safe neighbourhoods where kids could walk to school and be monitored by a careing community. And despite the past lack of medical advances, people were fit, active and rarely obese.

The drift of population to the cities was much slower under high food prices and this slower pace of development was at a rate that planners could cope with. These smaller cities enjoyed greater utilisation of infrastructure, lower maintenance costs and fewer diseconomies of scale. It was, dare I say it, a much more ecologically sustainable pace of change.

So we need to be cautious about the underlying perspectives of those predicting catastrophic outcomes from high food prices. For it may well be the case that the simple lifestyle and market induced responses of ordinary folk to higher food and transport costs will do more to cut CO2 emissions than all the climate wallies combined.

Yet, many would agree that it is not good sense to be starving poor people all over the world for the sake of a target set by uncertain science and rampant green whimsy. But it must also be remembered that most of the worlds poor are rural poor, not urban poor. And it is only the minority urban poor who will be in serious trouble from higher prices.

For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any semblance of order.

In contrast, the major increase in energy costs has produced a major increase in the price of fertiliser which is obviously not good for those users. But in the third world this also means that the nitrogen in a cows turd has also undergone a major increase in value to a point where the effort expended in collecting that turd will be properly rewarded by the additional food it will grow and the major increase in price that food will command.

And while the increase in energy costs has raised the price of weedicide for the developed world, for most of the worlds farmers it has re-created the circumstances in which a day spent chipping weeds with a hoe will be rewarded with more than enough food to make it worth his while. The improved weed control improves the water use efficiency of their limited rainfall supplies. It can have the same effect on farm output as a 30% increase in rainfall.

The problem in third world agriculture was never one of lack of underlying capacity. Cheap commodities from cheap oil simply undermined the structure of their local economy to a point where the effort required to produce a surplus of food over their own needs was more than the extra food was worth and the people who might have bought that surplus were all in the city, too far away.

Those days are now gone. These farmers have been sent a very powerful price signal from the market place that their efforts are now valued more highly and are prepared to pay a much fairer price for what they produce. The additional spring in their step that this will produce will be akin to giving them an extra acre of land each and an extra 100mm of rain.

And those members of the starving, rioting urban poor who still retain their links to the rural community will soon discover that there are new, secure jobs back home providing services to those who, some for the first time in their lives, are enjoying an investable surplus and economic security based on their own effort, under their own control.

And after all they have endured under the tyranny of cheap oil and cheap food, who of us would not wish them all the very best in their endeavours. As Candide said to Pangloss after a lifetime of catastrophe, "that is all very well, but there is work to be done in the garden".
Ian Mott

Another day, another melting glacier scare

2008-02-27T12:11:00.004+10:00

Burn the words, "Pine Island Glacier" into your list of Gonzo Climate Reports.

For the Climatoides are at it again. We have another fairy tale about another glacier, on a continent far, far away, (too far for you to check on) that is about to suffer a mental breakdown and spill it's guts into oceans, yours and mine. And the fact that no studies have ever found evidence of a glacier actually having had a nervous breakdown and gutspill, has not deterred these intrepid scaremongers from their increasingly shrill speculative excesses. Any natural feature so far from proper scrutiny as this one is certain to merit inclusion within the territorial boundaries of the new, expanding empire of "Bull$hitistan".

Today's "scarenario" is brought to you by the BBC in, "Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean" through the gullible reporting of Martin Redfern. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7261171.stm And true to form for this entertainment genre, it takes ten paragraphs of spin before we get to any semblance of specific, verifiable facts.

The first piece of infotainment is pure speculation. After the obligatory hint of "new evidence" it leaps onto a giant "IF", and rides off to battle climate demons. "If the trend continues, they say, it could lead to a significant rise in global sea level." This is then massaged through the phobias with, "the "rivers of ice" have surged", and the kind of Churchillian reference to "the weak underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet" that would enrage every ghost at Gallipolli.

When we finally get to some facts we are told that satellite measurements show three large glaciers have speeded up and the largest one is called the Pine Island Glacier. And being the largest, it is supposedly of the greatest concern. Well, it would really be a crap story if the smallest one was causing most concern now, wouldn't it? I wonder if smaller glaciers are just as prone to mental breakdowns as the big ones?

Meanwhile back at the few facts in this "Beeblical excess", this volume of ice is reported as being, "a couple of kilometres thick, its 30km wide and it's moving at 3.5km per year, so it's putting a lot of ice into the ocean." Note the ambiguity of "a couple" of kilometres. We know that in human terms a "couple" may include an extra person or two on the sly but in this instance we are left to assume that the thickness of this ice is 2.0km, not 1.8km, and not 2.2km in parts. And at 2km thick by 30km wide and 3.5km distance each year we are left to conclude that there must have been 210km3 of ice falling into the ocean this past year.

It takes another ten paragraphs of guff before we are given the most rudimentary map possible, and as usual, no scale. And we are then told that throughout the 1990s the glaciers increased speed at 1% a year. We are not told what the rate of increase was between 2000 and 2006 or indeed, if the speed increased at all. It may well have slowed down prior to 2006 because that is what glaciers do. They have periods of surge followed by periods of relative stasis.

But we did get to hear that the speed in 2007 was 7% faster than what it was in the 1990s, whatever that means. For they were increasing by 1% each year in the 1990s, remember, so which of these ten speeds was used as the benchmark? The first or the last? We know from the guff that Vaughan, Scott and Bingham spent 97 days there and they "also placed recorders linked to the global positioning system (GPS) satellites on the ice to track the glacier's motion, recording its position every 10 seconds."

Now lets see, 3.5km/year is 9.59m/day, 399.6mm/hour, 6.66mm/minute and 1.11mm every 10 seconds. And this tells us that they are going out of their way to try and appear credible because only the most accurate GPS instruments have an error margin less than a metre so hourly records over time would still yield greater accuracy than the "couple of km" in height we were given above.

Working back from the numbers, we find that if 210km3 is 7% faster, then the comparison volume (be it 1999 or 2006) was 196.26km3. And if we assume that 1999 was the comparison year and there was no change from 2000 to 2006 then the discharge volume in 1990 was still 179km3. We are talking about a total increase in discharge of only 31km3/year.

But wait, we are also informed that they, "left a GPS there over winter to see if it is going to continue this trend." Yes, they have extrapolated from about 90 days worth of data and we can be reasonably certain that the 1990s data was obtained without the benefit of onground markers. In fact, the last people in that area before them were back in 1961.

They also inform us that if most of the volume in the Pine Island Glacier were to suddenly melt then global sea levels would rise by 25cm. And as we know that there is 361 million km2 of ocean surface, they are telling us that they think there is more than 90,000km3 of water, and therefore 100,000km3 of ice in the glacier. The problem is that when I try to transpose the area on their rudimentary map onto a decent one with a scale I get an area that is approximately 300km long and about 100km wide. And this 30,000km2 would need to be 3.3km thick to give that volume, not just "a couple" of km.

This would mean that the glacier discharged only 0.21 of 1% of its volume last year, assuming the rate for the 90 days of mid summer measurement was the same for the whole year. It means that the rate of discharge has increased from 0.18 of 1% since 1990. And if there really is 100,000km3 of ice in the glacier and it continues to discharge at the rate of 210km3/year, and assuming there is no new ice deposition at all, then it will take 476 years to go away. At the 1990 rate it would take 558 years. This is quite a bit different to the "nervous breakdown gut spill" scarenario that Scott claims, "might take decades or a century".

But wait, there is much, much more. A quick google of "Pine Island Glacier" suggests that there is quite a bit left unsaid in the BBC report, and some very serious garbled messages to say the least. First, the Antarctic Sun ran an article in the lead up to the above expedition on 22 November 2007 by Editor Peter Rejcek http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=1277

The article dealt with the research to be undertaken by the above mentioned team and made reference to the interface of ice with ocean currents. The natural focus of that interface was on the "grounding line", the point at the base of the ice where the bedrock, ice and water intersect. The article stated, "If all goes as planned, work would begin in earnest the next two field seasons to use a hot water drill to bore through the 500-meter-thick ice and lower instruments into the ocean cavity below". Yes, the grounding line is the point, some 35km back from the ice shelf "calving line", where the volume of ice discharge is best measured and in this case the height of that ice column is 500 metres, half a kilometre, NOT "A COUPLE OF KM" as the BBC reported.

We also went to the Scott Polar Research Institute (at Cambridge) site where we found "Inland thinning of Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, A.Shepherd, D.J. Wingham, J.A.D. Mansley, H.F.J. Corr, Science, February 2nd, 2001 see
http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/pineislandglacier/figures.html#figure4

Where we found a neat map showing the region, at the glacial mouth, where the rate of fastest flow was outlined and clearly stated as being only 200 metres per year. It stated that, "The trunk is bounded laterally by the 200 m yr-1 velocity contour, and streamwise by the grounding line (lower black line) located by Rignot (13) and the intersection of the easternmost tributaries, which coincides roughly with a deep bedrock trough (see Fig. 4A). The greatest elevation change is adjacent to the grounding line, and the thinning is concentrated over fast-flowing ice. Changes beyond the region of fast flow were much smaller".

Yes folks, the rate of flow in 2001 was 0.2km/year, not the 3.5km/year as reported by the poor old Beeb-bogans. And it is this flow that has "surged" by 7% to 0.214km/year. One explanation for this is that a classic bit of garbled reporting has taken place that the research team do not appear to have corrected. For when we multiply the 30km cross section by 0.5km depth and 0.214km/year speed we get a total of 3.21km3 of annual ice discharge. And when we divide their 100,000km3 of ice by this 3.21km3 of annual ice discharge we find that it will take 31,152 years for the glacier to depart this mortal coil (give or take an ice age).

And given that annual precipitation and ice deposition in Antarctica ranges from 200mm on the coast to 50mm in the interior, then new ice deposition on the glacier will be some where between 1.5km3 and 6km3 each year. If we use the most conservative figure of 1.5km3 we get a net annual loss of only 1.71km3 and a massive 58,479 years left in the glacier.

It is possible that Scott has rounded the original 3.21km3 up to state the rate of discharge as 3.5km, but meaning 3.5 cubic km, to which the reporter has assumed was the annual speed of discharge. But this slant on the situation would seem naive to experienced climate spin monitors. There is, for example, no evidence in any of the statements made by the team, of a serious commitment to providing verifiable factual information. There is, in contrast, a serious oversupply of speculative opinion and sensational extrapolation. A grumpy old climate sceptic might reflect that the credibility of this body of the teams opinions would not be well served by any exposure to the actual facts on the ground. Rather, those opinions are much better served by the absence of those facts in a context of vagueary. I leave that for others to judge.

But even more curious is the insight into the way the insidious cancer of apocalyptic speculation has taken root in the collective scientific mind. Note that this rapid surge in flow has been attributed to possible volcanic activity under the ice mass. We are informed that an eruption took place some 2,200 years ago so this has a ring of plausibility about it. But lets just hold on, now. This surge in glacial speed may be a product of volcanic lubrication but for the ice discharge to continue for the many, many decades needed to make any dint on the ice mass, it would also need the volcanic activity to continue for just as long. And for any molten lava to continue over a long duration, there must be a capacity for lava to move away from the vent, thus enabling more lava to escape. And once the outer layer of lava has been cooled by either ice or ice water, it solidifies and becomes much harder to move. Lava only moves rapidly when it is ultimately being discharged into freely flowing gas or liquid. But when that discharge is into a cold stream beneath an ice mass, it becomes its own impediment to further lava discharge at the vent. Thus blocking the source of heat, reducing the volume of basal melt water and returning glacial flows to normal.

And even if this was not the case, there are few natural phenomena that are more intermittent than major volcanic activity. Those that are continuous are generally of smaller scale with unimpeded venting. So why would otherwise intelligent people like the research team bother to assume that volcanic activity under the Pine Island Glacier would be persistent enough and large enough to produce a complete glacial collapse? It is the equivalent of extrapolating from the Mt St Helens eruption that Seattle and Vancouver will be buried under lava and ash by 2030. It is an extremely low probability event.

But if you still fear for your waterfront property then, please, give me a call. Maybe we could swap your block for this bridge I have to sell.

Ian Mott
27 Feb. 2008

Labor's forgotten apology

2008-02-20T11:00:00.004+10:00

Despite all the theatre, Labor still has some serious apologising to do to aborigines. Rudd has essentially apologised for past cases of what governments are still doing to this very day. Kids are still being removed from their parents when the lawful authorities deem a child is at risk. And these are the same legal principles that applied in the past. In fact, the apology for past lawful actions was just a smokescreen for a far more pressing obligation for an apology from the Labor leader for the unlawful acts of one of their own.

For it was the Labor Party in particular that spent two decades sending a clear but unofficial message to Northern Territorians that child sex offenders not only had friends in very high places, they actually held the position of Minister in the cabinet of Hawke and Keating.

The Coroners inquest into the death of former NT Senator Bob Collins made it clear that justice for a number of victims of child sex offences over 25 years has been cheated by suicide. No-one is saying that anyone in Cabinet knew of, or condoned, the actions of the man who sat amongst them. But it is highly probable that party members in the vicinity knew, or were aware of the possibility of offences, but took no action.

Readers may recall that ArchBishop Peter Hollingsworth was hounded from the position of Governor General for his past failure to respond in a way that is currently regarded as appropriate for dealing with a person in his organisation that had committed sex offences. But the left, and the same partisan media that took such an interest in Hollingsworth's propriety, has conspicuously failed to ask, who else in the Labor Party was aware of Collin's form? When did they find out? And was their response appropriate for a person in the position they now occupy?

Curiously, none of that same media pack has bothered to investigate the substantial role Collins must have played in shaping both policy and public perceptions of indigenous issues. He was after all, a Senior Minister, the Senator for the Northern Territory, was elected by a large indigenous vote, and he was related by marriage to the indigenous community. Who, in fact, could possibly NOT defer to his views in these circumstances?

It seems no minor coincidence that more than two decades of Labor led debate on indigenous issues could have an almost ritualistic focus on land rights and past lawful actions of lawful authorities while the far more immediate and pressing issues of health, alcohol and associated physical and sexual abuse rarely got a mention. What role did Collins play in downplaying the actual reasons why children were taken? Is this merely a case of serious policy neglect? Or has a powerful criminal been able to intervene to make it criminal neglect?

It is also worth noting the underlying ALP culture in which Collins was part. A large measure of the so-called "Larikin" appeal of then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was his drinking to excess and womanising. He deserves the greatest respect for the way he overcame the former once he took on the office of PM, but there is no denying that sex and alcohol was a central attribute of 1960s and 70s 'radical chic'. Former First Lady, Hazel, may have had a different perspective.

I can also recall being informed some time ago by very well placed Queensland ALP sources that almost everyone of any influence in the party at the time was painfully aware that they had a 'freak show' on their hands when Keith Wright was elected to Qld parliamentary leader. His form was obvious, and clearly accepted (albeit with reservations) long before he served time for sexual offences.

And the less said about the NSW Labor Party the better.

In the Northern Territory it is worth reflecting that this corporate culture was in a context where most aboriginal women above legal age were either having, or had already had, children. So at party time, they were generally distracted, to varying degrees, by sole parenting duties. And by default, sexually available women were, almost by definition, characterised by a higher proportion of under age girls.

In light of this, it can now be seen as entirely appropriate that the one Prime Minister, John Howard, who did not attend the recent parliamentary circus was the one under whose leadership the very issues that justified both the past and present removal of children from harm, were finally brought out into the open. He was the one former Prime Minister who had the least to apologise for.

In contrast, the very fact of Prime Minister Hawke's former excesses must have served as a significant brake on any public position, or campaign focus on alcohol and all the associated sexual and domestic abuse issues for the best part of two decades.

And in this context, there is no doubt that every picture, image or report involving Collins sent a separate, entirely sinister, message to his victims, their families, and anyone else who had heard the whispers, that his power was sufficient to negate their rights as victims. Every image of Collins with his cabinet colleagues, with his leaders, Hawke and Keating, and with the Chief Minister, local members and community leaders, reinforced the victim's perception of the extent of the perpetrator's power.

And like it or not, every one of the people seen with Collins has inadvertently contributed to the despair of the victims. They are not personally responsible for their actions that, after all, were done in utmost good faith. But each of them has a moral duty to convey their profoundest regrets to those who's suffering was exacerbated by the context of power that they provided to a criminal.

And like it or not, the people seen with Collins know that every other victim of abuse now knows there was an abuser in one of the most powerful positions in the land. And like it or not, every other sexual abuser now has an excuse to rationalise their actions as some “minor failing” of the mighty.

This obligation to apologise cannot be passed off to the parliament or the broader community. It belongs solely with the ALP. The positions, the power and the opportunities that Collins exploited for so long, were all provided by the Australian Labor Party.

So if there is to be an apology to Collin's victims and all the others, as there must, then it must come from the entire membership of the Australian Labor Party.

And if there is to be compensation to his victims, as there must, then it should rightfully come from the entire membership of the Australian Labor Party.

Anything less than a full commission of inquiry will not do. They cannot be allowed to let this slip away quietly as the sordid catch phrase of the sexual offender, "their little secret".

Choking on Chinese emission projections

2008-02-13T14:04:00.003+10:00

The Climate Cretins are whipping up a classic "scarenario" with projections of Chinese CO2 emissions over the next few decades. A number of articles on the same theme were referenced at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002763.html

And it is important to note the common thread in this sorry sequence of beat-ups. There is a very pregnant "IF" at the start of each claim, as per Alexis Madrigal at Wired, 8 Feb 2008. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2.html He said;

"If China's carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country's carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world's CO2 production today." and;

"If the Chinese economy steps into our (USA)carbon footprint, all other greenhouse gas reduction efforts will be for naught."

Yes, you are right, it is the same old exaggerated IPCC dogs vomit, served for your repeat consumption.

According to http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita US emissions per capita are 19.48 tonnes CO2, while the highest amongst asian nations is Singapore with 13.813 tonnes, followed by Japan with only 9.612 tonnes. And given the cultural similarities and comparable population densities there is absolutely no excuse for trying to imply that China would ever reach the emission footprint of the USA.

These authors are seeking to imply that a US emissions footprint is some sort of natural or logical ideal at the top of a heirarchy of emission needs. As if all the rest of the world, with lower emissions, aspires to this mythical, gas guzzling, place in the sun. Well, perhaps they should tell that to the French (5.992t/capita), the Swiss (5.58t/capita) and the Swedes (5.4166t/capita).

The simple facts are that if China or India ever reach a highly developed economic level it will, at most, be on the Japanese model, not the USA model. And one must ask, "where, exactly, would one fit just one Los Angeles style, low density, mega urban sprawl between Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing, let alone the 50 odd that would be required to match a US emissions footprint?"

Note that current Chinese emissions are 2.66 tonnes per capita. So even if there was no technology based emission dividend for the Chinese from the 34 French nuclear reactors they have just signed up for, a trebling of their emissions would put them on 8 tonnes per capita, with a standard of living (averaged from the least developed regions to the cities) just above that currently enjoyed by the South Koreans @ 7.34 tonnes per capita.

But given the scope for China to learn from both Japanese and Korean experience, and their plans for so many nuclear power stations, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that China will achieve OECD level economic development under a French, Swiss or Swedish emissions footprint between 5.0-6.0t CO2/capita.

And when this footprint is loaded into the various IPCC scenarios that assumed a range of economic levels in developing countries over the next century, and add the critical fact that emission levels plateau once economies achieve developed status, the entire climate change "Bunyip" is exposed as nothing more than a tattered, moonlighting duck with a megaphone.

Meanwhile, in the totally improbable case of a continuous annual economic growth of 10% per annum, matched by a similar increase in emissions over the 23 years to 2030, as envisaged in these preposterous articles, Chinese emissions would rise to 23.8 tonnes per capita. That is, 22% ABOVE the current US footprint, 147% above the current Japanese footprint, and more than 300% above the Swiss footprint.

You would have to put every Chinese adult in a Hummer to get anywhere near that outcome.

Clearly, these projected emission scenarios are a demonstration of either the most extreme ignorance of the relationship between energy and economics, or it is deliberate deception of the very worst kind with a callous disregard for the truth.

New perspectives on temperature change

2007-07-20T14:24:00.000+10:00

There is a pressing need for new perspectives on Global Warming as the debate to date has been entirely shaped by the self serving graphics of the proponents, like the familiar one shown here. This tells us what the change has been but tells us nothing about when and where these changes have taken place within our range of seasonal variation.

The new graph below provides us with valuable new information on the exact nature and threat potential of Global Warming. The decadal change in the UK between the 1980's and 1990's produces a mean change in the order of 0.58C which exceeds the change in global mean temperatures for the past half century. The mean temperature for 1980-89 was 9.52C while the mean for 1990-99 was 10.10C. The global mean is made up of a number of such station records and it is important that we examine a station that exceeds the global mean so we can get a better understanding of how and when the actual warming has taken place.

In each decade the monthly maxima and minima are plotted with a decadal mean, maxima and minima value.

The most important thing to note is that most of the temperature increase is observed in the higher minimum monthly values rather than higher monthly maximums. And most of that has been in the winter months. For example, the lowest monthly mean for a February in the 1980's was -1.1C while the lowest February in the 1990's was +1.5C, the lowest mean for a December in the 1980's was 0.3C while the lowest mean for a December in the 1990's was 2.3C, and the lowest monthly mean for a January in the 1980's was 0.8C while the lowest mean for a January in the 1990's was 2.5C. These three months account for 0.525C of the decadal change of 0.58C.

But comparing the two decades also makes three things very clear. They are;

1 An increase in an annual mean temperature is sourced from changes that take place throughout the year, not just in the form of extreme mid summer temperatures as the climate mafia has encouraged the world to think.

2 Most of the temperature increases that contribute to a higher annual mean temperature are entirely within the normal range, in this case in the UK that is between -1.0C and +19C.

3 Of the 12 monthly maximums and 12 monthly minimums that make up an annual mean temperature figure, only two, the midsummer months, pose any sort of risk of exceeding the values that the full suite of flora and fauna at any given location have already proven they can cope with.

This latter point is critical in the light of the Climate Mafia's continually repeated claim that small changes to the global mean temperature can have far reaching implications for the biosphere. As can be observed in the UK data sets, the rise in Autumn, Winter, Spring and Summer minimum temperatures, and the rise in Autumn, Winter and Spring maximum temperatures, poses zero to minimal threat to any of the flora and fauna species that have experienced those conditions. Indeed, in most cases this is an unambiguous benefit.

And even the threat from the higher midsummer maximums has been overstated for most of the planet. In the case of plant species there is no particular temperature at which an entire forest, species or genotype will suddenly collapse and die. The weaker individuals will die off first and their death will free up soil moisture and nutrients for the remaining ones. The end result will be a slightly lower density of vegetation cover with a slight compositional change in favour of grasses rather than trees in much the same way that composition changes with latitude and rainfall at present.

The same will apply with fauna. The weak will die off first as they already do in drought with a smaller core population that will then breed vigorously in response to the next cyclical change, as they have done for millennia. So next time you hear about "major implications" from minor changes in global mean temperatures, just walk the poor dears slowly through the monthly minimums and maximums that make up an annual mean temperature and ask them which species are put at risk by suffering through a mild winter.

Ian Mott

Landholders Submission on Carbon Trading

2007-04-11T11:17:00.000+10:00

Submission to the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet in respect of a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme for Australia.

Prepared by Ian Mott, Secretary, The Landholders Institute Inc.

1. Legal Framework

It must first be stated that the issues paper does not appear to have anticipated the implications of Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law obligations of government in respect of the design and implementation of a Carbon Trading Scheme. To date, all discussion on such schemes appears to have been based on the carbon accounting determinations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists who have made their deliberations on narrow questions of expedience or administrative convenience.

These deliberations have not been informed by the specific legal conventions and obligations that must be applied if any sort of greenhouse abatement mechanism is to be lawfully applied within the Commonwealth. It is one thing to adopt an international convention but any convention has no legal standing until relevant legislation has been enacted by the Parliament of Australia. And any such legislation must comply with ALL the relevant Australian legal principles and conventions.

There is not the slightest room for doubt that some of the current IPCC carbon accounting standards would, if applied carte blanch in Australia, be in significant breach of the obligations of Australian Governments.

Conclusion 1.a.

An Australian Carbon Trading Scheme must be consistent with Australian legal principles and conventions and these principles must prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with IPCC practice.

Conclusion 1.b.

The carbon accounting practices or conventions developed by the IPCC or any other unrepresentative international body may not be applied in any way that would deprive Australian citizens of their lawfully acquired rights, liberties or possessions.

2. A system for trading carbon credits cannot function without a matching system of carbon penalties, a carbon debit is a carbon tax.

For a carbon trading scheme to function there must be a carbon emissions target and a set of penalties associated with failure to meet those targets. Otherwise why would anyone bother purchasing credits? And the price of credits will be primarily driven by the cost of the penalty. And whether it is called a carbon tax or not, that penalty will be, for all intents and purposes, a carbon tax. And for that tax to be lawfully applied to Australian companies and citizens, it will need to comply with the principles and conventions that shape Australian taxation law.

It is worth remembering that the moment carbon policy enters the tax realm it will enter the most vigorously tested field of legal principle we have ever seen. There will be very substantial interests with significant moneys at stake that will hinge on the application of procedural fairness, equitable distribution of burdens, issues of fact and proper exercise of authority. And it would be very naive for any scheme to assume that every relevant issue would not be thoroughly tested in the courts.

Conclusion 2.a

An Australian carbon trading/tax system must apply the same legal principles and conventions, and the same standards of fact, as the existing tax system.

3. Dual Domestic and International Trading Schemes.

No-one would ever suggest that the Australian Taxation System should be fully compliant with that of the United States or the European Union. International trade is conducted in a context of compliance with each nation’s own taxation system, to the extent that the trade actually takes place in those nations. Trade in both goods and services are clearly capable of taking place efficiently in a dual context of domestic markets and international ones, subject to differing rules and accounting standards.

And as with all other forms of international trade, Carbon Trading can be conducted on a bilateral basis with nations that have essentially consistent standards. There is no single set of product specifications or standards and no single body that determines whether a nation may or may not participate in trade. Indeed, any attempt to establish such a body would, rightfully, be regarded with the very deepest distrust by most nations on earth.

Accordingly, one must ask, by what mandate, and after which process of consultation and in depth consideration of pros and cons, has the IPCC apparently taken for itself the role of sole arbiter of the eligibility of nations and commodity classes to participate in carbon trading? The short answer is, none whatsoever.

Conclusion 3.a.

Carbon trading must be free and unrestricted, based on the mutual standards and expectations of fully informed agreed participants, and free of any requirement for official sanction by the IPCC or any other central body.

Conclusion 3.b.

There must be a dual carbon trading system with a domestic market that is fully compliant with all Australian legal obligations and an international one (or ones) that comply with bilateral carbon trading agreements or with single IPCC sanctioned standards.

4. Consideration of all relevant matters of a Carbon nature.

The design and implementation of any lawful Australian Carbon Trading Scheme must consider all relevant matters relating to an emission or class of emission and all relevant matters relating to a carbon sequestration or class of sequestration. The failure to do so would be an improper exercise of power under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Conclusion 4.a

A Carbon trading scheme must include all forms of carbon flux and consider all relevant matters relating to those fluxes.
5. Forest and Land Use carbon fluxes.

It is an unavoidable fact that human activities can have an impact on both anthropogenic carbon fluxes and on the natural stocks of carbon and their natural fluxes. Indeed, this fact is inherent in the very need to control emissions from natural stocks of carbon that takes the form of Coal or Oil. But IPCC carbon accounting in relation to natural stocks of carbon in wood form is restricted to post 1990 induced changes, and then only to human initiated forest stocks.

IPCC conventions wrongly assume that native forests are all “natural forests” with no anthropogenic inputs. They also wrongly assume that the carbon emission and sequestration in these forests are in a balance of equal growth and decay with any removal of wood from such forests being a simple reduction in natural stocks. Yet, the clear evidence from decades of native forest management reveals some very significant fluxes are being ignored. These are;

5.1 The harvesting of trees from a native forest will generally target mature trees that will begin a process of decay if left any longer in situ. They may grow larger over many more decades but generally they will lose as much carbon from internal decay as they gain through growth on the outside of the trunk. So the harvesting is an anthropogenic action that will prevent or substantially delay a natural reduction in a natural carbon stock. So while this may not produce a reduction in anthropogenic emissions, it will certainly have the same effect by creating an atmospheric gap, as it were, for other anthropogenic emissions to occupy with zero change in overall impact. This action can be identified, recorded, measured and verified and is therefore both capable, and deserving of a carbon credit.

5.2 The harvested tree does not decay and emit all its carbon on the day it is cut. The IPCC default methodology assumes this to be the case. Australia’s submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on Harvested Wood Products assigns varying lengths of decay time for different products but these are on a straight line basis based on the expected life of the product, not on how long it takes them to decay at the end of their useful life. See http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/sbsta/eng/inf07.pdf At P8, House frames are assumed to last 50 years, pulp and paper are assumed to last only 3 years while mill waste and biofuel carbon is assumed to be emitted in the year of harvest. Yet, NSWDPI scientists have recently found newspapers with fully legible print after more than 50 years in a landfill. And as this is the normal destination for most newsprint paper, and as newspaper is the main destination of mill waste, then the assumption that carbon in a harvested tree is emitted in the year of harvest has no basis in fact.

5.3 Of the total volume of a harvested tree, it is generally assumed that it will be apportioned as 35% sawn timber, 35% mill waste and 30% limbs etc left on the forest floor. Much of the mill waste is used for woodchip for paper production in larger mills while smaller mills sell part of it for firewood and dump the sawdust. I recently discovered an intact sawdust pile under a layer of grass on a high rainfall site that was last occupied by a mill in 1943. So the assumption that mill residue carbon is emitted in the year of harvest has minimal validity. Furthermore, larger limbs can remain in the forest for decades. This is especially so if cold, hazard reduction burns take place that give this wood a coating of charcoal and thereby extending the stable life of this carbon well beyond 50 years.

5.4 Unless specifically removed by mechanical means or hot fires, tree stumps and larger roots will remain in the forest for decades. My own property has numerous stumps with their carbon intact that we know were cut in 1927-30. Many others in a managed forest will not even be dead. There is a direct correlation between the youth of a stem and its propensity to produce coppice shoots after harvesting. And we have a number of photographs of two, three, and even four logs being cut from the one stump over a space of 60 years. Clearly, this carbon is in a stable condition long after it is deemed to have already been emitted. It should only be counted as an emission when the emission actually takes place.

5.5 The IPCC methodology has been developed under the assumption that it takes many decades for a new tree to grow to the size of a harvested sawlog but this is only part true. The removal of a large tree will allow four or more smaller trees to rapidly exploit the water, sunlight and nutrients that become available. And it is not unusual for a harvested forest to completely replace the removed wood volume in only two decades. At that point some of the young trees will need to be removed to allow the remaining ones to stay healthy and productive. This sequestration of carbon by the growth of young trees will be at a much faster rate than the growth of the post mature sawlog if it had been left unharvested. And this increase in carbon sequestration is contingent on a human action from which the consequences can be identified, recorded, measured and verified and is therefore both capable, and deserving of a carbon credit.

5.6 The IPCC methodology also assumes that all native forests, especially those in existence prior to 1990, are climax, or “old growth” forests when the vast majority on private land are regrowth forests that have regrown on previously cleared land or have been subjected to significant disturbance. These forests are not in equilibrium. They will generally be in various stages of immaturity and will exhibit very vigorous growth up to the point, called “lock-up” when the trees grow to a size where there are too many of them competing for the available water and nutrients. By this point growth of the entire stand will have declined to a point close to zero net sequestration where the growth potential of any tree will be contingent on the death of one beside it. Much of the private native forest resource is already in this state and the rest will follow if harvesting and thinning activity is discouraged. And just as for a climax forest as outlined above, the removal of a tree merely prevents or postpones a natural emission that was going to take place anyway. And if the struggling trees are removed and processed into poles or news print then the emission will have been delayed for much longer than it takes for the forest to re-absorb the same amount of CO2. In the case of regrowth forests, the supposedly natural outcome, that of not harvesting trees, will produce a substantial reduction in carbon sequestration and a substantial increase in carbon emissions. Consequently, the act of harvesting is a human action from which the consequences can be identified, recorded, measured and verified and is therefore both capable, and deserving of a carbon credit.

5.7 The same considerations outlined in respect of regrowth forests, in 5.6 above, also apply to pre-1990 plantations. The supposedly natural outcome of not harvesting trees will produce a substantial reduction in carbon sequestration and a substantial increase in carbon emissions. The IPCC assumption that the past sequestration of a plantation will continue without anthropogenic input is wrong. Consequently, the act of harvesting is a human action from which the consequences can be identified, recorded, measured and verified and is therefore both capable, and deserving of a carbon credit.

5.8 IPCC methodology assumes that wood for biofuel and firewood is burned in the year of harvest. Yet, the largest part of the commercial firewood market is taken up by “aged Ironbark” etc that has been drying in the paddocks for more than 40 years. Indeed, There is a federal policy on so-called “sustainable firewood collection” that seeks to conserve the stocks of clearly anthropogenic dead wood as if it were a natural resource. So the inconsistency between the IPCC assumptions and general practice faces no additional burden of proof. But what is not well understood is the fact that feedstock for biofuels can quite economically be stored to dry in the field for as many decades as it takes for the landscape to re-absorb the same volume of carbon. This will effectively double the greenhouse contribution of biofuels because the CO2 has already been re-absorbed before the emission actually takes place. It then becomes a true zero or even negative emission technology that does not rely on any “warehousing” of CO2 in the atmosphere until it is re-absorbed. But this is not possible if the carbon is deemed to have been emitted in the year of harvest. The act of delaying the burning of a biofuel is a human action from which the consequences can be identified, recorded, measured and verified and is therefore both capable, and deserving of a carbon credit.

5.9 Forests that are cleared for Land Use Change also fall within the two main categories, regrowth and climax, as outlined above. So they are also subject to the same sorts of fluxes both prior to and after human intervention. They may already be in a balance of equal growth and decay, if they are climax forests or they are likely to enter such a state shortly if they are regrowth forest and no thinning takes place. And as the majority of cleared forest is for grazing purposes, the carbon in dead trees often remains in situ for many decades, either as poisoned standing trees or as windrows. And according to the satellite surveys of Queensland, as much as 35% of cleared land will have such a large volume of post clearing regrowth that it must be cleared again within 15 years. And in such cases, the deemed emissions in the year of clearing, under IPCC methodology, will actually take place after the land has re-absorbed a similar volume as regrowth. See www.nrm.qld.gov.au/slats “Land Cover Change in Queensland 1999-2001 Table 6 P26. This clearly shows that 26.2% of clearing in 2000-2001 was on land that was not mapped as woody vegetation ten years earlier in 1991. That table was excluded in the 2003 but the increasing trend over time is very clear. What this tells us is that the longer cleared wood carbon is left in situ the higher the probability will be that regrowth will re-absorb the same volume of carbon before the original carbon is emitted. Ringbarked or poisoned trees have been commonly reported to remain intact for over 6 decades with a sequence of re-clearing events taking place each decade during that time. Yet, the current IPCC methodology does not encourage the long term storage of cleared wood carbon as the emission is deemed to have already taken place in the year of original clearing.
Conclusion 5.a

A Carbon Trading Scheme must include anthropogenic actions that impact on natural stocks of carbon and their natural fluxes as well as the existing narrow treatment of anthropogenic impacts on anthropogenic fluxes.

Conclusion 5.b

A Carbon Trading Scheme must recognise that natural or native forests, and plantations established prior to 1990 incorporate significant carbon emissions that can be managed in a way that reduces, postpones or prevents those emissions and thereby create ‘gaps’ in the sum of total atmospheric CO2 that can be filled by other emissions or assist in meeting emission targets.

Conclusion 5.c

A Carbon Trading Scheme must recognise that natural or native forests, and plantations established prior to 1990 incorporate significant carbon sequestration potential that can be managed in a way that increases that sequestration, or prevents a natural reduction in sequestration, to create ‘gaps’ in the sum of total atmospheric CO2 that can be filled by other emissions or assist in meeting emission targets.

Conclusion 5.d

A Carbon Trading Scheme must be consistent with the current legal recognition that an anthropogenic omission or failure to act can also constitute an anthropogenic act. That is, a decision, post 1990, to cease activities that maintain the growth and carbon sequestration capacity of a forest is tantamount to a decision to emit an equivalent amount of carbon.

Conclusion 5.e

A Carbon Trading Scheme must be consistent with the current statutory legal requirement for Corporations to report on their affairs in a way that presents a “True and Fair View”. There is no room in Australian law for a “deemed emission” that is at variance with the facts of an actual emission. So the responsible officers of any Corporation involved in emission or sequestration activities cannot discharge their fiduciary duties without the factual reporting of actual carbon fluxes as and when they actually take place.

Conclusion 5.f

A Carbon Trading Scheme must not incorporate presumptions of fact for the sake of administrative convenience. In particular, there can be no presumption of continuity of pre-1990 forest fluxes in the face of evidence to the contrary and no presumption of natural state in the face of evidence of prior disturbance.
6. Carbon storage by territorial oceans – Exclusive Economic Zones.

There is no room for the arbitrary denial of national sovereignty and all the benefits that may accrue from the use of sovereign natural resources. But this, and more, is exactly what the IPCC has done through the misapplication of carbon accounting standards.

Australia has legitimate and uncontested claims to sovereignty over 12 million square kilometres of territorial oceans known as our Exclusive Economic Zone. No other nation exercises, or seeks to exercise, sovereign rights over these waters and no other nation has undertaken to fund any measures to protect these waters and no other nation has been willing to forego the benefits of any associated natural resources for the purpose of protecting and maintaining ecological values in these oceans.

And it is a fact that each square kilometre of ocean absorbs 5.54 tonnes of Carbon each year. And as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase these oceans will increase the amount of Carbon they absorb to the benefit of all humanity. This carbon absorption, and especially the increased future absorption, is the rightful property of the Australian people.

One such option for future enhanced carbon sequestration by oceans is Iron Fertilisation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization Other options include the dumping of wood waste in deep oceans would ensure the almost permanent removal of that carbon from the biosphere with its eventual addition to hydrocarbon stocks.

The right to the exclusive enjoyment of this attribute of this natural resource is recognised under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (No5 1976).

Article 5 states;

“1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein, or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. No restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent”.

Article 15 further points out that;

“1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
(a) To take part in cultural life; and
(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”;

And Article 25 states;

“Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources”.

Yet, any carbon trading system based on current IPCC accounting standards will be in significant and serial breach of these principles. Due to a preponderance of European nations on the IPCC, and the relatively high number of land locked nations, or nations with minimal territorial waters there, the IPCC does not recognize carbon sequestration by territorial oceans as a legitimate part of national carbon accounting.

And as a consequence of this lack of recognition, nations like Australia, and the numerous pacific nations that are heavily dependent on Australian aid, are denied the opportunity to reap the considerable future benefits of any new technologies that will enhance the already considerable carbon sequestration potential of their territorial oceans. So we have one UN sponsored body promoting an outcome that actually abrogates a key UN convention on the use and enjoyment of natural resources.

The IPCC is expecting the Australian people to cover the burdens of oceanic sovereignty without gaining the carbon absorption credits that accrue from that sovereignty. This is very convenient for Swiss taxpayers, for example, who face no burden of funding a Navy and consequently derive no carbon sequestration benefit from their nonexistent territorial waters. Under IPCC methodology, our oceans are treated as “commons”. And one must ask, under what mandate, what head of power and after what process of consultation with the lawful owners of territorial oceans, has the IPCC assumed the authority to override the International Court of Justice, the body responsible for adjudicating on matters of territorial sovereignty?

6.1 A proper regard for all relevant issues of a carbon nature must include both natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks. Natural resources can be managed for environmental, social and economic goods. Indeed, a balance of these objectives is the essence of sustainable development. And it is clear that the management of oceans and subterranean rock strata, etc for carbon management purposes is an environmental, social and economic issue.

6.2 The advance of new carbon management technology will provide numerous opportunities for the management of oceans and other natural resources and these future opportunities, and the fruits of these opportunities, to the extent that they take place in Australia’s territorial oceans, rightfully belong to the Australian people.

6.3 The generally impoverished nations of the Pacific who have scarce land resources but abundant territorial oceans, and who are heavily reliant on Australian aid, exhibit low emissions but sequester huge volumes of CO2 in those oceans. But under current IPCC conventions they get zero credit or benefit for the environmental service they provide to much richer nations. These nations face substantial problems that are not of their making yet the one mechanism that could give effect to a proper redistribution of carbon management costs and benefits, a carbon trading scheme, is denied to them by restricted IPCC rules.

Conclusion 6.a

A Carbon Trading Scheme must recognise and account for all aspects of natural and anthropogenic carbon fluxes, sources and sinks within all sovereign boundaries so that the emission activities of the Australian people can be properly considered in the full context of their environment. Only then can all natural resources be properly valued under sustainable development principles. And those sovereign boundaries must include all territorial oceans.

Conclusion 6.b

A Carbon Trading Scheme must recognise the exclusive right to the use, enjoyment and future potential of all sovereign natural resources, including the territorial oceans and sea beds of all nations.

7. Duty of Care

It is entirely foreseeable that the failure to properly consider all of the above matters in relation to the implementation of an Australian Carbon Trading Scheme would be capable of causing substantial, preventable detriment to both forest owners and those with any beneficial interest in sustainable carbon management on land or sea.

Conclusion 7.a

The people responsible for designing and implementing a Carbon Trading Scheme for Australia must take all reasonable and practicable steps to minimize the detriment to all Australians might suffer from the misapplication of such a scheme.

And I advise accordingly.

Ian Mott
15th March 2007

Rising Sea Levels or Just Sinking Islands

2007-03-14T23:59:00.000+10:00

Our national broadcaster, the ABC, has struck again with a new low in responsible journalism.
In 'PNG - That Sinking Feeling', broadcast last night as part of the 'Foreign Correspondent' program, reporter Steve Marshall has trashed any credibility the ABC had left on environmental reporting. The unambiguous message in the documentary and all the introductory material was that here was firm "evidence" of rising sea levels producing climate refugees.

The most powerful scene was of one islander and the reporter standing waist deep in water where the islanders father had once had his veggie patch. The implication being that sea levels had risen by close to two metres over recent decades. The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands. The Islanders appear to have been convinced that they are the victims of rising sea levels and global warming, no doubt from a procession of publicly funded planet ponces.

But if Marshall and the program managers at 'Foreign Correspondent' had been able to deal with more than one variable at a time they would have drawn the inescapable conclusion that the islands are sinking. Instead they appear to have manufactured a piece of green propaganda that neatly dovetails with Al Gore's thoroughly discredited claim that Pacific Islanders are already being displaced by rising sea levels?

What I find most offensive is the way a group of islanders who are confronted by a serious problem appear to have been exploited.

If the ABC can get something this simple completely wrong, then what does that tell us about the veracity of their reporting on much more complex issues elsewhere?

This is what Wikipedia has to say .

"It has also been suggested that the movement of tectonic plates could be responsible. The islands lie in one of the most complex tectonic areas of the earth. They sit next to a plate convergence zone at the boundary of the Pacific Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, and South Bismark Plate on a subduction zone next to the New Hebrides Trench (Bougainville Trench), where the earth's crust is disappearing. There is an active volcano on Bougainville Island, 86km away.

It should be noted, that the Carteret islands are built entirely on a base of coral that sits atop of an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual course of events, such islands eventually subside simply due to the underlying volcanic rock being worn away and not replenished. The Carteret islands are a classic example of such coral islands in their final stage of existence. Interestingly, Charles Darwin was the first to propose such a system of creation and submergence". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands

It is also quite informative to simply google "Carteret Islands" where the range of reporting angles and biases are plain to see.

The ABC had been there before http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866600.htm reporting that the same story was taking place on Takuu (or Mortlock) Islands, the home of "a Samoan-American woman, known locally as 'Queen' Emma Coe, bought the island for four axes and 4.5 kg of tobacco. Under Imperial German protection, she had all the trees chopped down and replaced with coconuts, and she imported Papua New Guineans from New Ireland to work the plantations".

The fact that this is occuring in two places would tend to suggest that the dynamiting of coral explanation at Wikipedia is less credible. But the really interesting issue to arise out of this is the question of how many other pacific atolls are actually subsiding for the same reasons put forward by Charles Darwin but collectively being misreported as rising sea levels?

It also appears that the program was also screened on ITV, with the first report in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 30 2002. Other conspicuous turkeys feeding on this bit of journalistic offal include newswire, the Ebono Institute (with two articles), Science & Nature, some sort of Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert with his own photos, while The Independent Online was in there boots and all with a similar story in the indian ocean.

But it seems the ABC just can't get enough of it with Lateline on 5/02/2007 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1840956.htm

Transcript TONY JONES: "The reality of global warming now appears to be accepted by the vast majority of international scientists. This weekend’s report from an international governmental panel on climate change painted a grim picture for thousands of Pacific islanders, a warning that the sea levels could rise dramatically over the next century. And on Papua New Guinea's Carteret Islands it's already happening. The entire population is preparing to leave their homeland, forced out by the rising sea. Lateline's John Stewart has this exclusive report".

The same "exclusive" story was run on Life Matters on 1 November 2006 and the list goes on and on. Clearly, Climate Central has called for "evidence" of rising sea levels and the Climate Cadres have gone right out there and manufactured it.

Ian Mott

Hard Cover Maps reveal no shinking Arctic Ice Sheet

2007-02-07T10:30:00.000+10:00

I have just checked this link to a BBC article that claims that Arctic ice coverage is still receding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.
"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

The map showing the change from 1979 to 2000 appears to show incontrovertable evidence that the ice sheet is shrinking. But, luckily, I was able to check the 1960 edition of the Readers Digest World Atlas, prepared under the direction of Frank Debenham, OBE, MA, DSC(hon) Emeritus Professor of Geography at Cambridge, that has plotted the extent of this ice sheet 20 years prior to the first satellite scan.

And surprise, surprise, the large tongues of ice that in 1979 were protruding between Novaya Zemla and Severnaya Zemla, and on the Eastern side of Severnaya Zemla, that is not there today, were also not there in the 1960's.

The BBC map is not clear enough to be certain but it appears that there may have actually been some minimal expansion in the ice limit between Svalbard and Severnaya Zemla. The only portion that does appear to have receded is a small section in the East Siberian Sea.

So while a short, totally inadequate, sample period may indicate a receding Arctic ice sheet, the evidence over a 40 year interval makes it clear that THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THIS CLAIMED RECEDING TREND IS INTIRELY WITHIN THE RECENT HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.

Once again, we have so called "highly respected scientific teams" being caught out making extrapolations from limited data sets. It is not only incompetent but downright lazy to limit one's inquiry to the most convenient data sources. But when this is done in relation to a key evidentiary plank in the "Gullible Warming" debate it is inexcusable.

De-stocking trees to save forests in drought

2007-01-27T14:47:00.000+10:00

The best thing one can do to a forest in drought is to conduct a partial harvest.

It is not widely understood that, unless the forest owner actually enjoys being ripped off blind, native forest harvesting is always a partial harvest. Most native forests are multi-aged and no farmer willingly sells a small tree for peanuts when it will be worth ten times more in 15 years.
So once the metropolitan brain can allocate sufficient attention to hold on to the fact that native forest harvesting is partial (selective) harvesting with healthy trees left evenly distributed over the site, it can then begin to grasp the ecological impact of this activity, especially in a drought.

There is nothing that does more to maintain the health and volume of stream flows in a drought than the removal of every second tree in part of the catchment. It means that the remaining stems get a much larger share of the remaining soil moisture and groundwater supplies. When this groundwater is moving slowly down a gentle slope it means that a much greater proportion of it makes it into the creek to maintain the quality of the waterholes.

The remaining trees capture a slightly higher portion of ground water due to lack of competition but it will take 10 to 15 years before they have grown sufficiently to capture the entire preharvest volume. And by then there will be more trees ready for harvest. In the mean time, soil moisture remains available for longer which enables the remaining trees to maintain leaf moisture content above the critical 65% digestibility threshhold for longer.

Below the 65% moisture level the trees switch to survival mode. They discard much of their leaf mass to the forest floor while releasing polyphenyls to make the remaining leaves both indigestible and nutritionally negative. Maintaining the leaf, sap, bud and seed based food chains is a luxury the trees cannot afford in drought.

And that means that not only the possum, koala and glider populations survive longer in a partially harvested forest but also the bugs, grubs etc that birds and other animals also feed on. Without this thinning, these species undergo a population collapse in the order of 90 to 95%. But as they die off, slowly and cruelly, they also gather in the few trees that have access to water and often completely defoliate them.

The beneficial effect of partial harvesting in drought is so significant that there is a strong case, continuity of supply issues aside, for scheduling most harvest operations to coincide with dry periods. This is especially so when the partial removal of canopy also increases ground cover and fodder reserves to both protect the soil and maintain minimal herd numbers and grassland species.

It is doubly important when one realises that the overwhelming number of adverse impacts that are normally associated with forestry operations, and which form the major part of Code of Practice prescriptions, are only present when operations are undertaken in wet conditions or at times when heavy downpours are likely soon after harvesting. And while it may take a torrential downpour to break a drought, they are nearly always preceded by smaller, less intense falls that restore ground cover and counteract the effects of harvest activities.

But don't hold your breath for the bimboscenti to grasp the notion that, just as the reduction of grazing stock is the best way to protect grassland ecosystems in drought, the reduction in tree stocks is the best way to protect forest and woodland ecosystems in the same conditions.

This summer a million hectares of Victorian forest has already been subject to broadscale clearfiring that has decimated habitat and wildlife populations on a charcter, scale, intensity and frequency that has never been matched by the most intensive land clearing. Yet, the urban public is still, apparently, capable of being persuaded that 10,000 hectares of partial harvesting, dispersed over more than 30 different sub-catchments, is an ecological impact that our forests cannot sustain.

That is the nature of the management contract the green movement has tricked Australians into signing. Instead of 1% harvesting disturbance on a 100 year rotation to cover the wages of those who look after the forests, the Greens have given us entirely preventable 100% wildfire disturbance for the second time since 2003. These wildfires can only cause the damage they have done because the people who actually know how to look after a forest are prevented from doing so. Instead of numerous small "cold" burns that help the forest and it's animal and human residents, the Greens have given us one big "hot" fire that destroys forest long before it has even recovered from the previous one.

When the Greens were given control of the forests they obtained a benefit by deception. They now want us to ignore the fact that these "stolen goods" are being destroyed and even seek the advice of the former custodians on how to protect their "ill-gotten gains". And it is time for the communities that looked after these forests so well for so many years to stop providing the critical help that enables the greens to avoid responsibility for their negligence. The greens can only maintain the facade of forest protection because rural communities protect the public form even worse harm.

There are no green volunteer bushfire brigades. It is all left to the farmers and forest workers who were, and still are, treated with contempt, to deal with the products of green neglect. And it is time to stop. It is time to restrict their contribution to protecting their own communities and let the arrogant greens reap what they have so liberally sown.

We need to send one simple but powerful message to the urban public.

If they really want to protect the forests then all they have to do is to give them back to the people who know how to.

Ian Mott

Snow job on the Snowy River

2006-11-20T10:58:00.001+10:00

As the Murray Basin gets another “summit” for it's troubles it is timely to take a good hard look at the facts behind the last river to get the “can do” swagger from our politicians and environmental saviours. In October 2000 the Feds, NSW and Victorian governments gave us another “milestone” in the great pantheon of environmental achievements. They agreed to return 21 per cent of the Snowy River’s water that has hitherto been captured in the dam system and sent down to the Murray irrigators.

The hype merchants and word molesters were out in force. They had “saved an Aussie icon” and “restored the mighty river to its former glory”. There was no room at all for the fact that these custodians of the public good had just seriously impaired the contributive value and efficiency of a public asset, the dam system and related power generating capacity.

But that is only small beer compared to the character, scale and extent of the gross misrepresentation of facts that had been introduced into the policy process, without any apparent challenge by the professional officers involved, leading up to this decision.

A good grasp of the kind of arguments put by the self-appointed saviours of the Snowy River, prepared by East Gippsland Independent State MLA, Craig Ingram, can be seen here. If this MP has made similar representations to the Victorian Parliament then there are grounds to investigate whether he has engaged in grossly misleading and deceptive conduct.
He informed us that:

"The value of the Snowy River to the Australian people is beyond calculation. Right now, this national icon lies at death's door. The once mighty Snowy River has been reduced to a series of small, stagnant pools, choked with weeds and sand. Seawater is intruding upstream and native fish are fast disappearing".

Note the clear implication that river flow is negligible and that this condition is present over the entire length of the river system. This perception was reinforced under the heading “a matter of equity” with the claim that “Australians are asking for 28% of the original flow to be returned to the Snowy River”. And who, one may ask, could possibly argue against an apparent restoration of a river from zero% to 28% of its former flow?

But let’s put this into perspective. This 28% amounts to about 330,000 megalitres or 1.3 times the total volume used each year by the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane. It was followed by the claim that, “the water needed for the Snowy can come from efficiency savings in irrigation”.

They quoted Professor John Lovering, former Chairman of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, as saying, “just a 10% improvement in irrigation and farm management practices could deliver one million megalitres of extra water to irrigators”. And then implied that a simple, unstated, back-door, tax-in-kind, of 33% of the farmer's gross, hard won, efficiency gains, on top of all their existing tax obligations, was all that was needed to fix this “matter of equity”.

No one asked if any other segment of the broader community was being asked to hand over a full third of their gross efficiency gains over more than the next decade. Per capita productivity gains in Australia are generally in the order of 1% per annum and those gains are already taxed at between 30% and 45%. But the parties to this water agreement, both Liberal and Labor, thought nothing of taking the first 33% of farmers efficiency gains as water tax, oblivious to the fact that the farmers would subsequently be taxed another 30% to 45% on the remainder. The effective tax on these farmers productivity gains would be 55% to 60%.

In blissful ignorance, it was such a simple, seductive concept that it was easily taken up by otherwise intelligent departmental officers, who lacked either the time or inclination to think the matter through.

The Alliance lists as references:

1994 scoping report commissioned by NSW and Victorian Governments. Recognises 28 per cent of the Snowy's original flow is needed to reinstate the ecological function of the river;
1996 expert panel of scientists conclude that insufficient water is released from Jindabyne Dam to maintain a healthy ecosystem. They recommended 28%;
1998 Scientific Reference Panel of the Snowy Water Inquiry conducted by NSW and Victorian Governments supports a minimum of 28%.

The ACT Environment Commission also gets into the act with the narrow perspective of the Snowy River Shire when it claims, “The scheme diverted close to 99%, or 520 gigalitres each year, of the Snowy River flow into the Murrumbidgee and Murray River system. This left the Snowy River with only 1%, or nine gigalitres, of its average annual flow. A decision in 2002 saw this environmental flow increased to 38 gigalitres each year, or 6 per cent of the total flow.”

But it then includes a very important rider, stating, “No estimate of the volume of water that escapes the Shire in the various river systems, where that water is not captured by the scheme, is available”.

You see, all the claims about absent flows, and so on, have been in relation to the minor portion of the river system immediately below the dams. And both the public, and the policy process, has been encouraged to assume that this applies to the entire river system. But as each additional tributary joins the river on its way to the sea the more “healthy” the river becomes.

Indeed, the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority provides the first glimmer of evidence that the Snowy system is not quite as bad as it has been made out to be. It has a map showing entirely unmodified tributaries (listed for their heritage values) and a photo of what looks like a very healthy river.

It is not until we go to the Australian Natural Resource Atlas that we get closer to the real story on the Snowy River.

Total catchment area = 1,589,600 hectares

NSW catchment area = 894,000 ha

Victoria catchment area = 685,600 ha

NSW mean annual runoff = 1,317,000 megalitres of which 513,000Ml is captured in dams.

Victoria mean annual runoff = 863,000Ml plus 804,000Ml from NSW.

And this tells us that about 1,664,000 megalitres out of total catchment runoff of 2.18 million still makes it to the sea at Marlo. So we have a river system which has numerous tributaries that still exhibit zero disturbance in normal flows and allow the lower river to still deliver 76.3 per cent of total runoff into the sea.

The claimed requirement for another 330,000Ml, deemed by the above mentioned “expert panels” as the minimum required to restore the ecological function of the river, would send 91.5 per cent (1.99 million Ml) of total runoff into the sea.

Note that there is some discrepancy in the Alliance's maths. If 330,000Ml is 28 per cent of flow then total flow would only be 1.18 million Ml not the 1.317 million Ml reported by ANRA as the NSW share of the runoff. What we do know with absolute certainty is that no mandate would have been given by the public to undermine the efficiency of expensive infrastructure for the dubious benefits of lifting river flow from 76.3% to 91.5%.

But wait, there is more. The Victorian part of the catchment is still largely timbered so we can assume that the runoff volumes from the Victorian portion are close to the original pre-settlement volumes. The same cannot be said about the NSW portion where, outside of the National Parks and reserves, extensive clearing has increased the runoff volume from pre-settlement volumes.

The Australian Natural Resource Atlas has good, but apparently limited access, data on the extent and type of original vegetation and the extent of subsequent clearing. An exact area is not available but by visual estimate about 66% of this part of the catchment has been cleared. And from this we can make a reasonable "guestimate" at the change in runoff volumes since settlement. (Link here. If you can't access this then please follow the links here to find out why.)

We also know the mean annual rainfall at Bombala is 645mm which is quite evenly distributed throughout the year. This even distribution is also present at Nimmitabel with mean annual rainfall of 690mm. And from the work on 21 Victorian catchments by Holmes and Sinclair in 1986, as reported in Vertessy et al, 1998, “Predicting water yield from Mountain Ash catchments”, we can determine the changes in yield with some accuracy.

Where there is an annual rainfall of 700mm a forest will use 650mm while 50mm is runoff. If you clear that forest to pasture and, assuming it is not overgrazed, it will use 545mm of rain with 155mm of runoff, an increase in yield of 210 per cent.

So when we look at the catchment below the dams and above the state border we find 1/3rd uncleared land that produces 100 per cent of presettlement water yield and 2/3rds cleared land that produces 310 per cent of pre-settlement water yield. And this means that the current runoff of 804,000Ml represents (1x 0.333 + 3.1 x 0.666 = 2.4) 2.4 times the original pre-settlement flows.

Hence, the total pre-settlement flow from both cleared and uncleared land was 335,000Ml while the cleared land now delivers an additional 469,000Ml to the Victorian part of the river.

This tells us that the original pre-settlement flows at the mouth of the Snowy River consisted of;

863,000Ml from the Victorian portion;

335,000Ml from the NSW portion below the dams; and

513,000Ml from above the dams,

for a total flow of 1.711 million Ml.

And that means that the current mean annual flow of 1.644 million Ml is actually 96 per cent of the pre-settlement flow. In effect, all but 44,000Ml of the 513,000Ml that is diverted from the Snowy to the Murray is already compensated for by the increased runoff from clearing in the NSW portion.

But the downstream observers in Victoria only have visual and anecdotal references to river flows that have occurred after the upstream clearing activity has increased flows. And it is this man-made increase in river flows that they are now seeking to convert to some sort of baseline for an environmental duty of care to minimise harm. But if they succeed in getting the existing agreement implemented they will lock in an entirely unwarranted ecological surplus at the expense of the Murray system and the communities that depend on it.

The facts are that the current 4 per cent reduction in river flows is almost statistically irrelevant in terms of the normal range of variation in rainfall and runoff. For example, the 1st decile event for Bombala is only 457mm (71% of mean) and the 9th decile event is 866mm (134% of mean) for a natural range of 66 per cent of mean.

This is not to say that the 30 to 40km of river below the dam is not significantly diminished, it obviously is. But pouring $50 million worth of valuable water into the ocean is a very silly, indeed, incompetent way of fixing the problem. There is a much better way - based on the fact that the one type of water use that is most suited to recycling is water used for environmental flows.

The Snowy River itself does a great deal to assist in the recycling of its environmental flows. It traces a large, 95km, bend in the section concerned that ends only 27km away from where it starts. So the construction of a short pipeline and pumping system would enable the release of just a single day’s worth of environmental flow which could then be pumped back to the starting point (recycled) to do the same job each day for the next 364 days each year.

This would take place before the steep drop onto the Victorian lowlands and the countryside that the pipeline would need to cross is already cleared with comparatively mild undulation that is well suited to pumping and syphoning.

The key to the feasibility of this sort of recycling of environmental flows is; can we pump a megalitre of water along a 27km pipe with modest head for less than the price that a farmer would pay for the same megalitre?

Clearly, the answer is an unambiguous “Yes”.

Adelaide pumps its water 170km from the Murray River, and over a hill, presumably at an acceptable wholesale price.

Farmers in the Brisbane Valley are eager to pay for recycled Brisbane sewerage that will be pumped more than 60km.

The plan to reintroduce recycled water into Wivenhoe Dam will involve a lift of more than 100 metres and more than 40km of pipeline and be reintroduced to the urban water system at a profitable margin on a wholesale price of $170 per Ml.

So even if there was a sound case for restoring flows to the Snowy River then taking good water out of the dams is not the best option. The Greens’ target of 330,000Ml in water savings could be ploughed back into more production that will inject $132 million into towns on the Murray each year. A modest pumping load of 100Ml a day would deliver 36,500Ml of river flow to the actual section of river that needs it while leaving 36,400Ml for farmers to add $15 million worth of crop value to the remainder.

For the moment, the most inefficient water users, and those most reluctant to adopt new ideas, technology and innovations, are the Green movement and their captive departmental minions. Unlike sewerage or storm water recycling, water that is released for environmental flows needs no expensive processing to enable it to be used again, and again. And this capacity for multiple recycling gives it an entire order of magnitude greater priority than all other water efficiency options. We all need to get a lot smarter with our use of water but our self appointed environmental guardians have a lot further to go than anyone else.

More importantly, neither the federal government, nor any of the state governments would be complying with our well defined principles of "proper exercise of power" if they continue to try to develop catchment wide water allocation policies without taking the highly relevant factor of clearing induced changes in water yield since settlement into account.

To continue to do so in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence would not only be grossly negligent but may also constitute criminal conspiracy. It has to stop.

Ian Mott

Where to for the Qld Nationals?

2006-09-14T16:26:00.000+10:00

The Qld Coalition has lost another election because the evolution towards presidential style elections has exposed the squalid anti-rural bias of a very large swathe of urban voters who simply will not support a National MP as alternate Premier.

It is evidenced by Flegg's response to the question of who will be Premier if the Liberals win the majority of seats. The proper response from a true professional, who's first duty to his clients is to recognise the limits on one's own capacity to serve, would have been to say, "as I have no experience as a Minister, it would be best, for the first term, that the post of Premier be filled by someone who has (ie, Springborg)".

A follow up statement about how his sole focus was on fixing health would have boosted his credibility ten fold. But instead, the Field Marshall's baton was out of his kit, obscuring his vision, and exposing the Lance Corporal within.

The Liberals seriously believed that they could win a presidential style election by insisting that the (alternate President) Coalition leader not campaign in the South East. They demonstrated that they not only recognise the anti-rural bias in the metropolitan electorate, they manifest it themselves, in buckets.

The Nationals have to ask why they persist with this belief that the best way to serve their own community is by way of the contortions required to become "mayor of greater Brisbane". Those days are gone.

The Nationals must recognise that there is no future, for either themselves or the community they serve, as minor shareholders in a single state with a majority that is seriously prejudiced against them. To persist with this delusion is to expose their community, not just to the risk of serious institutional harm but, more likely, the certainty of serious harm.

Springborg has recognised the nature of the problem he faces and concluded that a merger of parties would ease his urban marketing woes. But that will surrender any semblance of representing the unique needs of a distinct community of interest.

The sooner the bush has it's own state, or states, the better.

First Posted on Online Opinion by Perseus, Monday, 11 September 2006 10:34:00 PM

Ten Million Misplaced Megalitres - Ian Mott

2006-07-24T10:49:00.000+10:00

Murray-Darling water policy ignores the huge increase in water yield from past clearing.

A recent report has advised that current runoff volumes in the Murray-Darling Basin may be more than double the volumes that occurred under natural conditions. Farmers in the basin have long been accused of over exploiting this water resource and the government has been under intense pressure from green lobbyists like the Wentworth Group to take back 1,500,000 megalitres to "restore" so-called "environmental equity" to the system.

But rural think tank, The Landholders Institute, has found that the increase in water yield from past clearing has been completely ignored in the flow analysis. Yet, this very same increase in water yield has been almost universally claimed to be the cause of rising water tables and a "salinity crisis". And this salinity threat was used as the primary justification for new clearing controls in Queensland and NSW.

The report, "The implications of adjusting runoff values from land clearing on water yield in the Murray-Darling Basin," has found that under the most plausible scenario the volume of this increased runoff is equal to the volume being recaptured by downstream irrigators. And this can only mean that the volumes that are currently flowing to the sea or being used by wetlands are little changed from the historical range of variation.

And this partly explains Dr Jennifer Marohasy's discovery, in "Myths and the Murray", that salinity levels in the Murray at Morgan SA had halved over the past 20 years. Salt interception schemes have helped but farmers have also been using more of the water surplus that they created by clearing in the first half of last century and the system has come back closer to historical equilibrium.

Institute Secretary, Ian Mott said, "After we had completed the work we were surprised to learn that the CRC for Catchment Hydrology had already done a similar study that concluded that about a third of current flows in the basin were surplus flows produced by land clearing. The science is very clear that above 500mm rainfall a reduction in forest cover produces a rise in water yield and, more importantly, a rise in stormflow runoff peaks. And this suggests that the flooding of some riverine wetlands may actually be more frequent today than the historical norm".

"The increase in yield from clearing varies according to rainfall totals, intensity, frequency and season but it also varies with replacement ground cover. In this study we used conservative scenarios based on a normal pasture profile and we excluded the added boost in runoff that comes from over-grazed pasture or showers that fall on recently watered crops with a full moisture profile. We also restricted our scenarios to 100%, 150% and 200% average yield increases when the weighted average yield increase for the NSW part of the basin, based on official cleared land data, came in at 285%."

"Yet, the recent House of Representatives Inquiry into future water use was presented with a "fact sheet" from the Murray Darling Basin Commission that stated that the current runoff volume in the basin, 23,850 Gigalitres per annum, was the same as the "natural" runoff. Half of this total was then assumed to have flowed to the sea under natural conditions while the other half was assumed to have been transpired and evaporated from wetlands. And it was for the so-called 'restoration' of this exaggerated natural use that calls have been made to take back allocations from farmers and punch a $billion a year hole in the basin economy."

"Of greatest concern to farmers everywhere", said Mr Mott, "was testimony provided to the Parliamentary Inquiry, by Murray-Darling Basin Commission senior executives, that appeared to confirm that this gross misrepresentation of fact was deliberate. And in light of the collective defamation and demonisation that farmers have been subjected to for more than two decades on this issue, it is essential that all relevant Ministers investigate the part played by their own departments in this disgraceful sequence of maladministration."

[see CRC report at www.catchment.crc.org.au/pdfs/technical200108.pdf ]

For a copy of "The implications of adjusting runoff values from land clearing on water yield in the Murray-Darling Basin - Mott. I.A. 2005" with supporting spreadsheets, please email
Ian at talbank@bigpond.net.au

The reports Conclusions were:

The volumes of water that constitute the natural flows of the MDB have been wrongly assumed to be unchanged from pre-settlement days. The very substantial increases in runoff that are a by-product of clearing have been deliberately ignored.

This assumption has allowed the volumes and frequencies of water that have been used by wetlands and flood plains within the natural range of variation to be grossly exaggerated.

This assumption has allowed the volumes and frequencies of water that have flowed to the sea within the natural range of variation to be grossly exaggerated.

Most, if not all, of the water being diverted from the Murray-Darling Basin is drawn from a man made surplus yield that the science is clearly capable of predicting but which the policy/science interface either refuses to recognise or has selectively applied.

This has allowed the policy process to ignore the fact that most water capture takes place in the middle levels of the catchment in major storage facilities. And this obscures the fact that vast areas of the Murray -Darling Basin above these storage facilities are in robust good health from significantly enhanced volume and frequency of flows.

And the failure to recognise this man made surplus has seriously distorted the current degree of departure from the natural range of variation in river flows and has seriously distorted the character, scale and extent of adverse environmental impacts in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The assertion that natural flows within the Murray-Darling Basin have been seriously over-allocated or seriously over-utilised has no basis in fact.

This is not to say that water is not wasted in the basin. At least 2000GL is wasted from evaporation of fresh water from a converted tidal estuary and the maintenace of fresh water "values" in that artificial system. But this "wasted" water has still delivered all the ecological services that nature expects of it as it flowed the length of the river system. But it could also make a much greater economic contribution.

The issue of man made surplus water yields is a "relevant consideration" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Commonwealth Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, which, by way of informing questions of best practice governance, may not be ignored by any policy process.

This material is of such magnitude and relevance that any discussion of water usage or balance in the Murray Darling Basin that omits this material is worse than bad science or policy, it is a misrepresentation of fact to the policy process that may also constitute official misconduct.

The Government has a clear duty to refrain from taking any actions on decisions that have already been taken without informed consent, and under inappropriate circumstances, and to fully investigate the matters raised in this report.

Pipeline Pipe-dreams

2006-07-11T12:30:00.000+10:00

As the water debate continues to be massaged into a virtual water crisis the dreamers take wing on the faintest whisper of factual breeze. And never mind the distance from the Burdekin, the latest proposal to be debated by Cairns City Council has been to duplicate the Gas pipeline on it's right-of-ways all the way to Brisbane some 1500km as the cliche flys.

As if a product that sells for $1 a tonne could be just as feasible to transport long distances as a product that sells for $500 a tonne.

But what is more curious is that even the good burgers of Cairns City appear to have accepted that the SE corner has some divine right of city dwellers to access anyone else's water whenever they think they need it. Surely, if there is going to be a shortage of water in SEQ then one might have thought that those seeking to further the interests of the far north might have been the first to tell the next half million new arrivals that there is plenty of water in the north.

But Cairns is a Labor stronghold. And while they, and other Labor representatives outside the South East, may highlight the physical attributes of the region for the tourist trade, they remain that little outpost of the far north that is, forever, Brisbane.

But surely, a Premier who governs for all Queenslanders would give the new arrivals the choice. If they want all the water they reasonably need they can buy a tank like everyone on the land does already or they can keep going north until water is no longer an issue. Yet, Beattie is spending billions to ensure that most of the population growth, and the resulting economic benefits, remain in the SE Corner.

And this begs the question;
If it is OK to spend $2 billion on water infrastructure for the exclusive use of the 2/3rds of the states population in the SE corner then where is the other $1 billion that is the rightful share of the remaining 1/3rd of Queenslanders in the real Queensland?

Or more appropriately since water is less of an issue, would they rather take their extra $ billion in road funding and health services instead? Make no mistake, part of the reason Beattie chose the Mary River as the site for a new Dam is that it is just outside the Moreton (SEQ) Statistical District and the capital outlay will then appear in the budget statistics as expenditure on the bush, for the bush. But the bush will wear the adverse impacts and get no economic benefit while the city gets all the benefit and none of the impacts. And emperor Beattie will continue to parade in his new "for all Queensland" clothes.

This guy has never governed for all Queenslanders, he is nothing more than the lord mayor of "Greater Brisbane". Where is the decentralisation policy in his plans for the state? By his deeds shall ye know him.

How Brisbane Stole Queenslands Dams

2006-06-27T16:29:00.000+10:00

Many would be intrigued to learn that the Brisbane water supply was paid for by all Queenslanders but those outside greater Brisbane have had their share sold off in a classic "asset stripping" operation.

Wivenhoe Dam cost about $400 million in 1985 and each Queenslander owned a portion of it. But the state government then sold off all but 10% of it to Brisbane City Council and the adjoining LGAs in 2000. And they threw in Somerset and North Pine Dams at no cost.

The price that the city paid for this asset owned by all Queenslanders was the same $400 million it cost in 1985. This price was calculated solely on the basis of profits being earned on this investment, as determined by the Department of Natural Resources. There was, and still is, no charge for the considerable flood mitigation benefits enjoyed by much of Brisbane despite the fact that this was the main reason for building the dam in the first place.

But the moment Lord Jim Soorley gained control of the entity the wholesale price that was charged to the council customers (also the new owners) was increased from $120 per megalitre to $170/ML. And all of this price increase was added to the net profit figure and this meant that the value of the entity was closer to $1 billion rather than the historical $400 million.

If each flood prone house or cashed up CBD corporate paid a modest amount for the insurance value of the Dams under proper user pays principles then the value of the entity would be closer to $1.5 billion. Yet, the public officers who did the original valuations were closely involved in the running of the water system before the sale and, should have been aware that there had been no wholesale price increases for many years. And the potential for future price increases should have been a major factor in determining a fair price to pay Queenslanders outside Brisbane for their share of their dam.

So each non-Brisbane Queenslander got paid only $117 for their share in the dam that was really worth $440 while each of the 1.5 million residents of greater Brisbane now have an asset worth $1,000 that they only paid $266 for.

This transaction was referred to the ASIC but no action was taken and no grounds for that decision were provided. But one can't help wondering if the current lack of rain in the Dam catchment is the revenge of the gods for some very sleazy karma.

David Suzuki Champions Regrowth Forestry!

2006-06-06T12:53:00.000+10:00

Environmental elder statesman Dr David Suzuki has identified the management of native forests for timber production as environmental "good news".
In interview on ABC's 7.30 Report, (5/3/02), Dr Suzuki challenged the basis of the Queensland Forest Agreement and the core beliefs of the Green movement by including specific examples of on-going private native forest management as "very, very serious attempts now that are working to get us off the current destructive path we're on".

Dr Suzuki has concluded that constant harping about bad news might be counterproductive. So he has written "Good News For a Change", because, "we're not going to get change if we don't acknowledge when the right moves are being made". A sceptical Kerry O'Brien asked, "What's the good news? Dr Suzuki's reply would be no surprise to family foresters. He said;

"We've got examples from a man who has owned a forest of 150 acres for 50 years. He's logged the equivalent of the entire forest over that time and he's still got more timber on his land than he had at the beginning".

"You could say that's just a small forest holding" (but) "Collins Pine is a family held company, 150 years old. They employ 7,500 people in Oregon. They do $250 million worth of business. Their forests are as rich today as they were 150 years ago. They don't make as much money, its true, as the companies that clear cut, but they have the goose that lays the golden egg. Their forest is a source of revenue and will last forever. You clear-cut a forest, you make money once and you have to wait 150 years".

These are North American examples but there is no ambiguity here, Dr Suzuki is referring to native forests that are managed for timber production. Yet, here in Queensland the green shoe brigade has repeatedly stated that the only sustainable use for a native forest is for conservation. The Beattie government accepted this statement and closed all of its own "golden egg laying geese", as Dr Suzuki describes them.

Ironically, Mr Beattie need only travel some 15 minutes from Parliament House to observe that Dr Suzuki's conclusions apply equally here. For all Dr Suzuki has done is to examine the forestry use in its entirety rather than focus only on adverse elements that normally occur on about five days in every 9,000 days of the growth/harvest cycle. He recognises that for 99.9% of a forestry operation, the only noise you will hear is birdsong. He is not trying to manufacture the need for regulatory jobs-for-the-boys, nor is he trying to demonise a minority group prior to an act of dispossession.

The same cannot be so certainly said of the Premier's cronies and their departmental minions. They have blatantly "got it wrong" on both public and private forest management but remain committed to putting existing family forestry operations out of business and replacing them with state owned plantations. And these directly prejudicial interests continue to be given an almost exclusive input into private forest policy.

Family forestry has always been a good news story, now its news.

First published in "The Regrowth Forester" 2002.

April 1st or Environment Day?

2006-06-05T14:46:00.000+10:00

The green movement is in top gear as part of their annual "scare the kids day" but this year's effort would be more appropriate for the first of April. A good example of the material being produced is "Uneconomic Power" by Steve Shallhorn, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific (Inc), on http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4512

The best insight into the feeble "greenpeace" collective wit is provided by the sentence;"In the event of a nuclear accident the costs are usually borne by others, often individuals who lose their livelihood and or their health".

Note how it starts in the conditional sense, the (remote) possibility of a nuclear accident, shifts to a generalised statement of presumed fact like, "costs are usually borne by others", and finishes with implied specific facts like "individuals lose their livelihoods and their health", all within a single sentence.

For the record, no accidents have taken place for more than 20 years, no costs have been borne by others and no-one has lost their livelihood or their health. But eco-bimbos have minds that routinely fuse hypothetical possibilities with actual recorded facts, treating them all as equally validated certainties. And the rest of the article is no exception.

The investment funds that might flow into "alternate energy", if the entire engineering/science community took a long Prozac holiday, morphs into an actual flow of investment that the nuclear industry will then capture. The fact is, the investment sector has a long and justified distrust of people who merge imagined potential with recorded results. And they avoid them, as they have done to date with "blow job energy".

There is, in contrast, an existing and potential supply of investment funds for nuclear energy. So the notion that this money would be switched from the alternate sector is pure fantasy.

Similar morphing of fact and projection was exhibited by Actor, Jack Thompson, who came out on world environment day to state that Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Chernobyl were nothing compared to global warming. Again, we have a projection of potential future mortality being compared with actual mortality as if both were detailed, proven and specific fact.

One aspect of the nuclear debate that will never get specific detail from the Greens is the issue of the actual discounted cost of long term storage. Even at 7% interest per annum, the net present value (NPV) of a dollar per year for 50 years is only $13.80 while the NPV over 60 years is still only $14.04. The extra decade of 1 dollar outlays can be paid for today with only 24 cents while the price for additional decades in perpetuity becomes infinitely smaller and smaller.
So any price charged for that service that is over and above that multiple is ALL PROFIT. And only greenfarce appears yet to learn that things rarely get done at all unless they can be done for a profit. Australia can manage this problem better than anyone else so our profit begins long before other nations costs are covered.

And lets not forget the "we don't want to live on a toxic dump" crowd who seriously suggest that there will be some sort of "nuke change", where people move from the cities to retire to a townhouse overlooking the nuke dump in the central desert.

Lets get this clear, SOLIDS DON'T LEAK! If the stuff is down a shaft in solid rock and the annual rainfall is only 100mm then the incidence of percolation of even 1mm below a depth of 1 metre is effectively zero. And if the shaft is sealed then it will need someone to go right out of their way, with some very conspicuous, noisy and expensive equipment, to get radiated. Ditto for theft.

It is an absolute disgrace the way the greens seek to imply that nuclear waste storage would be similar to your local urban rubbish tip located in the Great Artesian Basin. But that is par for the course for the bimboscenti.

First posted by Perseus, Friday, 2 June 2006 12:55:12 PM

"Sustainable City" is an oxymoron

2006-06-04T10:59:00.000+10:00

The term "Sustainable City" is an oxymoron. And will remain so for as long as metrocentrics continue to regard their city as separate to the environment. They try to balance economic, social and environmental outcomes by separating them rather than mixing them together. They gather exclusive economic and social outcomes to themselves while the ecological outcomes, and their costs, are apportioned almost exclusively to areas outside the cities. And they then criticise the overburdened farmers for excessive whinging.

The metrocentrics bear the environmental costs associated with their economic and social benefits and simplistically reason that rural folk should not complain about their lot because they enjoy compensating environmental benefits. That may be so, but health, education and most other attributes of what we regard as quality of life still cost as much, if not more, in the bush.

A truly sustainable Sydney CBD would have vegetated buffers by the Tank Stream. Building heights would be set by the height of the adjacent Blackbutts and there would still be a beach at circular quay. Instead, there is concrete everywhere. And to compensate for this failure, and to maintain a self delusion of environmental sensitivity, the workers in Phillip Street apply regulations that preclude even the most temporary of disturbances within 20 to 100 metres of any farmer's creek bank.

The urban public must understand that the essence of sustainability is balance between economic, social and environmental values and that, by definition, must incorporate limits on scale and intensity.It is the disproportion in the scale and intensity of urban living that contributes most to environmental degradation. Any excess of atmospheric CO2 is not caused by the exhaust emissions of a farmer, or farmers collectively, because their emissions are at a scale that actually fertilise their trees and pastures. There is no compensating absorbtion of urban emissions. Enter Global Warming.

Urban existence need not follow the London, LA to Mexico City model. The Swiss, with their autonomous States (Cantons) and small, high density but socially nourishing cities that remain in touch with their hinterland, are so much closer to a sustainable balance.

Any increase in population in our existing capitals comes at much greater cost than any benefit. We all know that the solution is effective decentralisation but that would require an admission by the cities to themselves as primary cause of their problem. The question is; Are our cities already too far gone to help themselves?

First posted by Perseus, Saturday, 3 June 2006 5:57:11 PM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4516

Which tank and how much will it cost?

2006-06-02T14:43:00.000+10:00

The optimum tank for your situation depends on your average use, your roof area, your rainfall, your catchment efficiency, your storage capacity, your overflows and your shortfalls. We compiled a series of spreadsheets to make sense of it all and discovered that investing in the right storage capacity is one of the lowest risk, highest return investments you can make.

The average household uses 700 litres a day or 255 kilolitres a year at a cost of 94 cents/kL or $240 a year. If that money was used to pay off a mortgage at 7% interest over the 25 year tank life then a bank would give you 11.65 times the annual payment. But in this case you are not investing for an additional benefit but simply replacing an existing outlay. Capturing your own expense is one of the lowest risk investments you can make. So it is more appropriate to use the official cash rate of 5% which also matches the average yield of a rental house. And this would set the capital value of your $240 water bill at 14.09 times, or $3,380. Spend more and your tank water will cost more than council water.

That is, until the next price increase. Projected to be 6% a year, they will double in 12 years from $0.94/kL to $1.90/kL and this differential will improve the rate of return on your investment accordingly. But even without these savings, the largest 27,000L polytank will give you $300 change from your $3380 break even point. But this is serious overkill for a house connected to mains water.

The average roof is 250m2 and each millimeter of rain makes a litre of water on each square metre of roof. And all of it can go into the tank. Your existing supplier, on the other hand, has trees and pasture in their catchment so only 5% of their rain will flow into their dam. And their storage has no roof so half of that will evaporate to give a net efficiency of 2.5% compared to your 100%.

Without recycling, the average Brisbane household needs only 1020mm of rain (89% of average) to supply all of their water needs. The spread of both rainfall and water use enables smaller tanks to be refilled many times whereas the public water system relies on one big storage that is only filled every five years. And this is a major contributor to public water inefficiency. The annual cost of your tank is covered by many times it’s own storage capacity.

All other factors being equal, the smaller the storage, the more times it will be filled and the lower the apparent cost of a captured tank full. But don’t go out and buy the littlest tank available. The smaller the tank, the sooner it will over flow. A 1000 litre tank costing $430, connected to 250m2 of roof will overflow after only 4mm of rain so most of those valuable summer storms would be wasted. The tank may fill up 264 times but the projected cost of only 12 cents/kL would be illusory because only a small portion of it would actually come out of the tap.

A 22,000 litre tank costing $2,700 would need 88mm to fill and it would lose much less to overflow. It would only fill 12 times a year to produce a projected cost of 72 cents/kL. But even this size will still lose 1.5 tanks to overflow in an average year and will need a 1.12 tank top up from the mains in a dry season. And obviously, the supply of your own water will drop in a bad year and the cost of the tank will be spread over fewer full tanks. In a year with only 81% of average rain (857mm) the average cost of water, including the additional purchases from the mains, will rise to 89 cents/kL.

In an above average year like the past 12 months with 1245mm of rain, the overflow will be greater but the amount drawn from the mains will be lower and the average cost will fall to only 82 cent/kL.

The optimum mix of limited mains extraction in dry times and limited overflow in wet seasons was a 13,500 litre tank costing $2,050. This would need additional outlay on foundations and plumbing but this would be covered by the $850 worth of council rebates. It would deliver an average water cost of 69 cents/kL in a normal year and 74cents/kL in a dry year. And only 13% of total household use would be drawn from the Dams, enabling them to perform their proper role as a supply of last resort to an urban community that has taken all reasonable steps to help itself before putting it's hand out for a public service.

Spreadsheets for modelling water needs and costs are available on request from;

Ian Mott. talbank@bigpond.com.au

Crisis? What Water Crisis?

2006-06-02T14:30:00.000+10:00

When I tell you that in Brisbane there is no water crisis, and not even a drought, you could be forgiven for checking my medication. But those who didn't come down in the last shower may recognise the debate being shaped, not so much by a conspiracy but, rather, a loose coalition of the well meaning, with opportunists, excuse makers, and outright departmental shonks. And as is often the case, the most important attributes of the truth, the hard numbers, didn’t even make it onto the interchange bench.

We have the Premier saying, "we're doing our best but I can't make it rain". Others advise that, "even 50 water tanks are no use if it doesn't rain" and before long the tightarses have run amok with mean spirited sanctions on the frail aged. And silly, costly and ineffective measures like mandatory pool blankets indicate that it is “pick on a minority time”. Soon even the most sensible start to wonder if the global warming Bunyip has teamed up with the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

So let’s put this in perspective. My family of five’s annual household expenditure is about $40,000 of which $160 is the cost of water. It amounts to 0.4 of 1% or, dare I say it, two fifths of sweet FA. And that is the proportion of our thinking time that aught reasonably be allocated to the subject. Our problem is that the government owned supplier of this water is advising us that they are unable to deliver the desired product in the volumes required or at the times we require it. And as anyone from a business background will tell you, those that cannot deliver the goods often waste excessive amounts of your time with endless excuses as to why “their” crisis must also become “your” crisis.

Furthermore, this supplier has confirmed their intention to raise their prices for this product that they will deliver less of and with less reliability. So what would an even half competent manager do? He could check the alternative suppliers, or he could bring the function “in-house” and by-pass the incompetent, monopolistic middleman. He could invest in his own value chain, with a water tank or two.

The first thing to do is check the availability of the raw material. At the Bureau of Meteorology he would be surprised to learn that there is no shortage of this raw material. The rainfall data makes it clear that the past 12 months has been far from drought. From May 2005 to April 2006, Logan in the city south had 1,245 mm, 18% above the average 1,058mm. Strathpine in the north had 1,214mm.

So what have these people been going on about? They passed up an opportunity to diversify their catchments more than a decade ago and now want to pass on the higher costs to the customers. And their two largest storages have had a bad year. Wivenhoe had only 550mm in the past year against an average of 1,007mm. Interestingly, the alternative storage at Wolffdene, the right dam, in the right place, at the right time, but vetoed by Goss, had 1,127mm. Clearly, there is a crisis of management competence, not a water crisis.

Councils cannot stop you using other sources but you must remain connected and pay the fixed annual fee of $110. This allows you to use as much water as you can collect in your own tank and only take their water as a last resort. If you are not connected you would have to cover any shortfall by trucking in water at 10 times the cost as some acreage dwellers and farmers sometimes do already.

And never mind the “health concerns”. More than 15 % of Australian households already use tank water, including 37% in Adelaide, and there appears to be no variation between the two in the incidence of water borne ailments. It is a remarkably convenient urban myth that furthers the interests of the public sector water mafia. You are more likely to get sick from your refrigerator, but if managing a fridge is beyond you then, by all means, don’t get a water tank.

A water tank allows you the sweetest pleasure of having as little as possible to do with a whole cohort of bozos who want to share their problem with anyone gullible enough to put up with it.

You’ll save money and make a profitable investment in your own home.

Whats wrong with the Qld forestry code of practice (3)

2006-03-24T12:22:00.000+10:00

Part 2 Exposing the over-inflated need for HBTs (Continued)

11. No assessment has been made of species propensity to co-occupy different hollows in the same tree on the same day or the resulting sensitivity to HBT needs.

Wormington (p147) reports that in up to 16% of observations, two different species co-occupied a HBT on the same day. And this was in a drought year with reduced animal densities. It is a behaviour that is more likely to take place in good seasons when the animal density is higher and the demand for hollows is greater. It is clearly another strategy through which animals ensure that any short term contraction in HBT supply does not lead to species collapse.

12. They fail to consider the “musical chairs effect” in the provision of den diversity.

Much has been made of the Greater Glider’s supposed need to occupy many hollows but they can still only occupy one hollow at a time. It is true that animals do use a number of hollows within their range but this does not mean there must be a surplus over actual usage. And there is no evidence that this usage must be exclusive over time.

Arboreal mammals achieve the variation in den sites in the same way that children in a game of musical chairs enjoy variation in sitting location. And unlike in the game, if the number of chairs is equal to or exceeds the number of participants then the game can go on indefinitely and produce no losers.

To further punish the analogy, in the forest habitat game, some chairs are for big people and some are for small people but some chairs can also sit two people of different sizes. Indeed, a whole family can sit on one chair and in these circumstances having too many chairs may actually inhibit access to the table where the cake and candles are.

13. Wormington’s estimations of age at which species form hollows appears inconsistent with observed evidence.

Wormington (p108) provides estimates of the age at which various species will form hollows. His Figure 6.6 appears to have used the aggregated PAI data from the DPIF permanent plots to justify result that most private forest owners would regard as absurd.

His Table 6.8 (p109) suggests, for example, that >50% of stems will have hollows when Eucalyptus citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) reach 61cm DBH. This may or may not be the case in private forests but the suggestion that the tree would have to be 220 years old to reach that DBH is far from the case in private forests.

The estimate is at substantial variance with the 15 year old example of this species in my own front yard that is already 43cm DBH. And to suggest that this tree will need another 205 years to achieve a DBH of 61 cm is to seriously test the credibility of the claimant.

It is possible that growth rates in a publicly owned forest, with a history of negligent and culpable mismanagement of a valuable asset, may achieve highly degraded growth rates. This would be especially so if the stand had an over burden of non-contributive stems, and understorey competition that impaired the growth of the stem in question. It would also be true if the tree was the only good nosh in the paddock and it was continually over-grazed by four legged caterpillars.

But what is absolutely clear is the fact that the estimates of time taken for new HBTs to form in public forests are totally inappropriate for use in private forests. Indeed, photographic records are available that are fully capable of establishing that new HBTs can be created within the time it takes for most dead stags to collapse. That is, within 60 years.

There is no evidence to suggest that there is any significant gap between the rate at which stags become non-contributive as HBTs and the rate at which new contributive HBTs can be recruited. Consequently, the need for any recruitment HBTs should not exceed the existing number of dead stags that contribute to any retained HBT requirement.

14. No attempt has been made to determine the full cost of HBT retention.

The cost of a recruitment habitat tree is not it’s stumpage value. Many private forestry uses are in association with the small (formerly) licensed mills and many others are in association with on-site portable milling. Other forests that are not directly associated with portable milling retain an indirect association through contract milling and a complex network of barter deals based on full retail value of sawn timber.

So even if there was a pretext for only using stumpage value to measure the costs of Code of Practice prescriptions in public sector forests, this is totally inappropriate for private forestry.

A typical recruitment habitat tree of 60cm DBH is likely to have a round wood volume of 3m3 each. This would produce 1.5m3 of sawn timber with a minimum value of $800/m3 or $1,200 each. So 11 such recruitment trees in a hectare of young remnant would amount to $13,200 in foregone income from profits and personal exertion per hectare.
If these proceeds were paid against a typical mortgage at 6.5% interest then annual savings of $858 per hectare will accrue to the beneficiary for the term of the loan. And the net present value of such a foregone saving is 10.5 times the annual benefit, or $9009 per hectare.

And to this must be added the value of timber that may have grown where the recruitment HBTs have occupied space or for which the harvest date has been postponed due to impaired growth rates. At a loss of only 2m3 in annual growth/ha this amounts to an additional $800 per hectare with a net present value of about $4,000. This puts the total cost of an 11 recruitment habitat tree prescription at $26,200/ha. And we don’t even get a tax credit for it.

15. There has been no examination of alternatives to HBTs where none exist.

The forest and wood products industry employs an extraordinary range of tools, techniques and technologies to produce an even greater range of products. Trees are specifically grown for specialised uses from cricket bats to masts. Wood is sawn, split, shaven, carved and chipped. It is dried, moulded, bent, glued, nailed, bolted, coopered, laminated and, recently, micro-waved and resin impregnated. It is painted, impregnated, coated and reconstituted.

It produces paper, cardboard, fibreboard, plywood, laminated veneers, mouldings, structural timber, beams and planking. It produced one of the best fighter planes of its time, the Japanese Zero, the 3000 tonne ships of Ming Admiral Cheng Ho, railway carriages, trucks, buggies, drays and wheelbarrows that built nations. It produces windmills, windlasses, propellers, pumps, cranes, boxes and furniture. It produces newspapers, chip wrappers, books, packages, tetra packs and tubing. It produces an outstanding array of dwellings from kennels, cages, barns, stables, cabins, houses, apartments, castles, churches and parliaments.

All these splendid transformations for the betterment of mankind and his environment begin in a forest. They are anticipated by, and dependent on, an on-going forestry purpose. But not one of these century old and even millennia old technologies has been considered as a means through which the dwelling needs of wildlife can be met in those very same forests.

A private forest owner with few HBTs left after historical compulsory clearing must set aside up to 11 perfectly good sawlogs/ha to wait, dumbly and inefficiently, for up to a century, until age, termites and pure chance can provide a service that his wildlife dependents are supposed to be in urgent of need right now.

In a landscape that has been extensively modified by man, it seems the only creatures that are to be excluded from enjoying any benefit from man’s intellect are the creatures that can be adversely affected by his actions. But even this exclusion is a selective one based on discrimination by occupational class.

As the brochure (34) says, “The Land for Wildlife program is proudly co-ordinated by the Queensland Government, Environmental Protection Agency & Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service”. It is also supported by the Natural Heritage Trust through the Bushcare program, Greening Australia and 61 local councils, funded by 14 councils in SE Queensland.

Land for Wildlife Note 19 (35) is specifically titled, “Nest boxes for native wildlife”. It recognises that HBTs can, and have been, depleted and states that “nest boxes can help species survive by providing artificial hollows for breeding and shelter”. A number of references are also provided as well as links to the web sites of nest box makers such as The Australian Nest Box Company (37).

This company sells a range of boxes for the large Possums, smaller Gliders and many bird species with prices ranging from $35 for kits and up to $95 for fully assembled and painted products. They highlight the preferences of various species, advise on multiple users, occupancy rates etc, and include a trap for feral pests like the Indian Myna. And their major customers appear to be local councils throughout the country who have allocated significant budgets for this purpose.

So if these measures are not effective, then why are they spending this money? The aim of the program is obviously to provide hollows for the period it takes for HBTs to form in forests where they are not present. These community owned forests do not have an on-going forestry purpose so there is no foregone production or economic loss that may result from waiting for a perfectly good tree to form hollows.

This is not the case with existing forestry uses. The cost of providing hollows by entirely natural means is very significant and this significance places a burden on any regulatory process to assess alternatives for that delivery.

And if a legal obligation exists for forest owners to provide housing for dependent wildlife households, one must ask, why is such a long delay in delivery of this obligation regarded as acceptable? And one must also ask, if this obligation applies to the owners of native forest without HBTs then why does it not also apply to the owners of plantations without HBTs. Are they not also subject to the environmental duty of care?

Clearly, artificial nest boxes can provide for the housing needs of all dependent wildlife. And despite the relative immaturity of this industry sector, they have already demonstrated the capacity to address this environmental need for a fraction of the cost of the prescribed natural alternative.

It must also be stated that far superior options with lower costs, cheaper and more efficient installation and relocation, easier inspection and maintenance and enhanced resistance to fire and harvest damage have already been tested and found to be preferred by wildlife over most natural hollows. But this intellectual property will remain suppressed until the socio-legal treatment of forest owners returns to accepted community benchmarks.

Conclusions

The sum of the above mentioned errors and omissions leaves little room for doubt that the need for the current HBT retention prescriptions has been based on partial and fragmentary statements of fact, false assumptions and questionable conclusions from selected primary data.

The natural climatic and seasonal range of variation in animal density has not even been studied properly, let alone understood. This ignorance has been exacerbated by an ‘in full knowledge’ failure to consider the extent to which arboreal mammals form family groups to co-occupy nest hollows with resulting over estimation of hollow needs.

A fundamental failure has occurred, to consider the ways in which species adjust their ranges, family size and reproductive behaviour to cope with climate based population peaks and troughs and the resulting changes to the relative supply of Habitat Trees.

A fundamental failure has also occurred, to recognise a clearly inelastic relationship between HBTs and species diversity and density over the ‘whole number’ portion of the graphs the relevant ‘experts’ have been studying. This has obscured the actual point of potential species collapse which most likely exists in the fractional scale between zero HBTs/ha and 0.5 HBTs/ha.

There has also been a fundamental perceptual problem in the minds of the people responsible for examining this issue. They have assumed that the survival of species is contingent on their capacity to maximise population in good seasons. This is the only time when anything approaching a shortage of HBTs would be evident.

But the overwhelming evidence indicates that they have got it the wrong way round. Species survival depends primarily on their capacity to survive on the minimal food resources in a bad season. It is this surviving remnant that determines the size of a good season population surge. But there is no shortage of available hollows for a depleted dry season population.

The current departmental position is the ecological equivalent of suggesting that the survival of starving Africans in a famine is dependent on them maximising their birth rate in good seasons. It is the very opposite of the inescapable truth and as equally dangerous.

The detailed modelling of Wormington’s actual plot samples that is attached to this paper is fully capable of advising the policy process on the actual need for retained HBTs under the Code. It is also capable of examining the sensitivity of various levels of HBT retention to both underestimation of populations and actual population changes. And the proper use of such a model, once available, would appear to be a minimum requirement for satisfying the Minister’s general duty of care.

The detriment that forest owners may suffer from the negligent investigation of the need for, and utility of, the habitat tree prescriptions under the code is very significant and entirely foreseeable.

We urge the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, and The Premier of Queensland, to take all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure that any detriment that private forest owners may suffer is minimised. For the harm that forest owners may suffer from misapplication of measures is not quarantined from the broader community.

Many forest owners are starting to question whether the community this Minister represents is still worth them donating their time to causes like the rural fire service. They often form the core expertise of such groups and risk their life on-call and often leave their own family vulnerable while they protect the wider community. And they could not help but notice that nowhere, in either the Vegetation Management Act 1999 or in this Code, is there even the slightest provision, or trace of any obligation on the Minister’s part, to maintain what used to be called the cardinal principle of forest management. That is, there appears to be not the slightest desire, on the part of the community this government represents, to ensure that their forest is capable of producing timber in perpetuity.

It would appear, from the matters raised in this paper, that the social contract between the community and private forest owners has been abrogated. And in this circumstance, forest owners have a duty to themselves and their families to reassess the nature and content of any contributions that they have been making to a community that no longer treats them equally before the law.

To paraphrase ‘70’s rock group ‘The Eagles”, in their classic, “The Last Resort”,

“They will provide the grand design, of what is yours and what is mine.
Then try to make a new frontier, by driving families out of here.
They called it sustainable, I don’t know why.
If they call something sustainable, then kiss it all good-by”.

Ian Mott
Secretary, The Landholders Institute Inc.
PO Box 5375 Manly Qld 4179
Ph. (07) 38930612
talbank@bigpond.com.au

References

1 Ratnapala, S. Vegetation Management In Qld, IPA Review 12/2004 (p10) See http://www.ipa.org.au/
2 Judicial Review Act 1991 See http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/
3 Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 See http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/
4 Criminal Code Act 1899 See http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/
5 Code applying to a forest practice on freehold land. See http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/
6 Qld DNRM, Habitat Tree Technical Advisory Group, Managing Habitat Trees in Qld Forests, 4/1998 Lamb. D, Loyn. R, Smith. A, & Wilkinson. G.
7 Op. cit. (p38)
8 Qld Herbarium. “Coreveg” unpublished data set for normal height & canopy cover.
9 Smith. C & Lees, N. 1998, Density and distribution of habitat trees required to support viable populations of hollow dependent species, Qld DNRM.
10 Ross, Y. 1998, Hollow bearing trees in native forest permanent inventory plots in SEQ. Qld DNRM.
11 Wormington, K. 2003. The habitat requirements of arboreal marsupials in the dry sclerophyll forests of SEQ. PhD. Thesis, University of Qld.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid. Appendix I (p21)
14 Ibid. (p6)
15 Op. cit (p6)
16 Op. cit Fig 5a & 5b (p56)
17 Op. cit (p20)
18 Ibid. (p20)
19 Strahan, R. Ed. 1995. The Mammals of Australia, Aust. Museum/Reed (p264)
20 Op. cit (p26)
21 Op. cit (p271)
22 Op. cit (p22)
23 Op. cit
24 Op. cit Table 3a & 3b, (p47)
25 Op. cit Table 5. and Figs 2a to 4b (p52)
26 Op. cit (p24)
27 Smith, A. & Lindenmayer, D. 1998 Tree hollow requirements of Leadbeaters Possum and other possums and gliders in timber production ash forests of the Vic. Central Highlands Aust. Wildl. Res. 15: (p347-362)
28 Op. cit (p52-56)
29 Op. cit (p22)
30 Op. cit Smith & Lees Fig 5a & 5b (p56)
31 Ibid.
32 Op. cit HTTAG (p23)
33 Op. cit Strahan (p263)
34 Land for Wildlife program. 2003 Qld Government, Environment Protection Agency.
35 Op. cit Land for Wildlife Note 19
36 The Australian Nest Box Company. See http://users.bigpond.net.au/ozbox

Whats wrong with the Qld forestry code of practice (2)

2006-03-24T11:52:00.000+10:00

Part 2: Exposing the over-inflated need for HBTs.

The excessive prescription outlined above can only seek justification with an over-inflated need for that prescription. And the DNRM responded accordingly. Foremost amongst recent efforts has been the very same Habitat Tree Technical Advisory Group as mentioned above.

The primary inputs for their work came from then QDNR’s Resource Science Centre with papers by Smith and Lees (9), called Density and distribution of habitat trees required to support viable populations of hollow dependent species, and by Ross (10) on Hollow bearing trees in native forest permanent inventory plots in SEQ.

More recently, this has been followed by a doctoral thesis by Wormington(11), under the supervision of the same D. Lamb above, on The habitat requirements of arboreal marsupials in the dry sclerophyll forests of SEQ. The unpublished paper was quoted by the HTTAG.

And the body of these works have the following flaws which, consequently, amount to flaws in the policy development process;

1. None of the reports distinguish between hollow use and hollow dependence.

Many species that use tree hollows also use other forms of shelter and many are very adept at either building their own nests or using the nests of others. These are not “hollow dependent species.” Analysis of a core requirement for tree hollows must address partial dependence to focus on the extent to which species must have tree hollows to maintain their life cycles.

Of the arboreal mammals listed as hollow dependent, the Brushtail, the Mountain Brushtail, the Ringtail, the Sugar and Squirrel Gliders (essentially the one species as they interbreed with viable progeny) are known to use many other forms of shelter for some of the time. Feathertails rarely use hollows >6cm, use curled bark and nest in grass trees.

2. They all assume some minimal number of hollows will produce species collapse.

The evidence from suburbia, orchards and regrowth forests proves that this is simply not true. Contrary to the efforts of the department to suggest otherwise, these areas produce surpluses of what has always been the primary determinant of species density and richness, food.

My suburban roof top is routinely the venue for noisy fighting and fornication of two so-called hollow dependent species (Ringtail and Brushtail Possums) that not only maintain their prefix, “Common”, but do so in densities well above those exhibited by forests under the so-called “protection” of the public sector. Their home range is less than half a hectare. They are outnumbered by feline predators but have been fruitful and have multiplied without a single hollow bearing tree. They have built one nest in my Macadamia tree, another in my Bamboo but, like students in a well misspent youth, sleep in a number of beds of opportunity.

The point at which these animals might experience ‘species collapse’ is obviously less than zero HBTs/ha.

A number of Foresters with experience predating the “habitat tree fetish” have observed that the greatest concentrations of Yellow Bellied Gliders were found in “extensively modified coupes”. This term generally meant no retained non-commercial stems and certainly no retained hollow bearing trees. They did, however, produce widely spaced stems with increased soil moisture reserves, improved and extended microbial soil fertility, more nutritious sap, bud and leaf material, for a greater part of the year, in vigorously growing stems that the Gliders simply knew as food.

Wormington(12) makes it very clear that population density is highly dependent on the nutritional value of eucalypts. And in the case of silviculturally neglected publicly owned Dry Sclerophyll forest this means the extent of E. citriodora in the stand. The results from private regrowth or remnant that has been well spaced, with weed control and Super-phosphate treatment is likely to be quite different.

3. No surveys of sites without HBTs have been done to test the ‘species collapse’ theory.

If the species collapse theory has any basis in fact then forest stands without HBTs will have no arboreal mammals present. For these sites will have fallen below this theoretical threshold, whatever it is. But whenever it is suggested that such a survey should be conducted to clarify the matter we have always been told of the difficulty in gaining access to the private forest sites that are assumed to be the only places such a survey could take place.

But this is not the case. A close examination of the 390 Permanent Inventory Plots data used by Ross (13) reveals that there is an abundance of sites without HBTs in the public forest estate that could settle this question if the political and departmental will to do so was present. But one could be excused for not realising this fact.

For Ross has seriously misreported the proportion of plots without HBTs and when these errors are corrected we get a very different picture of this resource. In her Table 1 (14) the number of plots with hollows present was put at 323 when the actual records in her Appendix 1 came to only251. The number of plots without hollows was put at 67 when the actual records in her Appendix 1 came to 139 such plots. The numbers under the heading “Plot count” did not even add up, although the totals row did. The table below shows the actual area of plots without hollows to be 33.6%.

Table 1. SEQ Permanent Inventory Plots without Hollow Bearing Trees

Revised from Table 1, of Ross; Stand density of trees & stags in SEQ permanent plots
Broad Plot count Plots Plot Hollows present Plot Hollows absent Plot %
forest Hollows Hollows Total fauna area plot size area plot size area without
type present absent survey (ha) 0.5 0.404 (ha) 0.5 0.404 (ha) Hollows
1 38 22 60 35 28.1 31 7 18.3 9 13 9.8 34.7%
2 92 30 122 25 57.6 72 20 44.1 15 15 13.6 23.5%
3 2 2 4 2 1.8 1 1 0.9 1 1 0.9 50.0%
4 82 25 107 23 50.0 61 21 39.0 10 15 11.1 22.1%
5 37 60 97 43.0 27 10 17.5 13 47 25.5 59.2%
Total 251 139 390 85 180.6 With hollows 119.84 Without hollows 60.76 33.6%

Broad Forest Type =

1 Coastal Dry Sclerophyll, 2 Inland Dry Sclerophyll, 3 Coastal Wet Hardwood, 4 Coastal Moist Hardwood, 5 Cypress

The fifth column(sic) lists the number of plots in each broad forest type that are reported to have had fauna surveys conducted on them. Clearly, there is sufficient number of plots without hollows to enable fauna surveys of an equally representative sample of these. And from this we can conclude that either;
a) an executive decision was made to avoid surveying these plots, or
b) a larger survey actually took place but these records have not been used or reported on for political reasons, or
c) the existing survey includes a number of plots without hollows but the results have been aggregated.

The significance of this is in the implications of hollow tree density and animal and species density across the forest estate. For Ross’ Table 2 (15) averages the total number of recorded hollow trees and stags over the total area of plots to give a mean of 10.2/ha. But there are two very distinct forest classes within this set for which the number of HBTs has a major bearing on animal and species density.

For example, when we allocate the 301 recorded hollows in the Coastal Dry Sclerophyll (BFT1) class to the 18.3ha of plot area with hollows we get a mean of 16.45 hollow stems/ha (up from 10.5/ha) in this class and zero in the remainder. The 149 recorded live stems amounts to a mean of 8.14 hollow stems/ha (up from 5.1/ha) in this class. The 166 >10cm hollow trees and stags produce a mean of 9.07/ha (up from 5.9/ha) and the 67 live >10cm hollow trees produce a mean of 3.66/ha (up from 2.3/ha) and zero in the remainder.

Similar results are produced in the other broad forest types with mean hollow stems/ha, on actual sites with hollows, amounting to;

Broad Forest Type All hollows >10cm hollows
Coastal Dry Sclerophyll (BFT1) 6.45/ha, 9.07/ha,
Inland Dry Sclerophyll (BFT2) 12.66/ha, 7.44/ha,
Coastal Moist Hardwood (BFT4) 18.21/ha, 7.13/ha, and
Cypress (BFT5) 17.62/ha 10.74/ha .

And it is worth noting that this number of hollow stems is well into the zone that is apparent in the graphs of Smith & Lees (16) (Fig 5a & 5b p56) where mammal and bird density is in decline. It should also be noted that Wormington,(17) (p20) who measured all hollows not just >10cm ones, found that, “The number of species also declined when the number of hollow bearing trees was >13/ha” (these sites also had low proportions of C. citriodora).

Clearly, fauna surveys of the plots without hollows are no more problematic than the ones that have already been carried out. The absence of data from these plots represents an absence of information that is likely to be highly relevant to the decision on appropriate levels of HBT retention under any Code of Practice.

4. They fail to conduct any research that would assist in identifying the threshold number of HBTs.

Both Smith & Lees and Wormington have speculated that species decline begins when HBTs are less than 4/ha but this is from a very limited sample. Wormington states, (18) (p20) “The maximum number of 5 arboreal species was found at sites with 3.67 to 13 hollow bearing trees/ha and higher proportions of the total stand C. citriodora”.

But examination of the plot records reveal a very limited sample of only 5 of the 38 (or possibly 76) records had five species present. And the composition of the species reveals that the fourth and fifth species at each site were all capable of using other nest sources.
Of the 10 encounters that made up these claimed examples of ‘maximum species diversity’;

3 were Feather tailed Gliders that according to Smith & Lees, make use of curled bark, old birds nests and possum Dreys. Strahan (19) (p264) reports of nests in the dried fronds of our abundant grass-trees, (Xanthorrhoea sp.) “and a wide variety of other niches”.
· 3 were Sugar Gliders that according to Smith & Lees, make use of Blackberry bushes, rock piles and Dreys. And Wormington (20) (p26) has pointed out that, “The density of Sugar Gliders did not appear to be correlated with the density of hollow bearing trees. The sites where Sugar Gliders were present spanned the range of HBTs from 2 to 20/ha. Instead, the density of understorey Acacia influenced the number of encounters with SG.” Absent Acacia, absent ‘maximum species diversity’.
· 2 were Common Ringtail Possums that according to Smith & Lees, make use of dense vegetation, aerial debris, hollow logs (on ground) peeling bark and, of course, possum Dreys. Other sites of relevance to the COP for freehold forests would include, sheds, power boxes, mailboxes, old vehicle panels, empty cans, Banana bunches and termite nests.
· 1 was a Mountain Brushtail that according to Smith & Lees, make use of stumps, logs and burrows and to which Strahan (21) (p271) adds epiphytes.
· 1 was a Squirrel Glider, essentially the same species as the Sugar Glider. Smith & Lees have not recorded other den sites but as they interbreed with Sugar Gliders we can reasonably assume that they are capable of utilising the same alternative den sites.

The species that made up the fourth record on the five plots with four species also came from the above list so there is no basis for concluding that HBTs were essential in achieving more than 3 species per plot. HBTs are merely an association with maximum species diversity, not a pre-condition for it.

And given that there are 139 plots with no HBTs at all then it would seem that there is sufficient scope to create HBTs in some of them (more than 10 plots each), and modify some of the overstocked plots, to provide a sufficient sample of plots with 0.5,1, 2, 3 and 4 HBTs/ha to determine where this threshold might be. But that, of course, might involve an unencumbered departmental whit and the sacrifice of a few sacred cows.

5. No attempt has been made to reconcile the HBT retention prescriptions with the actual animal density and range of densities found in the public forest estate.

The HTTAG (22) carefully avoided this issue by ensuring that this material was embedded in Smith & Lees’ work. Any references that would normally be expected to perform the essential informing role of statements of fact were ‘weaselled’ off to the model so that any resulting misstatements would be less easily traced to the HTTAG. A good example of this tenuously coherent bunkum can be found on p22 and 23 of their report. The clear purpose of technical advisory groups is not to find the truth but, rather, to obscure responsibility for un-truths. And HTTAG appears to be no exception.
Nowhere in the HTTAG terms of reference, and certainly not amongst the 11 “Reporting Requirements” questions that were asked of the group, is the absolutely critical question;
“What is the nature, size and distribution of the actual population we are seeking to provide adequate housing for?”

Question 3 gives the initial appearance of doing this but no such answer is forthcoming. The question goes on to request answers for the 5 broad forest types used by Smith & Lees but the answers from page 20 to 25, and particularly the Table 2 (23) data provided by Smith, uses different descriptions of only 3 types and fewer samples than the actual source material from Smith & Lees(24) (their table 3a & 3b, p47) This does not appear to be designed to inform.

The estimates of bird and mammal density provided by Smith and reproduced by HTTAG appear to be approximately double the numbers used in Smith & Lees’ Table 5. (25) and in their graphs (Figs 2a to 4b p52) This appears to have been done through (26) “our belief that densities of hollow dependent fauna are underestimates.” (p24) HTTAG put the range of mammals as 1.1 to 2.3/ha while the actual recorded average densities of hollow dependent fauna recorded by Smith & Lees was;

Broad Forest Type SG SqG YbG GG CBP MBP CRP All Species
Coastal Dry Sclerophyll 0.30 0.12 0.48 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.08
Inland Dry Sclerophyll 0.15 0.00 0.26 0.10 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.82
Coastal Wet Hardwood 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00
Coastal Moist Hardwood 0.29 0.06 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.75 .

But it is at the top of HTTAG p23 where the real smoke and mirrors begins with the quote from Smith & Lindenmayer (27) which says, “the number of arboreal mammals in 3 hectare sample plots has been shown to increase approximately linearly (my emphasis) with both the number of habitat trees and the portion of quarter hectare sub-plots with habitat trees.”

This approximate linearity appears to be a new synonym for the more familiar term, “barely linear” or almost linear but not quite. And the term means nothing without information on the actual elasticity, or slope, (the degree of change in one variable caused by another variable) of this approximately linear relationship. Smith & Lees graphs (28) and, from memory Smith & Lindenmayers, reveal a linearity that is at first barely elastic (a very gentle upward slope) followed by a majority of zero elasticity (i.e., horizontal) and ultimately to negative elasticity (a downward slope indicating that more HBTs mean fewer mammals).

And in every other field of science this is generally regarded as indicating that the two elements are unrelated. This is especially the case when small samples are also involved. So the linear models that predicted that maximum arboreal mammal density occurs when there are 6 HBTs per hectare have modelled a relationship that barely exists.

As the HTTAG states (29) (p22)

“The concept of maximum habitat tree density is based on an assumption that the density of hollow dependent fauna increases with the density of tree hollows then plateaus once a level (maximum habitat tree density) has been reached above which populations are no longer limited by hollows, but by other habitat factors such as a shortage of food.”

One can have no problem with this. And one must agree with the next sentence by HTTAG that calls for “analysing the empirical relationships between the observed density of hollow dependent fauna and the density of tree hollows in a wide range of forest types”. The problem is that they are yet to do so.

The relationship is likely to exist but if it does exist it will take the form of a steep slope. And in the absence of a steep, elastic slope, one can only conclude that they have been modelling in the parts of the curve where the relationship does not exist. That is, they have been modelling in units that are too large to detect the change.

Smith & Lees (30) (Fig 5a & 5b p56) have modelled in units of 2 HBTs from 2,4,6 & 8 etc, and this precludes the possibility of detecting significant slope changes between zero and the first record at 2. And a simple examination of one of the mammals concerned will reveal why the relationship is not present in the modelling and why the outputs from the modelling are pure bunkum.

Yellow Bellied Gliders, for example, have a home range from 30 to 70ha. So in a theoretical forest where only YBGs existed, the point at which one house is provided to one household would be somewhere between 0.033 and 0.014 HBTs/ha. So any issues about how many hollows are needed by each household will only be resolved by a capacity to model in units as small as 0.01 of a habitat tree.

For birds, the demands on the accuracy of the model are even greater. The Powerful Owl has a home range from 300 to 1500ha so the point at which one house is provided to one Powerful Owl household is somewhere between 0.0033 and 0.0006 HBTs. So the number of hollows required by the full suite of hollow nesting species will only be resolved by a capacity to model in units as small as one divided by the largest home range (in hectares).

6. No attempt has been made to incorporate the most basic of demographic tools, the known data on species households and breeding cycles, to determine the actual number of hollow dependent households per hectare.

It is on this issue that we regret to advise that all of the main publicly funded inputs to this policy process appear to have made serious misrepresentations of fact to this policy process.

Smith & Lees (31) have attempted to calculate two equations for the HTTAG;
Equation 1 - Hollows required per hectare for each individual of each species, and
Equation 2 – Hollows required per hectare for all individuals of all species on the land unit.

In the course of doing so they have made the following extraordinary statements under the headings of “assumptions” but which read more like rationalisations. They said,
· “Owing to simplicity of calculation, time constraints and our belief that densities of hollow dependent fauna are underestimates, we calculated hollow requirements based on the assumption that all species were solitary. Clearly this is not the case for communal nesting species, such as the Yellow-Bellied Glider (and Sugar Gliders, Squirrel Gliders, Feathertails and, to a lesser extent, the Brushtails and Ringtails). Equation 1 below will need to be modified when recognition is made (does this mean when the scam is uncovered?) of communal nesting or that one tree with multiple hollows may be used by a number of species simultaneously.”
· “Figures used for home range size and the number of hollows occupied per home range are independent of habitat type due to the limited information available.”

Armed with this blank cheque Equation 1 was determined as;

No hollows required/ha = No hollows used per individual per home range / home range size (ha)

That is, what they use is assumed to be what they must have. The number of hollows/ha for each species is then multiplied in Equation 2 by the average density of each species/ha and added up to get what is claimed to be the total requirement for hollows/ha. But this is also subject to the following assumptions or rationalisations;

“This is a cautious approach to cater for known inadequacies in sampling techniques and the possibility that wildlife densities are underestimated.”

· “Individual tree hollows are rarely shared between species
· Trees are rarely shared by individuals of the same or different species, despite the number of hollows they contain.”

And they then state, “In reality these assumptions are not necessarily true, but provide for a precautionary approach and simplicity in Equation 2 below.”

So we have a doubling of the initial input of estimated animal density as shown in point 5 above, followed by an assumption that all species were solitary in Equation 1 that clearly overstates the hollow needs of some species by a factor of 5 or more, followed by an assumption that no trees are shared in Equation 2 that also overstates hollow needs by a factor equal to the number of species present. They have adjusted for the perceived underestimate of numbers at every step in the process and have justified it under “a precautionary approach”.

This may not have been a problem if HTTAG had not then stated (32) (p23) that;

“Maximum habitat tree densities required by these groups have been estimated theoretically from their natural density in forest habitats after taking into account a range of factors (my emphasis) such as;
· Nest group size, or the average number of individuals occupying each hollow;
· Species territoriality and the ability to co-occupy hollows in the same tree or different trees in the same cluster;
· Species requirements for multiple hollows within their home range if any;
· Competition between and within species for access to hollows of different size and type; and
· The average numbers of useable hollows per tree.”

To this one can only say, these theoretical estimates have not taken nest group size into account very well. The “not necessarily true” assumptions used by Smith & Lees have not been properly modified for incorporation into the calculation. Indeed, Equation 2, with its incorporation of the actual density/ha of each species has been abandoned.

It was replaced by a generality, a rule of thumb that has supposedly been derived from the above mentioned modelling (of the inelastic portion of the curve). HTTAG said;

“These models can be used to derive a rule of thumb which states that 1.2 habitat trees are required for every arboreal mammal species present(including Antechinus) or 2 habitat trees are required for every large hollow using possum and glider present (excluding Antechinus, Acrobates (Feathertail) and Cercartetus (Pygmy Possum).”

And it is here where the logic stumbles into a worm hole and leaps to hyper space, perchance to orbit around the “Klingon Home World”, when HTTAG goes on to state,

“Thus, in a forest with the potential (my emphasis) to support 2 large possums and gliders per hectare, the maximum habitat tree density (for arboreal mammals only) should be 4 habitat trees per hectare.”

This is the last sign of the already tenuous relationship of HTTAG with actual animal density per hectare. In a single paragraph they have switched from actual animals present to potential animals and those partially present animals have become whole ones needing 2 HBTs each.

So the mere potential for the presence of one Yellow Bellied Glider that dens with its family unit on one or two HBTs somewhere on the surrounding 70 hectares, is assumed to require 2 HBTs on every one of those surrounding 70 hectares. An actual presence of 1/70th of an animal/ha (0.0143) has been “taken into account” as a whole animal on each hectare.

The fact that the HTTAG had full access to the work of Smith & Lees, and can reasonably be expected to have read and understand the significance of the assumptions to the role of animal density in hollow use, then there are grounds to conclude that the above statement is a false and misleading misstatement of fact, that appears to have been made with a knowledge of its untruth.

HTTAG had been properly informed of the significance of actual animal density and the relevance of family unit size. And they chose to ignore the issue.

For the record, the reported range of sizes of family units of the relevant arboreal mammals are;
Feathertail Glider – Strahan(33) (p263) advises groups up to 16 in the wild and 22 in captivity and reports that captive breeding will not take place if they are maintained in pairs but breeding will take place in a larger social group. Smith & Lees (p32) cite Agnew 1996 as claiming den sizes of only 1 to 6 animals. For this analysis we will assume a mean grouping of 8 per den.
Sugar Glider – Strahan (p230) advises groups of up to 7 adults and their young of the season (2 per female, and 2 litters in a good year) in one nest with adolescents dispersing into smaller transient groups when 7 to 10 months old. Some are members of 2 groups with high mortality in 1st year of independence. Smith & Lees cite Quinn 1995 and Suckling 1984 as claiming den sizes of 2 to 7 animals. Wormington also cites Quinn’s 7 adults in 4 age classes (3 M, 4 F) and, presumably the current years offspring. For this analysis we will assume a mean grouping of only 5 per den.
Squirrel Glider - Strahan (p234) advises “Typically, a family group comprises one mature male (2+yrs), one or more adult females and their associated offspring of the season. Occasionally one or more young males (>2 years old) may also be associated with a group of up to 10 animals, including as many as 5 adults.” He also advises that SqG and SG breeding times and growth and development are “strikingly similar” i.e., 2 young per female and 2 litters in a good year. Smith & Lees cite Goldingay & Possingham as indicating den sizes of 2 to 9 animals. Wormington (p167) also cites Quinn as indicating an average of 2.9 animals per den. For this analysis we will assume a mean grouping of 2.9 per den.
Yellow Bellied Glider - Strahan (p230) advises, “In the northern part (of its range, i.e., Qld) a male may associate with 2 or 3 adult females and up to 3 young.” He also indicates travel distances of 2 km per night which would appear to be inconsistent with home ranges of 30 to 70 ha. Smith & Lees cite Henry & Craig 1984 as indicating den size of 1 or 2 animals while Wormington (p167) suggests the high den numbers are only in North Qld. For this analysis we will assume a mean grouping of 5 per den.
Greater Glider - Strahan (p240) describes it as “essentially solitary” But then states, “Males and females normally share a den from the onset of the breeding season until the young emerge from the pouch (4mths) and become independent at 9 months. Smith & Lees and Wormington (p166) appear to assume they are continually solitary. For this analysis we will assume a mean grouping of 1.5 animals per household or den, consistent with 4 months with male & female in one den, 4 months with male in one of a number of dens and female and young in another and 4 months of male, female and adolescent in solitary dens.
Common Brushtail Possum - Strahan (p273) makes no reference to den size, nor does Smith & Lees. For this analysis we will assume the same mean grouping of 1.5 animals per household as described for the Greater Glider above.
Mountain Brushtail Possum - Strahan (p271) makes no reference to den size but indicates that young are suckled for 9 to 11 months with a degree of pairing between male and female. Smith & Lees (p32) also provide no indication of den size. For this analysis we will assume a mean den size of 1.75 animals. This is based on 6 months of male and female in one den, and 6 months of solitary male and female with young. (i.e., 0.5x 2 + 0.5 x (1 + 2)/2 = 1.75).
Common Ringtail Possum - Strahan (p254) makes no reference to den size but advise that the pair bond carries over into the following season. Two young are born to established pairs with a second litter in a good year. Smith & Lees (p32) cite Thomson & Owen 1964 indicating up to 8 animals per den. This would be consistent with 2 parents, 2 litters of the current year and 2 semi-detached adolescents. For this analysis we will assume a mean den size of only 4 animals.

These assumed mean den sizes are applied to the reported mean animal density records of Smith & Lees Table 5 (p49) and the actual site density records of Wormington (p19) in the attached spreadsheets. These spreadsheets adjust for den size and an assumed 50% propensity of some species to use other nest sites. They provide the number of dependent animal households/ha on each of the 38 sites and show the number of HBTs that are available to each dependent household on each site.

Additional sheets model the consequences of a lower number of HBTs/ha (down to 0.5 HBTs/ha) on each of the sites. This enables the impact of any hollow shortages to be assessed at both site and landscape scale.

7. Smith & Lees extrapolated to two totally improbable extremes of HBT need to make the DNRM preferred prescription appear reasonable.

No discussion on the science behind the DNRM prescriptions can take place without specific critique of the extraordinary mathematical acrobatics that have gone into Smith & Lees’ Tables 4, 5 and 6 (p48-50). This was an attempt at reconciling species known range of hollow use with the known variation in home range sizes. And a very poor attempt it was.

Table 4 recognised that the calculation of Hollows Required/ha, in Equation 1 above, involved two variables, hollows used and home range size. This used the data on home range size in Table 2a (p32) and the number of reported hollows used from the same table.

For example, Sugar Gliders have been reported to use from 1 to 5 hollows and have home ranges from 0.5ha to 7.1ha. So the lowest number of dens (1) was divided by the largest home range (7.1ha) to get the number 0.14 hollows/ha as the minimum in the range. Then the largest number of dens (5) was divided by the smallest home range (0.5ha) to get the number 10 hollows/ha as the maximum in the range. And it was between these two numbers that the actual need for hollows may be found.

The problem with this is that these are two highly improbable extremes. It is like looking for the definition of a reasonable man by reference to Hitler and Stalin. We all agree that the answer is somewhere in the middle but we are none the wiser from examining the extremes.

The greatest number of hollows used is most likely to be found on the largest hame range, not the smallest. The least number of hollows used is most likely to be on the smallest home range because the food supply is sufficient to justify a higher density of animals and they are willing to compromise on housing to enjoy the benefits of the abundant food supply.

The smallest home range of 0.5ha has a radius of only 40 metres so the den is only one jump from shelter from anywhere in the territory. The largest home range of 7.1ha has a radius of 150 metres in which five hollows spaced along a 90 metre radius within the territory would be 100 metres apart (113m on arc) and ensure that no part of the territory is more than a 50 metre jump from shelter.

Apply the same analysis to 5 dens on 0.5ha and we get a rather silly scenario where no part of the range is more than 15 metres from a hollow. This situation in a mature forest would negate the need for gliding altogether. Animals could jump from one tree to another as possums do. The maximum number of hollows on the minimum range is an absurd extreme.

But that didn’t slow Smith & Lees. Their Table 5 (p49) proceeded to do the same calculation for each species in each broad forest type and then sum these values as an overall requirement per hectare. Column 6 multiplied the maximum hollows by the maximum animal density to get 13.3 hollows/ha for Sugar Gliders and a total of 41.17 hollows/ha for all the arboreal mammals in Coastal Dry Sclerophyll. The minimum number of hollows multiplied by the maximum animal density came to only 0.8 hollows/ha for all species in the same forest type.

But once suitably gobsmacked by the 41.17 hollows/ha number, the reader was then well primed to accept the almost equally unreasonable calculation in Column 7. This multiplied the maximum hollows/ha (10 for SG) by the mean animal density (0.3/ha) to produce a requirement for 3 hollow/ha for Sugar Gliders and 7.24hollows/ha for all arboreal mammals in the forest type. The minimum requirement multiplied by the mean animal density came to only 0.14 hollows/ha for all species in the forest type.

Obviously, 7.24 hollows/ha is certainly less unreasonable than 41 hollows/ha but this still does not bestow any legitimacy to the number. A highly improbable hypothetical extreme is still being applied to the mean animal density. But this did not prevent Smith & Lees from reflecting on how these results coincided with the HBT retention targets under the Code of Practice. And having arrived at any sort of figure that could plausibly support the established departmental position, the brain appears to have shut down and gone home.

But before doing so there was one last (the fourth) opportunity for incorporating the above mentioned “precautionary approach.” Smith & Lees (p50) state,

“On the basis of the precautionary principle, and consistent with the uncertainty inherent in dealing with this type of data (in this way) it might be prudent (sensu Gibbons and Lindenmayer 1996, 1997a and b) to choose maximum values to insert into the formulae we outlined in section2.3.2, so that maximum numbers of hollows are retained.”

No attempt was made to multiply a mean value by another mean value to get a most probable and realistic picture. If we know that the median density of Sugar Gliders in Coastal Dry Sclerophyll is 0.3/ha then we can reasonably conclude that the mean home range of an assumed solitary animal is 3.3ha. A circular territory this size would have a radius of 102 metres and it would take only 3 dens on a 50 metre radius to ensure that most of the territory was less than 50 metres from shelter.

And multiplying this mean (3 dens) by the mean animal density (0.3) gives a most probable hollow requirement for Sugar Gliders of 0.9 hollows/ha. But even this is not good enough as it still assumes they are solitary animals which they are not. It also still assumes that any values less than the mean will lead to, or are symptomatic of, species collapse.

8. They fail to consider how these species are known to respond to either short-term or long-term overpopulation or housing shortage.

Neither Smith & Lees nor Wormington have described the climatic conditions that were present during their fauna surveys. Both stressed their belief that the recorded data represents a significant underestimate of numbers and have incorporated “precautionary approaches” to the basic records. Smith & Lees’ efforts are mentioned above.

Wormington’s efforts in this respect was to only analyse the highest of the two records taken for each of his 38 sites. And his belief that this selected class, with 73% of all encounters, is the “true picture” is so strong that he has refused to provide me with the other data sets unless he had prior agreement to his vetting of any conclusions.

But the true picture is more complex still. Wormington’s (p16) surveys took place between August 1997 and September 1998. This was an extreme El Nino period with an extended dry period in 1996 as well. Both the forest and the wildlife within had shut down into survival mode. The trees had shed leaves and had released toxins into their remaining foliage to make it less digestible. Soil microbial activity was impaired by moisture deficit, producing lower nitrogen levels and less nutritious sap and leaf matter. And this had serious consequences for all arboreal fauna. And their density adjusted accordingly.

So if there has been any time in the past few decades when species were close to “species collapse”, it was when the survey took place. It would seem trite but apparently necessary to state that species collapse is highly unlikely in a run of good seasons.

This data is shown in the attached spreadsheet, [2 sample Data]. The average animal density over the 38 plots and two surveys was only 0.189/ha, just more than a sixth of the 1.08 animals/ha recorded by the DNRM sample in Smith & Lees. (Assuming the DNRM sample area really was only 3ha as stated, with any sightings beyond 100m radius being excluded).

Of more interest is the average number of occupied hollows/ha and the number of HBTs for each dependent mammal household, for each of the surveys. For this shows the actual use being made of the HBTs at any given time. Wormington’s sample had a mean of only 0.0736 occupied hollows/ha or 103.6 HBTs for each family that needed one. The DNRM sample had 0.2467 occupied hollows/ha or 43.41 HBTs for every family unit that needed one.

Sheet [7.625 HBT] shows Wormington’s highest data records with plots ranked from highest to lowest animal density. The plot with the highest density, Bau201, had 17 encounters but this was still only 0.708 animals/ha. Each species was divided by its average household size to get a total of 0.249 animal households/ha. After adjusting for partial use by nest builders etc, this amounted to 0.1953 occupied hollows/ha each day. This plot had 6.33 HBT/ha which translated into 32.4 HBT for each mammal household that needed one.

But this was not the plot with the shortest supply of HBTs. This honour went to Plot 7, Mar203, with 11 encounters and only 2.67 HBTs/ha. This was 0.458 animals/ha, 0.2667 animal households/ha, 0.1556 occupied hollows/ha and amounted to 17.2 HBTs for each mammal household that needed one.

At the other extreme was Plot 37, Mtw204, with only one encounter but with 20 HBTs/ha. This was 0.042 animals/ha, 0.0083 animal households/ha, 0.0042 occupied hollows/ha and amounted to a mind bending 4,800 HBTs for each mammal household that needed one. And this was the highest record out of the two for this plot.

In all, 75% of encounters took place on 50% of the plots. And while we do not have access to the lesser record for each plot we can compile an average by deducting the highest record from the total recorded encounters. We know that 252 (73%) of the total 344 encounters were in the highest record set while the missing lowest record set had only 92 encounters (27%). This is broken down in tables 2 and 3 at the bottom of sheet [7.625 HBT].

The highest sample set averaged 6.632 encounters per 24 ha plot with 7.625 HBTs/ha. This was 0.276 animals/ha, 0.1289 animal households/ha, 0.1036 occupied hollows/ha and a mean 73.6 HBTs for each mammal household that needed one.

The same plots, at another time of year when the missing lowest sample was taken, averaged only 2.421 encounters per plot with the same 7.625 HBTs/ha. This sample had only 0.101 animal/ha, 0.0550 animal households/ha, 0.0435 occupied hollows/ha and a mean 175.3 HBTs for each mammal household that needed one.

And this, folks, is a classic example of zero elasticity in the relationship between HBTs and animal density. There was almost a three fold change in animal numbers and zero change in HBTs/ha. More importantly, it is clear that when animals are at their most vulnerable, the last thing they are concerned about is a shortage of hollows.

It should be noted, however, that HBTs/dependent household in this analysis are overstated in bad years and understated in good ones by the use of a single assumed household size. Household size will obviously change with climatic circumstances. So the average household of Sugar Gliders in drought may only be 2 individuals who have not reproduced that season while the average household in a good season may be 8 individuals made up of 2 parents, 2 litters of 2 young each for the season and 2 lingering adolescents.

And if the good season continues into a second year then the adolescents will respond to any localised shortage of HBTs, or any comparative decline in food supply, by seeking a new home range in the less populated parts of the forest or by playing their part in the food supply of an expanding Powerful Owl population. Those who do not adapt, have the adaptation forced upon them by other species who have adapted.

But the analysis of this issue to date has not recognised the capacity of species to respond to change. And this has obscured the fact that, in the forests for which data is available, the only undersupply of HBTs, if any, is a temporary phenomenon, found in good seasons. Arguments for retention of high numbers of HBTs/ha are based on the extremely unrealistic assumption that, in Queensland over the coming decades, the good times will continue uninterrupted.

The element that is responsible for the ten fold variation between Wormington’s lowest sample and the DNRM sample from Smith & Lees is rainfall related food supply. As, indeed, it is for every other native and feral species in Australia. That, folks, is an example of high elasticity (a steep slope) in the relationship. And it is a disgrace that so much resources have been devoted to studying an irrelevant variable.

9. They fail to examine how hollow deprived species collapse might actually happen and this allows the assumption of broad based collapse to remain unchallenged.

It can be argued that a failure to fully exploit a good season can lead to species collapse in a bad season. But this ignores the extent of variation across the forest resource. We know that in Wormington’s highest sample, 50% of the plots had only 25% of the population. And this sparse population operates to protect the inhabitants from predators by expanding the area over which the hunt takes place. Once the target population drops to a certain level then it is the predator’s survival that comes into question.

The predator’s problems are exacerbated by a greatly expanded supply of hollows that can be exploited by the remaining arboreal mammals. It is nature’s magic at play, once again. When a species actually need lots of hollows for survival, there is plenty of them available. When their survival is not under challenge in a good year, there is less available to each one. And in such circumstances they adapt by fitting more of their expanded family into the shelters available and switch to a “safety in numbers” strategy.

It should also be noted that the various anecdotal reports of certain species using large numbers of hollows are likely to be based on seasonal overabundance of HBTs that are created by seasonal population decline. They should never be used as some sort of constant requirement or be applied to the expanded population in a good season.

We also know that animal density remains higher on good quality sites. In Wormington’s highest sample, 75% of the population were found on the better 50% of plots. These sites maintain the best capacity to respond to improved conditions when they arrive but the most potential for density expansion is likely to be found in the lower quadrats.

The current departmental view on HBT requirements assumes a static resource and a uniform response to change. Neither of which is true. The attached spreadsheets enable each plot to be examined for its sensitivity to various assumed HBT retention levels and to various levels of species population.
10. No attempt has been made to determine the sensitivity of species sightings to HBT requirements.

The belief that there are more animals present on a site than those that are encountered is widespread amongst researchers and has some validity, especially for the smaller mammals. So one of the most important tasks for any examination of the need for HBT retention prescriptions is to model for the sensitivity of the stand to various levels of under-reporting.

The attached sheet, [model 1Hbtha] can be used to assess the demand for hollows by any likely under-reported population, for any level of HBT retention. In default form it models the impact on the highest and lowest of Wormington’s samples, the average of the two, and the impact on each plot.

It shows the same reported average of 0.189 animals/ha and 0.0736 occupied hollows/ha which, if only one 1 HBT was retained per hectare, would still mean 13.6 HBTs for each mammal household that needed one. The highest sighting sample still had a mean 9.6 HBTs for each mammal household that needs one. And the lowest sighting sample had a mean of 23 HBTs for each mammal household that needs one.

This would enable an average 13.6 fold population increase to a point where every HBT is occupied, assuming no increase in den size, or co-occupancy of HBT, takes place. And this potential increase would appear to be greater than the 10 fold variation between the reported DNRM population of 1.08 animals/ha and Wormington’s lowest sighting average of 0.101 animals/ha. And this suggest that a level of 1 HBT/ha may be adequate for maintaining species capacity to fully exploit a good season or two.

When 1 HBT/ha was modelled for the range of plots, only 3 plots had less than 4 HBTs for each family that needed one. These 3 plots had the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest animal density so significant population increase can take place before adolescents need to leave the area.

But this may not be so if there is some serious under-reporting of animals present. This is more likely to occur with the smaller animals, the Sugar, Squirrel and Feathertail Gliders, than the larger species. And this is where the model can assist in understanding the problem.

We can take the average number of sightings in Wormington’s two samples (172) and add an equal number of encounters that are spread between the above mentioned three species. So the sightings of each three would increase by 57/58 to cover an assumed 50% under-reporting. This doubling of encounters would show new values of 59.5 Squirrel Gliders, 76 Sugar Gliders and 62.5 Feathertail Gliders.

This would show a doubling of animal density from 0.189 to 0.337 animals/ha but, due to larger family sizes, average households/ha would only increase from 0.0919 to 0.1339/ha. And because they are all partial users of other nest types, average occupied hollows will only increase from 0.0736 to 0.0946/ha. And each mammal family that needs a hollow will still have 10.6 HBTs each instead of the original 13.6 HBTs each. So the impact of under-estimation of species present has only marginal impact on the actual need for HBTs.

When only 0.5 HBT/ha (1 for 2 ha) was modelled, the average of the two samples still showed 6.8 HBTs for every mammal family that needed one. The highest sighting sample had 4.8 HBTs each while the lowest sighting sample had 11.5 HBTs for each mammal family that needed one.

When 0.5 HBT/ha was modelled for the range of plots, only 3 plots had less than 2 HBTs for each family that needed one. These 3 plots still had the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest animal density so significant population increase can still take place before adolescents leave the area but the point at which larger families will occur and when co-occupancy of different hollows in the same HBT takes place will be earlier in the climatic cycle.

But this earlier Diaspora of adolescents may actually increase the rate of formation of breeding pairs in the less populated parts of the forest. In so doing it could ultimately lead to a greater capacity to fully exploit a good season.

Continued next post. IM

What's wrong with the Qld Forestry code of Practice?

2006-03-24T11:21:00.000+10:00

Briefing to Private Forest Owners, And to the Premier of Queensland,
Ssubmission in respect of the Draft Code Applying to a Native Forest Practice on Freehold Land.
Prepared by Ian Mott, Secretary, The Landholders Institute Inc. 3rd March 2005

“Beware the Ides of March” Said the Oracle to Julius Caesar.

Executive Summary

The Code is not a regulation. It is a 15 page definition in the Vegetation Management Act with 37 prescriptions and none of the protections that are accorded to ordinary members of the community. It has been specifically structured to provide the Minister and the Department with the capacity to exercise power improperly.

The science and policy inputs that have been employed in developing the Code include false and misleading statements of fact and serious omissions of relevant considerations.

These misleading statements appear to have been made with the knowledge of their untruth and with the intention that they be acted upon by both the government and by private forest owners. Both the government and some forest owners have already voluntarily acted upon those misrepresentations to their detriment. And even if they only amount to innocent misrepresentations, they are most certainly negligent ones.

There are three flaws with the HTTAG assessment of the impact of Habitat Tree prescriptions on productive capacity. These flaws obscure the fact that the current prescriptions will effectively extinguish the forestry purpose within two harvest cycles.

There are 15 major points of issue with the science that has provided a tenuous plausibility for the Habitat Tree prescriptions. Foremost among them has been the blatantly false assumption that arboreal mammals do not form family units and the absurd belief that a modelled shortage of hollows for a good season population peak could produce species collapse in a much diminished population in drought.

The detriment that private forest owners may suffer as a result of the negligent consideration of the habitat tree issue is entirely foreseeable and is as high as $26,000 per hectare. And it may not deliver the desired habitat service for up to a century.

We urge the Minister to take all reasonable and practicable steps, including review of the need for, impact of, and alternatives to, habitat tree retention, to minimise any detriment that forest owners may suffer.

This submission includes detailed modelling of the impact of various habitat tree retention levels and seasonal population changes on the supply of tree hollows to the arboreal family units that need them.

We request a meeting with the Minister for Natural Resources and his advisors to demonstrate the model and impart the critical insights that it, alone, will provide.

We also request copies of, and right of reply to, any critiques of, or responses to, this paper that are input to this policy process.

Ian Mott

Habitat Hollow Science

“The world is full of intelligent, highly educated people who lack the ability to think”. Edward De Bono.

Regrettably, this is probably the best spin one could put on the mix of arrogance, voodoo science, rat cunning and substance impaired cognition that now comprises the modus vivendi of Queensland’s Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Energy. And their handling of the Code Applying to a Native Forest Practice on Freehold Land is no exception.

First, as the Director of the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law at University of Queensland, Professor Suri Ratnapala (1) has pointed out, this and other codes under the Vegetation Management Act are deemed not to be subordinate legislation (s.10(7)). And the Professor has stated, “Since subordinate legislation requires parliamentary approval, the sole purpose of these exclusions is to remove these instruments from parliamentary scrutiny and hence public debate”. See http://www.ipa.org.au/

More importantly, he said, “…these instruments are not generally subject to judicial review”. Nor are they subject to regulatory impact assessment. And the gravity of this is only fully apparent when one examines the nature of the fundamental rights that, till now, have been protected by the Judicial Review Act 1991 (JR Act)(2) and the regulatory review process.

Along with sidestepping the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, jurisdiction and authority, the Government has carefully and deliberately contrived to gain the capacity to exercise power improperly. The JR Act, through (s.23(a to i)) outlines the meaning of improper exercise of power. And by circumventing these constraints on both Ministerial and administrative authority, Minister Robertson and his department have taken to themselves the capacity to;

(a) take any irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise of their powers.
(b) fail to take any relevant consideration into account in the exercise of their powers.
(c) exercise their powers for purposes other than the purposes for which they were conferred.
(d) exercise their discretionary powers in bad faith.
(e) exercise their personal discretionary power at the direction or behest of another person.
(f) exercise their discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard for the merits of the particular case.
(g) exercise power in a way that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could do so.
(h) exercise their power in such a way that the result of the exercise of power is uncertain.
(i) any other exercise of their power in a way that is an abuse of the power.

Examination of just two aspects of the Code applying to a native forest practice on freehold land, as outlined below, appears more than capable of establishing that Minister Robertson and his Department have already stooped to exercising (abusing) “all of the above”.

The interesting issue arising from this situation is whether the Minister, his Director General and all his policy staff and advisers acted lawfully in organising an arrangement and drafting legislation that deliberately, and in a discriminatory fashion, circumvented peoples fundamental legal safeguards. For all of them are bound by the Ethics Principles and Obligations that are set out in the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (3) which, under (s.4(1)), “are declared to be fundamental to good public administration”. These obligations include;

Respect for persons.

8.(1) A public official should treat members of the public and other public officials –
(a) honestly and fairly; and
(b) with proper regard for their rights and obligations.
And;

Integrity.

9.(1) In recognition that public office involves a public trust, a public official should seek –
(a) to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of public administration, and
(2) Having regard to the obligation mentioned in subsection (1), a public official –
(a) should not improperly use his or her official powers or position, or allow them to be improperly used; and
(c) should disclose fraud, corruption and maladministration of which the official becomes aware.

Forgive my ignorance, but it was my understanding that having proper regard for a persons rights and obligations has never included working with other persons to develop a back-door means for depriving them of those rights. It was my, possibly mistaken, understanding that working on such arrangements did not constitute ‘consultation’ but, rather, by way of their lack of lawfulness, clearly fell within the spirit, if not the definition, of conspiracy.

And many ordinary men and women could be forgiven for thinking that one of the attributes of the diligent exercise of a Director General or Senior Advisor’s duties would be the ability to recognise that carrying out work for the purpose of circumventing fundamental rights and protections in law;
(a) neither maintains nor enhances confidence in the integrity of administration, and
(b) amounts to allowing improper use of powers, and
(c) could give rise to a perception that maladministration has not been disclosed.

And these apparent multiple breaches of the ethics obligations are not breaches of obscure, isolated or newly established community expectations. Indeed, the Criminal Code Act 1899(4) also has quite a bit to say about community expectations of honesty and integrity in general and the actions of public officials in particular.

There amongst the fraudsters, procurers and abusers are provisions such as (s.92(1)) dealing with public servants doing or directing, in abuse of their authority, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another (Up to 2 years in prison). There is (s.200) dealing with public servants who, perversely and without lawful excuse omits or refuses to do an act which is his or her duty to do by virtue of their employment (up to 2 years in prison).

And in the case of legislation like the Public Sector Ethics Act that prescribe no specific penalty, there is (s.204) which covers any person, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, does any act that they are forbidden to do, or omits to do any act that they are required to do under any statute (Up to 1 year in prison).

So while the process of drawing up legislation and regulations were fully authorised under legislation, it is clearly the community’s fundamental expectation that the processes involved, and the work carried out, must be fully compliant with all existing legislation. And the more conversant reasonable men and women become with the facts in this matter, the more likely they are to conclude that this has not been the case. And this is especially so with the Code applying to a forest practice on freehold land.

Flaws in the Code of Practice

Part 1: The understated impact of excessive HBT retention prescriptions.

The attribute of this code (5) that has the most significant impact on forest owners are the provisions relating to habitat tree retention. The objective of this provision is to ensure that, “Required Outcome (RO2) The wildlife habitat values of the forest stand are maintained”. But this worthy objective comes with Required Practices (RP2 that go far beyond the stated objective. It stipulates that the number of habitat trees (HBTs) and recruitment habitat trees as specified in Table 3 are retained as well as all feed, nest and shelter trees.

The Table gives the impression of being a scaled prescription for forest type but close inspection reveals that most Coastal or Inland Dry Sclerophyll forests have the same prescriptions as those applying to Rainforest due to the listing of shires deemed to be within the “preliminary predicted range of the Greater Glider”. This means that most farmers from Boonah, Goondiwindi and Atherton must satisfy the prescriptions for the wettest forest types.

Furthermore, where the existing forest has less than 6 HBTs then a greater than commensurate number of recruitment trees must be retained up to a total of 11 trees if there are no HBTs present. This clearly passes beyond the meaning of ‘maintaining wildlife habitat values’ to now encompass very significant ‘restoration’ and penalty components.

It looks benign to the ill-informed. But most private remnant forest has been allowed to re-establish on extensively cleared land (often by compulsion) and this means that most private forests will, entirely lawfully, only have 1 or less habitat trees (with at least one 10cm hole) per hectare. These regrowth remnant forests (unlike their market competitors the native species plantations) are being compelled to set aside very significant additional portions of their productive capacity. It is clearly an environmental tax, of an in-kind nature, levied on capital, not income, in a discriminatory manner and for which no credit is given when other taxes are assessed.

It goes far beyond the stated objective of merely maintaining existing habitat values, seeking to restore wildlife habitat values to approach the pre-clearing condition. And the scaled additional recruitment trees, at almost double the replacement rate, will mean, for most remnant forests on private land, the complete extinguishment of the productive capacity of the existing use in as little as 15 years.

And it is in the departmental community’s attempts to obscure this fact that the official information dives into the murky end of the pond. The DNRM’s Habitat Tree Technical Advisory Group, (HTTAG) (6) based estimates of the impact on productive capacity on extraordinarily unreasonable, and inappropriate assumptions and plain gonzo science.

To begin, they only analysed for one point in time, not for the reasonably foreseeable future, as they are obliged to do. This enabled the assumption that retained HBTs don’t grow and allowed the implication that recruitment HBTs had the same, or lesser, effect on site occupancy as actual HBTs.

Two scenarios were plotted (7) (p38) which appear to have calculated the proportion of HBT canopy for a range of assumed canopy covers from 100% down to 40%. The first scenario employed “current silvicultural standards” (i.e., the ones that were ignored under the SEQFA) while the second was based on ‘more intensive silvicultural standards”.

The ‘current’ case assumed that each hectare already had 5 unmerchantable trees/ha or 25% of total area and that the HBTs would all come from them first. This would be consistent with an assumed 40% (4000m2/ha) normal canopy cover with each tree covering 200m2, a crown diameter of 16metres, a crown to stem ratio of 15 to 1, and DBH of 1.06 metres. And this enabled them to conclude that retaining 8 HBTs/ha would only require another 3 trees which would only involve a 0% to 15% loss of site occupancy.

The ‘intensive’ case assumed that all large trees were potentially merchantable so all HBTs would need to come from productive stock. It projected a loss of site occupancy of between 14% (for a closed 100% canopy with slightly smaller trees) and 40% (for a 40% canopy).

Three major problems with DNRM modelling

But there are three very significant problems with this modelling. The first is that the on-going productive capacity of a forest is primarily determined by the stems that are retained after a selective harvest, not before it. The essence of native forest harvesting is the removal of mature and undesirable stems so that the remaining (usually 50%) stems can fully utilise the productive capacity, the soil nutrients, water and sunlight, of the site. So any loss of productive capacity must be calculated as a proportion of the remaining canopy cover, not the potential canopy cover. Site occupancy is not a surrogate for productive capacity.

Consequently, a forest that is at full capacity at 80% or 8000m2/ha canopy cover will normally be selectively harvested to produce a retained canopy of 40% or 4000m2/ha. These retained trees will be fully capable of utilising all of the site’s growth potential. And in this circumstance, 8 HBTs of 200m2 each will occupy 1600m2 of canopy and amount to 40% of 4000m2 rather than 20% of 8000m2.

The second significant problem with the modelling is that the stem to crown ratio (1:15) that appears to have been used mostly applies to closed forest ecosystems. The dry sclerophyll RE’s that make up most of the forest resource that is subject to the Code of Practice exhibit larger ratios (up to 1:20). And this has a major bearing on the modelled result.

A tree in a closed forest with a 1.06 metre DBH and a stem to crown ratio of 1:15 will have a crown area of 200m2. But a tree in a natural or man-made open woodland with the same DBH may have a stem to crown ratio of 1:18 and would have a crown area of 286m2.

So in the example given 3 paras above, 8 HBTs of 286m2 each will occupy 2288m2 of canopy, 43% more than the 1600m2 predicted under a 1:15 ratio. Under even more open conditions (i.e., 1:20) the same 1.06 metre DBH would produce a crown area of 353m and eight such trees would cover 2825m2/ha.

And this brings us to the third significant problem with the modelling. Most of the Regional Ecosystems (RE’s) that are subject to the Code of Practice have ‘normal extents’ or normal canopy cover that is less than the minimum 40% cover that was used in the model.

The DNRM/Qld Herbarium’s(8) “Coreveg” data set outlines the deemed canopy cover that has been used to determine the boundaries of each mapped remnant polygon. It is, therefore, the primary determinant of whether forest is deemed to be remnant, and subject to the Code of Practice, or non-remnant, and not subject to the Code.

And farmers all over Queensland would be very surprised to learn that the percentage canopy cover used in the mapping process is often well below the actual canopy cover that is exhibited on the ground by their mapped remnant forest.

For example, inquiries in respect of a polygon mapped as RE 12.11.5a Mixed tall open forest, with mostly Spotted Gum (E. citriodora) and Grey Ironbark (E siderophloia) revealed that the ‘normal’ canopy cover for this RE was only 40% and, consequently, any paddock with more than 20% canopy cover (50% of normal extent) was deemed remnant. This forest was in Brisbane’s East side with annual rainfall of 1250mm so one can reasonably assume that even lower canopy percentages have been used for remnants in dryer parts of the state (i.e., most of it).

The implications of this are that if the ‘coreveg’ percentages are used to determine the applicability of the Code of Practice to a forest then the same percentages must be used as the basis for assessing the impact of HBT retention prescriptions under that same Code. This has clearly not been the case in any known DNRM assessment.

So what does this mean on the ground?

Under a standard 50% harvest of the above mentioned RE 12.11.5a polygon, the canopy would be reduced from a ‘normal extent’ of 4000m2/ha to 2000m2/ha. If six HBTs of 286m2 each, totalling 1716m2 and 2 recruitment trees (sawlogs 60cm DBH, 10.8m crown & 92m2 ea) covering 184m2 for a total of 1900m2 were retained on each hectare then the Code of Practice has occupied 95% of the productive capacity of the site.

And contrary to widely held departmental assumptions, these trees will continue to grow and utilise the productive capacity of the site. Their DBH may not increase by much over the following growth cycle but the same growth increment will be ‘attached’ to the tree in the form of wider upper stem (reduced taper) and larger limbs or in diminished growth through shading. In 20 odd years time the volume and crown area of the retained recruitment stems will have doubled and any residual growth will be in a very slow growing understorey with a lead-time to harvest of such length that it is effectively irrelevant.

At that second harvest only 5 to 10% of standing volume will be harvested. There will be no retained production stems and the retained recruitment and HBT stems will occupy more than 100% of the original productive capacity. The forestry purpose will be completely extinguished and we will still have another 120 years to wait before the recruitment trees form an acceptable hollow.

If there are no HBTs in that forest, due to past lawful clearing or generally accepted forestry practice at the time, then the Code of Practice will require not just the 6 trees needed to produce 6 HBTs in 140 years time. Consistent with normal departmental practice of allowing themselves the extremely liberal margins of error that they would never allow the public to enjoy, a total of 11 recruitment trees (sawlogs) must be retained to cover any anticipated mortality prior to the year 2145 when the first Possum takes up residence.

Assuming these 11 sawlogs are also the only feed or nest trees on site, the total canopy area captured under the code will still amount to 1012m2 or 51% of productive capacity on the day after the first harvest. Over the next cycle these trees will grow to cover 2024m2. (i.e., circa 75cm DBH with less taper) They will enable a 49% harvest at year 20 but after that harvest the Minister’s trees will account for 102% of the retained stand volume and productive capacity. There will be no 3rd harvest in year 40, the forestry purpose will be extinguished and the translation of the homeless fauna’s opinion of the Minister’s environmental credentials would be unprintable.

But even this scenario understates the conditions found in most of the forests in Queensland. Most graziers recognised the contribution that timber could make to their integrated agricultural use. So instead of complete clearing, as their cropping neighbours had done, they maintained artificial open woodland that fluctuated in density below the ‘normal extent’. So while the fully stocked canopy cover may have been 40%, they maintained forest cover between 15% and 30% to promote better pasture growth while maintaining a contributive forest. It is the natural equivalent to the plantation based wide agro-forestry model that is widely promoted in the name of sustainability by governments all over the world.

But this range of forest cover within the existing agricultural use would ensure that it would fall within the remnant threshold in the later half of each harvest cycle. And rest assured, if there was any hint of ambiguity in status, it would be mapped as remnant anyway. Even a regrowth flush after a good wet season would be sufficient to add the paddock to the remnant map. But the Code of Practice makes no allowance for variations in existing use.

In such a case the Code will still require the above mentioned 11 recruitment habitat trees. Their 1012m2 of canopy would occupy 67% of the retained 1500m2 canopy stand on the day after the first harvest. At the second harvest in year 20 only a 32% canopy removal (976m2) will be possible and the Minister’s trees will then occupy 135% of the normal retained area. The forest owner will then have no choice but to watch the Minister’s forest expand at the expense of his grazing operation and abandon any hope of a third harvest.

The existing forestry use will be effectively extinguished by year 20 and over the following 20 years any remaining profits from the grazing operation will be absorbed by higher overheads that had formerly been covered by the forestry element of his use. The grazing operation will shrink and losses will accumulate as the Minister’s trees continue to grow and retake or even exceed the ‘normal extent’ of the RE.

And it is all done in the name of ecologically sustainable land use, one of the main principles of which is, wait for it, intergenerational equity!

Continued next post. IM

Why Regional Australia Needs Their Own New States.

2006-03-23T14:09:00.000+10:00

This was the subject of a recent interview by Michael Duffy on ABC Radio National's 'Counterpoint' programme.
Click here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1590413.htm