Category Archives: Cultural & socio-economic issues & solutions

Holistic regenerative management on a grazing farm, Allendale, Boorowa is leading to more complex native pastures and increased biodiversity

David Marsh

Figure 1. David Marsh among native grasses that naturally regenerated at Allendale (Photo T. McDonald).

Introduction:  When we purchased the 814 ha ‘Allendale” property in the wheat-sheep belt of the Southwest Slopes of NSW in 1966, almost all of the plants that had evolved here over millennia had disappeared although Europeans had only been here for 142 years. All that remained of the woody components were some scattered Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora), Blakeley’s Red Gum (E. blakelyi) , a few White Box (E. albens), a few Apple Box (E. bridgesiana), and very few Hickory Wattle (Acacia implexa). The ground layer, which normally includes most of the biodiversity in grassy woodlands had almost completely disappeared.

During first 18 years (of the 52 years) managing our farm we took a conventional approach to farming, having a largely economic relationship with the land and applying all the latest agronomy to lift yields. In 1989 we began a shift towards a process of ‘recovery grazing’ using Alan Savory’s  Holistic Resource Management approach. This was motivated not only by our values of wanting to leave the local landscape in healthy condition but also by the fact that the conventional mixed farming model was driving our farm  into incrementally increasing debt. We realized that we were attempting to run a fixed enterprises in a variable climate of recurring drought and that wasn’t working.  Training in holistic management with a certified educator in 1999 gave me the confidence to take the process more seriously, as did my enrollment in a Grad Dip. of Sustainable Agriculture followed by a Masters degree in Sustainable Agriculture.

The basis of recovery grazing is to avoid preferential and repeated overgrazing of desirable perennials by using rotational grazing in many small paddocks (to avoid repeatedly grazing recovering plants) rather than set grazing in a few paddocks. This allows longer recovery times for the desirable native perennial grasses and avoids creating conditions best suited to annuals of less value to livestock.  The ecological and economic results of our efforts have been outstandingly positive.

Works undertaken: Our first objective was to get costs under control. Surprisingly, for us this meant discontinuing cropping. Despite intermittent large profits from cropping our analysis showed that it was not profitable overall due to the number of dry years, wet harvests and frosts. We also started managing livestock differently. We created more land divisions using conventional or electrical fencing and, in our case, piping water to each paddock rather than radiating paddocks around the dams. (A trial of the latter showed it would cause too much erosion over time.) The troughs, energiser and solar panels are moved with the cattle, each move taking less than an hour.  Fencing and water cost us $85/ha at the time and was completed in 5 years, which compared favourably to spending $70K a year on fertilisers and pesticides during our cropping phase.  Instead of 12 mobs of cattle and 26 paddocks we now have 104 paddocks (and usually one mob of cattle), running them on an agistment basis that happens to suit us. Each paddock is only grazed for a total of about 10 days per year which gives time for not only existing pasture species to recover but for new species to recruit.

Most of our vegetation restoration approach relies on natural regeneration including both groundcovers and trees.  But we have planted quite a few scattered trees and have also sown some native grass seed – either hand broadcasting after collecting it from roadsides (or where it has recovered on the property) or after mechanized seeding of purchased batches from other farmers interested in the same process.  Cattle are also agents in seed dispersal as they spread it when grazing plants with ripe seed. A technique that we have used occasionally is to intentionally move the mob from a paddock with ripe seed (after they have had a big feed)  to a paddock that doesn’t have much of the species we wish to encourage. Effectively the cattle are harvesting and sowing the seed for us at no cost.

Figure 2. Increase in native grass presence at Allendale over time. (1999 -2020)

Results to date:

Woody vegetation. Tree cover on Allendale has increased from 3% cover in 1966, to over 20% in 2022 (through both tree planting and natural recruitment). Since 2010 – when it rained after a nine-year dry spell – the big remnant trees began to reproduce. The long recoveries from grazing allowed around 800 saplings (with temporary electric tape to protect them from being grazed for a few years), to survive and become trees. This is the first time any native trees have germinated and survived on Allendale in over 100 years.  Wattles (Acacia spp.) were originally direct seeded and are now recruiting.  This increase in woody vegetation and cycling provides the basis for a far more complex ecosystem on Allendale (with more insects, small reptiles, birds and a range of mammals) compared to recent previous decades.

Bird life. With these changes, a whole lot of other ecological shifts are also occurring at no cost. These days there are many thousands of quail (Coturnix sp.), finches (Neochmia spp.) and wrens (Malurus spp.) are present in increasing numbers. Dusky Wood Swallow (Artamus cyanopterus cyanopterus) and White-browed Wood Swallow (Artamus superciliosus ) come nearly every year and breed here; the Rufous Songlark (Cincloramphus mathewsi ), a ground nesting bird that we seldom saw previously, is now frequently observed. Various raptors are constantly here; the Black Shouldered Kite (Elanus axillaris), Nankeen Kestrel (Falco cenchroides), Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax), Brown Falcon (Falco berigora), Swamp Harrier (Circus approximans), Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) are frequent visitors. To date there have been 128 species of birds identified on the property, and we have observed informally that many of these species (and their abundance) have increased in recent years.

Grasses. Cibolabs analyses have shown that our ground cover levels have been at 100% for many years now and there have been particular increases in native grasses (Fig. 1).  We mapped the native grasses on the property in 1999 and found them present in only 1 ha out of 814 ha and confined to rocky outcrops that could not be ploughed and in a few fence corners. Repeat mapping in 2004/5 showed native grasses covered a larger area (~86ha) – with further increases mapped in 2010 (189ha) and 2020 (440ha) (Figs 2-5).  Indeed, representatives of the warm season perennials that evolved here can now be found in most if not all our paddocks even though too scattered to map.

The grass species include wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma spp.), Common Wheat Grass (Elymus scaber), spear and corkscrew grasses (Austrostipa spp.), Umbrella Grass (Chloris truncata), Kangaroo Grass, (Themeda triandra), Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Box Grass (Paspalidium distans), Arm Grass (Brachiaria milliformis), Queensland Blue Grass, (Dicanthium sericeum), Red Grass, (Bothriocloa macra), Cotton Panic (Digitaria brownii) and Wild Sorghum (Sorghum leiocladum). All these species have increased markedly in recent years, with the big stand-outs being Arm Grass, Box Grass, the wallaby grasses and Umbrella Grass (See Appendix 1).

While we believe the grasses would have gradually increased over time without sowing, we have accelerated the process by sowing some species in small quantities using a disc seeder in some sites, but mainly broadcasting seed by hand from a quad bike (Figs. 3 and 4 0a.nd Appendix 1).  Seeds were also dispersed by the cattle.

Figure 3. Locations of seed sowing treatments over time at Allendale.

Figure 4 Locations of seed sowing treatments over time at Allendale.

Figure 5. Native grass presence in all Allendale paddocks (with and without sowing) by 2020

Non-natives.  Achieving change has been more difficult in the paddocks where we had previously introduced exotic seed mixes including Cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica). These two perennial exotic grasses are highly dominant and can temporarily competitively exclude native grasses (even if the latter may still be present) –  particularly in wet seasons.  Experience suggests that this may  explain why native grass sowings in recent high rainfall years have not yet shown results (Figs 4-5).  These species are still valuable for grazing, however, as is Paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum) – which has increased – and Plantain/Ribwort (Plantago lanceolata) which is considered beneficial to the quality of the pasture.

In general, however, managing ground cover to reduce bare ground has helped managed disturbance-adapted invasive weeds such as Illyrian Thistle (Onopordum illyricum), Patterson’s Curse (Echium plantagineum), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) and Amsinckia (Amsinckia spp.); all of which now occur only occasionally. Importantly, we previously had an annual spraying program for some of the problematic annuals but we have not done that for 22 years;  managing ground cover to reduce bare ground goes a very long way to manage the populations of disturbance-adapted species. Any small patches of high-risk weeds (e.g. Rubus sp. and Rosa sp.) have proven manageable by mattocking out.

Lessons learned: Our goal is to live in a landscape increasing in biodiversity and to meet our economic goals. Over 30 years we were expending large amounts of money on contractors while rolling the dice against the weather, with little time for holidays.  We have found that we now usually have perennial native grasses dominating in summer and that this avoids the previous boom and bust cycle. The recovery grazing management (probably combined with reduced nutrient loads) has now resulted in more diverse native perennial pastures and avoids the cost of resowing. This allows time for habitat to develop to increase native fauna and allows us to produce time for recreation.

The benefits we have seen however, required a changed mindset.  It is quite hard for farmers to avoid intervening.  We had lots of weeds for many years because our previous management had pushed succession all over the farm back to an early state due to the creation of bare ground, even though we had sown perennials. A more mature succession took 3-5 years after ceasing sowing, weed control and overgrazing, so it did not occur overnight.  Importantly, all this required quite a philosophic conversion. Quite a lot of the farmers going down this track show a shift in attitude, characterized by patience and a greater willingness to take responsibility for land outcomes.  Such a changed mindset is not yet being entertained by the number of farmers needed to stop the slow but inexorable decline of biodiversity on farmland.   Yet more farmers are thinking about it now compared to in the last 20 years, which is an encouraging sign.

Acknowledgements: Thanks goes to my family (Mary Marsh, Skye Rush, Hugh Marsh and Alice Needham) and to my farming colleagues that have also been going on this journey (Charles Massy, Colin Seis, Martin Royds and Scott Hickman) .

Contact: David Marsh, Allendale, Boorowa NSW, Australia. Email: marsh.allendale1@gmail.com

Appendix 1. The main grass species, treatments and results at Allendale over approximately two decades.

Species Intervention Results
Wallaby grasses (Rytidosperma spp.) Very little seed has been scattered of one variety only Six varieties are now present and appeared within 3-5 years. All are spreading.
Box grass

(Paspalidum distans )

Included in the total of  ~8×40 kg bags of seed purchased from another farmer, Colin Seis, over the years) and hand dribbled in rows about 20m apart from the quad bike.  Also included in the ‘Seis mix’ disc-seeded into paddocks totalling 150ha. In 1999 only found in one or two small patches but now it is every across the property
Umbrella Grass

(Chloris truncata)

Included in the above-described ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Was present in 1999 but now it is widespread as the seed heads are like umbrellas and tumble
Arm Grass  – Brachiaria milliformis Included in the above-described ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Was absent when first came here.  Now it is widespread and increasing all the time.

 

Kangaroo grass – (Themeda   triandra) A total of half a wool pack from nearby roadside has been dispersed by hand from a quad bike over the ~15 years (split over ~four occasions). Was absent when first came here but was present on the roadside. It is not spreading rapidly but is starting to come back.

 

Corkscrew and tall Stipa

(Austrostipa spp.)

 

Pre-existed and not collected. Some was present in uncropped areas. As a pioneer it can now be seasonally abundant.
Red grass (Bothriochloa macra) A little pre-existed was original present  but some is in the ‘Seis mix’ hand dribbled and disc-seeded Some was present in uncropped areas. It is now increasing although quite slowly.
Weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides) Some seed was included in grass culms harvested from a nearby property and ‘blown’ out onto some Allendale paddocks by Owen Whittaker. Some was present in uncropped areas.  It is gradually increasing.
Common Wheat Grass (Elymus scaber)

 

No seed was sown but have collected from Allendale paddocks and distributed by hand a from quad bike. Some was present in 1999 but it is now spreading extensively. The species is relatively insignificant but has a place in a pasture.

 

Lake Bolac Eel Festival and Environmental Forum – 25-26 March 2022

Figure 1. An Environmental Forum is a held at each Lake Bolac Eel Festival to bring to the festival-goers reliable information about the ecology of the region and its potential for improved management. (Photo Tein McDonald)

Introduction. Cultural events are increasingly recognised as critical to cultural change and community awareness building. One outstanding example is the Lake Bolac Eel Festival (Kuyang Lapakira – Plenty Eels), a biennial festival held at Lake Bolac in the western basalt plains of Victoria to celebrate environmental repair and Aboriginal cultural revival (Figs 1-5).

The timing of the festival reflects the season when Kuyang (Shortfinned Eel, Anguilla australis) begins its migration to the sea to spawn and when the First Nations Communities from surrounding areas gathered to harvest the species, trade and hold ceremonies. As such the festival is a significant gathering place for people who care for the environment and respect Aboriginal cultural heritage, promoting the restoration of Lake Bolac and surrounding waterways.

Figure 2. The 2022 Eel Festival’s Welcome to Country was conducted by Traditional Owner Brett Clarke with the assistance of local Indigenous community members. The Festival is a gathering of new generations of people affirming the traditions of past generations who cared for the lands and waters of the Lake Bolac area. (Photo Ayesha Burdett)

Figure 3. The festival is very small but is attended by many locals and those serious about ecological and cultural restoration. In 2022, workshops on topics including tanning Eel leather, Indigenous tools and song-making, and childrens’ craft activities were interspersed among music and dance events. (Photo Tein McDonald)

An Environmental Forum is a regular part of each festival program. At this year’s forum, chaired by freshwater wetland ecologist Michelle Casanova, six presenters including Traditional Owners, Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority representatives, the local Landcare group, local landholders and researchers provided rich information about the significance of the site, the eel and its habitat,  management strategies, and roles of stakeholders.

The Forum commenced with a moving Welcome dance and a smoking ceremony led by Traditional Owner Brett Clarke. The first speakers were Tim Hill and Jileena Cole, Chair and Facilitator respectively from the Beyond Bolac Catchment Action Group, who described the context of the efforts to protect and repair eel habitats in a production landscape. Brett Clarke then spoke movingly on the role of First Nations people caring for Country and culture. The third speaker was Greg Kerr, Senior Ecologist with Nature Glenelg Trust, who focused on exploring the idea of ‘home’ for animals in Lake Bolac, while the fourth speaker, John Sherwood from Deakin University, intrigued the audience with his presentation on recent evidence of the Moyjil archaeological site at Warrnambool Victoria that suggests far earlier habitation of Victoria by Aboriginal people than is conventionally understood.

Damein Bell – member of the Gundtijmara community, CEO of Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and currently a Board Member with the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority – spoke engagingly on the long effort to have the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape recognised on the UNESCO World Heritage List in July 2019. This account reinforced the importance of patient and persistent action to effect social change.

Perhaps the most intriguing talk was the presentation by the sixth speaker, Wayne Koster from the Arthur Rylah Institute (DELWP) who regaled us with what is currently known about the migration of the Short-finned Eel. This species is native to the lakes, dams and coastal rivers of south-eastern Australia, New Zealand, and much of the South Pacific, but very little has been historically known about its reproduction or where this takes place. Preliminary results were presented of Waynes’s recent work satellite tracking oceanic migrations of the Short-finned Eel, with migration track to the Coral Sea between New Caledonia and Australia.

Figure 4. The large tent provides the setting for both the Environmental Forum and the later musical events. (Photo Tein McDonald)

Figure 5. The day’s activities culminated in a Twilight ceremony featuring Aboriginal dancers, followed by a concert headlined by local musician and one of the Festival founders, Neil Murray. ( Photo Una Allender).

Stakeholders: The event is managed by the Lake Bolac Eel Festival Committee. Funders include: Grampians Pyrenees Primary Care Partnership, Victorian Regional Arts Fund Community Grants Round 2 2019, Ararat Rural City Council; Regional Arts Victoria, Beyond Bolac Catchment Action Groups, Stronger Communities Programme Round 7 – Wannon, Visit Victoria – Regional Community Events Fund, Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Willaura Lake Bolac Community Bank and NBN Local.

Contacts: Una Allender <uallender@bigpond.com> or Ayesha Burdett <ayesha.burdett@gmail.com> Lake Bolac Eel Festival Committee.  Media contact: Sally Gibson <sgibsonaustralia@gmail.com>

Biological and cultural restoration at McDonald’s Swamp in northern Victoria, Australia

Dixie Patten (Barapa Wemba Working for Country Committee) and Damien Cook (Wetland Revival Trust.

Introduction. McDonald’s Swamp is a 164-ha wetland of high ecological and cultural significance, and is one of the Mid Murray Wetlands in northern Victoria. The restoration this wetland is part of broader project, led by the Indigenous Barapa Wamba Water for Country Committee in collaboration with the Wetlands Revival Trust, to address the loss of thousands of wetland trees and associated understorey  plants that were killed by poor agricultural and water management that caused prolonged water logging and an elevated the saline water table.

Figure 1. Laura Kirby of the Barapa Wamba Water for Country restoration team beside plantings of two culturally important plants that are becoming well established; Common Nardoo (Marsilea drummondii) and Poong’ort (Carex tereticaulis). (Photo D. Cook.)

The project has a strong underpinning philosophy of reconciliation as it is a collaboration between the Wetland Revival Trust and Aboriginal Traditional Owners on Country – access to which was denied to our people for a long time, disallowing us to practice our own culture and have places to teach our younger generations.  One of the main aims of the project is  to employ Barapa and Wemba people on our own land (Fig 1), not only to restore the Country’s health but also to provide opportunities for a deeper healing for us people. Many of the species we are planting are significant cultural food plants or medicine plants. Indeed it’s actually about restoring people’s relationships with each other –Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians – and maintaining our connection to  Country.

Over recent years the hydrology of many wetlands in the Kerang region has been vastly improved by a combination of drought, permanently improved irrigation practices in the catchment and the delivery of environmental water.  This has restored a more natural wetting and drying cycle that will enable regeneration of some prior species, largely through colonisation from the wetland edges and through reintroduction by waterbirds.

However, supplementary planting is needed to accelerate the recovery of keystone species at all strata and the ~50 ha of the wetland that has been assessed as highly degraded with little potential f or in-situ recovery from soil-stored seedbanks.

Figure 2. Aquatic species planted at McDonald’s Swamp, including Robust Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum papillosum), Common Water Ribbons (Cycnogeton procerum) and the endangered Wavy Marshwort (Nymphoides crenata). (Photo D. Cook)

Works undertaken: To date the project has employed 32 Traditional Owners, planting out and guarding canopy trees to replace those that have died, undertaking weed control, and replanting wetland understorey vegetation.

Over a period of 5 years,, around 60% of the presumed pre-existing species, including all functional groups, have been reintroduced to the site, involving 7000 plants over 80 ha of wetland. This includes scattered plantings of the canopy species River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Black Box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) and Eumong (Acacia stenophylla).  Dense nodes have also been planted of a wide diversity of herbaceous wetland species including water ribbons (Cycnogeton spp.), Nardoo (Marsilea drummondii) and Old Man Weed (Centipeda cunninghamii). These nodes have been protected from waterbird grazing by netting structures for 3-6 months, after which time they have reproduced and spread their seeds and begun recruiting throughout the broader wetland..

Some areas of the swamp are dominated by overabundant native reeds due extended inundation in the past.  Such reeds – including Cumbungi (Typha orientalis) and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) – will be future targets for burning or cutting followed by flooding by environmental watering to reduce their abundance prior to reintroduction and recolonization by other indigenous species.

Figure 3. Prolific regeneration of the nationally endangered Stiff Grounsel (Senecio behrianus). The species is presumed extinct in South Australia and New South Wales and is now only known only from 5 wild and 6 re-introduced populations in Victoria. (Photo G Little)

Outcomes to date: Very high establishment and growth rates have been attained for the canopy tree species, many individuals of which have flowered and set seed within the 6 years since project commencement.  All the planted understorey species are now recruiting very well – particularly the Water Ribbons (Cycnogeton procerum and C. multifructum), Floating Pondweed (Potamogeton  cheesmannii), Common Nardoo (Marselia drummondii), Wavy Marshwort (Nymphoides crenata), Water Milfoils (Myriophyllum papillosum  and M. crispatum), Forde Poa (Poa fordeana), Swamp Wallaby-grass  (Amphibromus nervosus), River Swamp Wallaby-grass (Amphibromus fluitans) and the nationally endangered Stiff Groundsel (Senecio behrianus) (Fig.  3.).  The important Brolga (Antigone rubicunda) nesting plant Cane Grass (Eragrostis infecunda) has also spread vegetatively.  Where hundreds of individuals were planted, there are now many thousands recruiting from seed, building more and more potential to recruit and spread within the wetland.

After 7 years of a more natural wetting and drying regime, natural regeneration has also occurred of a range of native understorey species including populations of the important habitat plant Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta), Lagoon Saltbush (Atriplex suberecta) and Common Spike-rush (Elaeocharis acuta) (Fig 4.).

Figure 4. Planted River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and naturally regenerating Tangled Lignum (Duma florulenta) and a range of other native colonisers and some herbaceous weed at McDonald’s Swamp some6 years after hydrological amendment and supplementary planting. (Photo T McDonald)

Stakeholders:  Barapa Land and Water, Barapa Wamba Water for Country Committee, Parks Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the North Central Catchment Management Authority.

Contact: Damien Cook, Wetland Revival Trust, Email: damien@wetlandrevivaltrust.org

Beyond the 1990s, beyond Iluka – koalas and citizen science – UPDATE of EMR summary

Daniel Lunney, Lisa O’Neill, Alison Matthews, Dionne Coburn and Chris Moon

[Update of EMR summary – Lunney, Daniel, Lisa O’Neill, Alison Matthews and Dionne Coburn ( 2000) “Contribution of community knowledge of vertebrate fauna to management and planning. Ecological Management & Restoration, 1:3, . 175-184. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2000.00036.x]

Key words: national parks, SEPP 44, adaptive management, social criteria, extinction, wildlife survey, coastal forests.

Figure 1. Interest in local wildlife among residents and visitors to the north coast village of Iluka was growing in the 1990s, providing an opportunity for community involvement in our wildlife survey designed not only to gain information but to raise awareness. (Photo Dan Lunney 1991.)

Introduction. Our EMR feature published in 2000 reported on research that commenced in 1997 when we set out to identify the species and locations of the vertebrate fauna of Iluka peninsula, at the mouth of the Clarence River NSW, Australia. Much of the peninsula had been damaged by post war sand mining and creeping urban growth. We had recognised that there was a growing interest by local communities in conserving biodiversity (Fig 1), as Iluka had residential areas not far from a magnificent Nature Reserve (Iluka NR) and a National Park (Bundjalung NP). We conducted a community-based survey, sent to every household, which used a large, coloured map of the peninsula and a questionnaire asking respondents to mark the locations of the fauna they had seen. As a result of the survey, we concluded that vertebrate fauna does live on private land, that local knowledge is valuable, and that there is both community concern over declining fauna and support for planning, management and long-term fauna research.

Figure 2. Two junior volunteers learning radio-tracking to locate koalas, Iluka Peninsula. (Photo Dan Lunney 1992)

The rise of citizen science. We were not the first to use a community-based survey for wildlife in NSW. A team (Philip Reed and Dan Lunney) in 1986-87 greatly expanded on some skilled, but tentative, efforts to survey Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in NSW by the small but effective Fauna Protection Panel. We produced a small questionnaire, which was distributed in 1986, and when we came to analysing the data in 1987, we joined up with CSIRO scientist Paul Walker who had a new tool, GIS, still in its infancy, but which showed great promise. By the time of the Iluka study, GIS was central to our methods.

Over the last 20 years there has been a revolution in the acquisition and application of community knowledge (Figs 2 and 3), a better appreciation of its extent, and limitations, and how to better integrate a greater diversity of disciplines for a more effective planning and management outcome. A Google Scholar search for ‘citizen science’ in July 2019 returned over 2 million results, establishing this phrase in the scientific literature to describe projects that enlist the community for collecting or analyzing scientific data. The rise and success of citizen science undoubtedly stems from the power of the internet and web-based tools that members of the public can use to record species’ locations, providing answers to such questions as: is a species increasing, decreasing or stable? – answers to which increase the capacity for managers and planners to be better targeted in their decisions. Such web-based technology also helps to overcome resource limitations where scale is an important factor. For example, for our 2006 state-wide koala and other wildlife survey we put a major effort into the distribution of the survey, a paper form with a large map. Now, the current 2019 survey is web-based, a procedure we explored in north-west NSW in 2014 where we selected the study area to be 200 by 300 km.

Figure 3. A skilled team climbing a tree to capture a koala for a health check and radio-tracking in a study of the koala population of the Iluka peninsula. (Photo Dan Lunney 1991.)

A further innovation comes from linking sociology to ecology and expanding the term from citizen science to ‘crowd-sourced information’. An example is a study in the four local government areas just north of Iluka, namely Lismore, Byron, Ballina and Tweed. The sociological side, led by Greg Brown, used the threatened koala as a case in point. The study demonstrated a novel, socio-ecological approach for identifying conservation opportunity that spatially connected landscapes with community preferences to prioritize koala recovery strategies at a regional scale. When multiple criteria (ecological, social, and economic) were included in the conservation assessment, we found the social acceptability criterion exerted the greatest influence on spatial conservation priorities. While this is a long way from our 1997 Iluka study, it is in the same lineage and represents two decades of development of what has become a widely accepted approach to regional planning.

Lessons learned and future directions. Looking back at the Iluka story, in one sense, it is a sorry one. When we first started our research on the Iluka peninsula in 1990, there was a visible population of koalas. It dwindled to extinction over the next decade so the locations of koalas in our EMR paper were of recent but fading memories. By defining our study area to a small location, it was possible to identify the cumulative impact of mining, housing, disease, roadkill, dog kill and fire. There have been reports of koalas being back on the peninsula as early as 2002 (Kay Jeffrey, local resident) and there have been subsequent sightings (John Turbill DPIE pers comm August 2019), we presume moving down from such locations as the northern part of Bundjalung National Park

Looking back on our EMR paper, we also see that the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) was one of the most common species recorded by the community on the Iluka peninsula. It has now gone (John Turbill DPIE, pers. comm., August 2019). The coastal Emu population in northern New South Wales is now recognized as being under threat and a citizen science project called ‘Caring for our Coastal Emus’ has been established to collect recent emu sightings from the public using a web-based emu register to pin-point locations on a map. This register is administered by Clarence Valley Council and reflects the shift from the 1990s where the tools and expertise for collecting scientific data for management and planning were beyond the scope of local government. Today, local councils are considerably more engaged in conservation and community education projects.  Indeed, the Clarence Valley Council (2015) has prepared a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) for the lower Clarence, which includes Iluka, although it was not adopted beyond council level. The plan recognizes the importance of reducing further clearing and protecting and rehabilitating those areas that remain, and identifies that further studies and monitoring are required to establish the current status of the Iluka koala population.

In the early 1990s, we had prepared a possible plan of management for the koalas of Iluka peninsula but there was no legal incentive to adopt it. Thus, in late 1994, when one of us (DL) was asked by the then NSW Department of Planning and Urban Affairs to help write a SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) for koala habitat protection, the potential value of doing so was clear to us. SEPP 44 was written in three days, with a promise to revise it in 1995. SEPP 44 has proved to be valuable, although in recent years, the process of preparing and submitting CKoPMs from councils to the NSW state government seems to have stalled.

In conclusion, our EMR feature was written at the time of an upward inflection in the study of koalas, of fauna survey using crowd-sourced information.  We are now better equipped to use the new techniques from over three decades of what might be described as adaptive management of the ideas in our original EMR paper. We also press the point that research, exploring new ideas, incorporating new techniques and publishing our findings and thoughts make a crucial contribution to conserving not only koalas, but all our wildlife and natural areas, both in and out of reserves.  Such research is therefore vital to the survival of our wildlife.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies: In addition to the funding bodies in our EMR paper of 2000, support for the research supporting the above comments has been extensive, as reflected in the acknowledgements section of each report.

Contact. Daniel Lunney, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment NSW, (PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220 and the University of Sydney, NSW 2006. dan.lunney@environment.nsw.gov.au).

Koala conservation and the role of private land – UPDATE of EMR feature

Daniel Lunney, Alison Matthews, Chris Moon and John Turbill

[Update of EMR feature – Lunney, Daniel, Alison Matthews, Chris Moon and John Turbill (2002) Achieving fauna conservation on private land: Reflections on a 10-year project. Ecological Management & Restoration, 3:2, 90-96. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2002.00100.x]

Key words: SEPP 44, Coffs Harbour, logging, urban development, New South Wales, ecological history, koala plan of management.

Introduction. Our 2002 paper in EMR focused on the local government area (LGA) of Coffs Harbour and reflected on our approach to meeting the challenge of finding a means of protecting populations of  Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) on private land before habitat removal brought about their local extinction. This was prompted by our 1986–1987 state-wide koala survey that found that koala  populations had declined across New South Wales, largely as a result of habitat loss. The remaining koala stronghold, we identified at the time, was on the north coast, in areas such as in the rapidly expanding city of Coffs Harbour. Koalas in Coffs Harbour were found mostly on privately-owned land outside National Parks and Nature Reserves and State Forests.

It took 10 years (1990-2000) of struggle with politics, bureaucracy and vested interests to achieve a plan of management across one local government area (Coffs Harbour) to save koala habitat from the relentless clearing of private land. The reward for our efforts was a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM), prepared under State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – koala habitat protection (SEPP 44), and adopted by Coffs Harbour City Council in 1999. SEPPs apply only to land over which local government has authority, not Crown Land, i.e. National Parks, Nature Reserves and State Forests. The Plan identified and ranked Koala habitat and set out criteria for minimizing local threats. It is a statutory instrument, gazetted in 2000 along with council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP), which controls land-use planning. It was the first CKPoM in NSW and a demonstrated formula for undertaking such plans. Now in 2019, 20 years after the plan was formally adopted by Coffs Harbour City Council, and in the NSW parliament in 2000 as part of the Coffs Harbour LEP, the plan is still in place. We count that as a success. While revisions to both the SEPP and the Coffs Harbour CKPoM are in the wind, the 1999 plan still stands, as of October 2019.

Further, after five years of operation, Coffs Harbour council commissioned a strategic review of its CKPoM from the consultants, EcoLogical, which found that there was a 1.1% reduction in the area of primary koala habitat. In our view, such a small change over 5 years is an indication of the CKPoM’s impact in halting habitat loss on private land.

Figure 1. Historian, and co-worker, Antares Wells examining a document with items from the history of the Bellinger, the LGA immediately to the south of Coffs Harbour, as part of our study of the ecological history of the region. (Photo Dan Lunney 2013/)

Further studies. To add context to our work in Coffs Harbour, we undertook a range of further studies. These included an historical study, looking at the koala records from European settlement to 2000 through an ecological lens (Fig 1). The first wave of European settlers arrived in the early 1880s, and much of the initial development arose from logging. Collectively, the evidence identifies that the koala population of Coffs Harbour was widespread but never abundant, and that habitat loss has been relentless since European settlement. The transformation of a rural-forest mosaic to an urban landscape over the past four decades is the most recent stage in the incremental loss of habitat.

Also, in 2011, we undertook a repeat study of the koala population within Coffs Harbour LGA from our initial survey in 1990. Analyses showed that the koala population has endured between 1990 and 2011 and showed no evidence of a precipitous decline during this period. Rather, the population change was best characterised as stable to slowly declining.

The extensive koala datasets gathered since 1990 on the Coffs Harbour koala population are attractive for researchers and managers. They provide the basis for revisiting the LGA to look for change (Fig 2.) . Work in June 2019, for example, included the following: Department of Planning, Industry and Environment at Coffs Harbour is finalising a review of the Coffs Harbour LGA koala habitat study from funding by council; surveys completed in April 2019 revisited 68 of the original 119 sites we had selected in 1996, and 89 of those sites we had re-surveyed in 2011, and the total number of sites visited in the current survey was 176 in a report to Coffs Harbour council in September 2019.

Figure 2. Koala team standing in koala habitat near Bonville, Coffs Harbour LGA. From left to right, John Turbill, Martin Smith, Indrie Sonawane, Chris Moon and Martin Predavec. (Photo Dan Lunney 2013).

Mixed results. Rereading our original paper is unsettling. There is an enduring sense that the entire exercise, while locally worthwhile, has not translated into wider successes with respect to policy and implementation. Although our assessment of the success of the Coffs Harbour CKPoM is upbeat, the uptake of the concept by other councils has been modest. Some have opted for a koala plan of management, but not within the SEPP 44 framework, and others have contracted the preparation of the plans, but only using field survey data for koalas, not the citizen science component.

Among our reflections on our work is that the languages of planning, conservation and ecology need to be calibrated. Confusion has occurred because SEPP 44 refers to potential and core koala habitat when a Development Application (DA) is being assessed, but in the CKPoM in 1999 we used the terms primary, secondary and tertiary koala habitat. Adoption by local government of a CKPoM replaces the requirement to assess each individual DA for core habitat, because the CKPoM has mapped and ranked this habitat. In fact, the ease of seeing koala habitat on a map, ranked so that you know what development is possible, or not, within the particular ranking, expedites the DA process for all parties. This was a major selling point for Coffs Harbour council, along with our economic study which demonstrated that the value of having a koala population in the LGA exceeded the cost of implementing such a plan (Fig 3). While habitat ranking is appropriate for a CKPoM – a land-use planning and management instrument – one interpretation, a misguided one in our view, has been that primary habitat equals core habitat, and deems primary habitat in a CKPoM to be the only level of habitat to conserve. Such a view not only disregards the value of rankings for the purpose of planning, but also ignores the multiple ways that koalas need to use the landscape. We note that more recent plans have divided secondary habitat into secondary A and secondary B, but that does not change the principle of ranking. We also note that a recent choice is to use ‘core’ habitat in a CKPoM, although with a different approach to defining ‘core’, but this has yet to be consolidated in the proposed revised SEPP 44. On reflection, ‘core’ has become a problematic word because it implies that anything other than core can be ignored.

There have been considerable recent efforts to catch up on survey methods for koalas in State Forests. However, pressure remains on State Forests concerning their koala populations, such as the campaign by the National Parks Association of NSW for ‘The Great Koala National Park’ to add 175,000 ha of State Forests to existing protected areas to form a 315,000 ha reserve in the Coffs Harbour hinterland. National Parks and Nature Reserves are a central element in our efforts to conserve our fauna, but a transfer of State Forests to National Parks does not come to grips with the issue of the loss of habitat on private lands, including in situ habitat and linkages across the landscape.

SEPP 44 was promulgated in 1995, and while we recognise that it needs to be updated, our point remains that it has demonstrated potential to conserve koala habitat on private land, with an explicit role, indeed a key role, for local government. Strategies to conserve and restore koala habitat on private land—particularly on the more fertile lands, which are also the prime lands for farms and towns—will continue to be central to conserving the koala populations in NSW.

Figure 3. Economist Clive Hamilton explaining the economic advantages of conserving koalas in Coffs Harbour LGA. This presentation was given in Coffs Harbour at a national meeting for Ecological Economics. (Photo Dan Lunney 1996.)

Lessons learned and future directions. In 2019, our reflections on our 10-year study (1990-2000) allow us to conclude that identifying koala habitat on private land is possible, that plans to conserve it are acceptable, that the economic aspect is an important factor in the negotiations, and that local government has a role to play in this process. Since 2002 we have expanded our research horizon, crossing other disciplinary boundaries to encompass ecological history, using more sophisticated approaches to citizen science, stretching our geographical horizon to the north-west of NSW, incorporating the pervasive impact of climate change, and teasing out the contribution of koala care and rehabilitation and the value of detailed population studies such as by radio-tracking. We also conclude that local studies, especially repeated studies, e.g. at the LGA or Local Land Services (LLS) scale, are crucial, along with broad scale, periodic, state-wide surveys to keep track of the considerable individual differences across the geographic range of the koala.

Contact.  Daniel Lunney, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment NSW (PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220 and the University of Sydney, NSW 2006. dan.lunney@environment.nsw.gov.au

The arts and restoration – a fertile partnership

David J. Curtis

[Update of EMR feature: Curtis, David J (2009) Creating inspiration: The role of the arts in creating empathy for ecological restoration. Ecological Management & Restoration, 10:3, 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2003.00152.x]

Key words: creativity, ecological restoration, capacity building environmental attitudes, environmental behaviour


Figure 1. The Plague Demon — a puppet made from 3000 plastic shopping bags by a team of 30 people. It rose to a height of 6 metres and represented the equivalent of 3 hours of plastic bag consumption for the city of Armidale. It was used in the Armidale Autumn Festival parade in March 2004 (pictured) and the production of Plague and the Moonflower in the main arena of the Woodford Folk Festival in 2003 to an estimated audience of 10,000 people. (Photo Garry Slocombe)

Introduction: In my original article for EMR in 2003, I posed the question: Are the arts a valuable partner with ecological restoration? The article was written early in my research into the role of the visual and performing arts in shaping environmental behaviours. I answered this research question through key informant interviews, analyses of several case studies and participant observations, and concluded that there was indeed substantial potential for the arts to create inspiration and empathy for ecological restoration. The research continued until 2007 with the completion of my PhD thesis but the outputs of that research continue to the present day, with numerous journal papers and book chapters (see bibliography). It has also led to the formation of the non-government organisation Ecoarts Australis and the coordination of three international conferences around these themes: 2013, 2016, and 2019, all of which  demonstrate the high potential for fertile partnerships between the arts and ecological restoration.

Further works undertaken: The main case study in the 2003 article for EMR was the ecological oratorio Plague and the Moonflower that was staged in Armidale NSW in 2002 by the Armidale community. The Armidale community went on to restage the work and take 300 performers to the Woodford Folk Festival in 2003 to perform it in the main arena to about 10,000 people (Fig. 1). A further seven case studies were developed including: an examination of attitudes and practices of about 100 arts, farming and natural resource management practitioners; the Nova-anglica: the web of our endeavours event staged in Armidale in 1998 to an audience of approx 5,000 people (Tables 1 & 2); the Gunnedah Two Rivers Festival in 2002-04 and the Bungawalbin Wetlands Festival, both of which incorporated visual and performing arts (Tables 1 and 2); a play-building study with secondary aged school children in 2002 examining the greenhouse effect; participant observations of my own work from 1990-2000 in which I incorporated the arts into natural resource management extension (https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/6713/) and the Ecological Society of Australia conference in 2003 in which we incorporated an ambitious performing and visual arts program (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. As part of the arts program of the Ecological Society of Australia Conference, Armidale 2003, this commissioned image, In the Balance, summarized the themes of the conference. (Image Anna Curtis. Lino reduction print on paper, 30 x 30 cm, 2003)

Findings from the subsequent research. Papers listed in the bibliography referred to above show that the arts have an important role in:

  • raising awareness and communicating environmental information (Table 1) through environmental education and extension;
  • changing and challenging environmental beliefs (Table 1);
  • communicating scientific information (Fig. 2);
  • mobilising rural communities to achieve environmental sustainability and community capacity building for Landcare and environmental action (Table 1; Fig. 1);
  • creating empathy for the natural environment and ecological restoration (Fig. 3);
  • transforming our highly energy-intensive consumer society to one that is ecologically sustainable through community development and embedding the arts in ecologically sustainable development .

In addition, particular art events could encourage people to want to adopt pro-environmental behaviours (Table 2) as well as:

  • encourage people to reflect about their impact on the environment;
  • make them feel strongly towards the natural environment;
  • expose them to ideas they hadn’t thought about much before;
  • affirm their beliefs about people’s relationship with the environment;
  • help people learn about environmental issues; or
  • provide a vehicle to express feelings about the environment (Table 1).

Figure 3. Ephemeral clay sculptures with impregnated native seeds, Artist Andrew Parker. These sculptures were part of an ephemeral art project organised by Ecoarts Australis as part of the Black Gully Music Festival in Armidale in 2016. The sculptures were integrated into the ecological restoration project along Black Gully. As they decayed, the seeds were released and germinated, adding to the revegetation of the creek. (Photo David Curtis)

Implications for arts : restoration relationships:  It is clear that the work of individual artists can influence the behaviour of citizens through ‘internally derived’ interventions, which impinge on a person’s values, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, self-identity and habits, and through these, on social norms (Fig. 4). However, desire by individuals to adopt pro-environmental behaviour can be hampered by situational or infrastructure constraints. The arts can also have a role in reducing some of these constraints, through ‘externalist interventions’ where the arts are embedded into ecologically sustainable development. This might be where community and public art are incorporated into urban planning as a means of making active transport modes more attractive, or where the arts provide alternative forms of consumption which are lower in embodied energy and higher in embodied labour. The degree to which a person responds to the arts will depend on personal characteristics (e.g. gender, class, etc.), situation, institutional factors, as well as the type of art. The accumulated result of individual behaviours leads to macro-level impacts on the environment. A knowledge of these impacts in turn influences individual artists, and affects their practice.

Figure 4. Model of how the arts affect environmental behaviour.

I found that the arts can foster pro-environmental behaviour through one of three ‘pathways’ (Fig. 5). The first pathway is where the visual and performing arts are used to synthesise complex ideas and to communicate them to non-specialist audiences in an engaging form. A second pathway is where the arts and particular artists connect their audience to the natural environment through thoughtful or evocative representations of the environment or by being in the natural environment itself. The third pathway is where the arts are embedded in ecologically sustainable development, through the combined effects of community development, economic development, and changes in the patterns of consumption.

Figure 5. Three pathways in which the arts can be used to help achieve ecological sustainability.

The three Ecoarts Australis conferences were a culmination of the work that I did following the 2003 EMR article. These three pathways provided the structure for each conference, and enabled the innumerable Australian and international examples that were presented to be organised into a coherent conceptual framework. It was evident through these conferences that there has been a shift in projects that link the arts to environmental sustainability. In the first two conferences a majority of the papers provided examples of where the arts fell into the first or second pathways. In the most recent conference there were more examples where the arts were integrated into ecologically sustainable development in some way, for example in transport or manufacturing. Also there seemed to be a shift towards multi-artist projects.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies:  Funded by Land and Water Australia and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Contact information: Dr David Curtis, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Geography and Sustainable Communities, Faculty of Social Science, University of Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia.

Table 1: Comparison of case studies as to how the event affected respondents. Respondents were scored: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

 

 

Responses to survey

Those who agreed (score 4-5) as a percentage of all respondents
Plague and the Moonflower

(n = 169)

Nova-anglica (n = 9) Gunnedah (Twin Rivers)

(n = 11)**

Gunnedah (Common Ground)

(n = 46)

The event moved me emotionally 73 44 18 45.6
The event made me reflect on humanity’s relationship with the natural environment 74

(n = 168)

67 36 61.7

(n = 47)

The event made me feel strongly towards the natural environment 60

(n = 168)

78 18 58.7
The event made me feel an appreciation and pride in community 81

 

89 91 73.9
The event exposed me to ideas that I may not have thought much about before 31

(n = 167)

89 36 34.8
The event affirmed my beliefs about humanity’s relationship with the natural environment 59

(n = 167)

44 18 60.9
The event allowed me to express my feelings for people’s relationship with the natural environment 50

(n = 98)

29

(n=7)

20

(n=5)

The event allowed me to strengthen my beliefs about certain issues 53

(n = 98)

67 18 46.7

(n = 45)

The event allowed me to learn about some environmental issues 43

(n = 96)

56 9 28.3
I enjoyed being part of a large team working together 94

(n = 98)

56 60

(n=5)

It made me more appreciative of where I live and work 57.4

(n = 47)

** Gunnedah data are combined data from both focus groups. (–) = not asked.

Table 2: Comparison of case studies as to whether the event made people want to change their behaviour. ‘Yes’ and ‘A bit’ combined into ‘Yes’. Gunnedah data are combined data from both focus groups.

 

Did the production make you want to do something different for the environment?

 

Percentage of all respondents   
Plague  and the Moonflower

(n = 170)

Nova-anglica

(n = 9)

Gunnedah (Two Rivers)

(n = 11)

Gunnedah (Common Ground)

(n = 46)

Yes 67 67 18 52.1
No 21 11 64 39.1
Unsure or unanswered 12 22 18 11.6
People who listed things they would do differently 43 44 18 26.1

 

 

 

Ecological restoration in urban environments in New Zealand – UPDATE of EMR feature

Bruce Clarkson, Catherine Kirby and Kiri Wallace

[Update of EMR feature  – Clarkson, B.D. & Kirby, C.L. (2016) Ecological restoration in urban environments in New Zealand. Ecological Management & Restoration, 17:3, 180-190.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emr.12229]

Key words: urban ecology; restoration; indigenous biodiversity; New Zealand

Figure 1. Kauri dieback disease is affecting individual trees (left). [Photo Nick Waipara]

Introduction. Our 2016 EMR feature reviewed the state of research and practice of ecological restoration in urban environments in New Zealand. We concluded that urban restoration can influence and support regional and national biodiversity goals. We also observed that research effort was light, lacking interdisciplinary breadth and may not be sufficiently connected to restoration practice to ensure long-term success of many projects.

While it is only three years since that review was published, urban ecological restoration continues to grow and evolve, and the policy setting and political context have changed significantly. New threats and opportunities have emerged. The spread of a dieback disease and the more recent arrival of myrtle rust, rapid uptake of Predator Free 2050, emergence of the One Billion Trees programme, a surge in housing and subdivision development, and a potentially more supportive policy framework are all major factors.

Threats and opportunities. Kauri dieback disease is severely affecting urban kauri forests and individual Kauri (Agathis australis) trees in Auckland and other northern North Island urban centres (Fig. 1). Large forest areas adjoining Auckland, including most notably the Waitākere Range and large parts of the Hunua Range, are now closed to the public, preventing access to popular recreational areas. The dieback is caused by a fungus-like pathogen Phytophtora agathicida that is spread through soil movement. The disease may have arrived from overseas although this is uncertain. There is no known cure but research efforts are underway to find a large-scale treatment option.

Myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii) was first found on mainland New Zealand in May of 2017, probably arriving by wind from Australia. Myrtle rust threatens many iconic New Zealand plant species in the family Myrtaceae including Pōhutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa), Mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), Rātā (Metrosideros robusta), Kānuka (Kunzea spp.), Waiwaka (Syzygium maire) or Swamp maire, and Ramarama (Lophomyrtus bullata). These species are all used to a greater or lesser extent in restoration planting or as specimen trees or shrubs in urban centres, depending on amenity or ecological context. Mānuka is widely used as a pioneer or nurse crop for native forest restoration and is critical to the economically important mānuka honey industry. Waiwaka is a feature of many swamp forest gully restoration projects in Hamilton and this would be a significant setback if they were badly affected. The impact of myrtle rust is still not clear but experience from Australia suggests it may take several years before it reaches population levels sufficient to cause significant damage.

Figure 2. With rapid housing developments in New Zealand, it is important that urban restoration projects are well-planned and efficiently carried out to provide residents with greenspaces to benefit their cultural, health and wellbeing practices. [Photo Catherine Kirby]

In response to a range of housing issues characterised by many as a New Zealand housing crisis, the previous and current government has embarked on several major initiatives to increase the housing stock. A $1B Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) was established in October 2016 with provision for interest free loans to local government to enable opening up of new large areas of housing. Many urban centres including Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton and Queenstown made early applications to the fund. Hamilton City Council was successful in obtaining $290.4 M support for a new greenfield subdivision in Peacocke on the southern edge of the city. This subdivision is intended to enable development of some 3700 houses over the next 10 years and 8100 in 30 years. Approximately 720 ha of peri-urban pastoral agricultural land would eventually be developed (See summary). Coupled with this, and already in progress, is the construction of the Southern Links state highway and local arterial road network. The first proposed subdivision Amberfield covers 105 ha and consent hearings are currently in progress. The environmental impacts of the proposal and how they might be mitigated are being contested. In brief, survival of a small population of the critically endangered Long-tailed Bat (Chalinolobos turberculatus) is the main environmental focus but other aspects including the extent of greenspace and ecological restoration required for ecological compensation are being considered (Figs. 2, 3). With strong political pressure to solve the housing crisis in Hamilton and in other urban centres, making adequate provision for greenspace, especially urban forest, and preventing environmental degradation and indigenous biodiversity decline will be a major challenge.

Figure 3. Aerial photo of Waiwhakareke Natural Heritage Park (65 ha), an award-winning and ongoing ecological restoration project situated on the edge of urban Hamilton. [Photo Dave Norris]

The Predator Free 2050 (PF2050) programme which gained government (National) approval in 2015, aims to eradicate Stoat (Mustela erminea), Ship Rat (Rattus rattus), Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) and Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) from the whole of New Zealand by 2050 (Department of Conservation 2018). PF2050 is now gaining significant traction in urban environments (Figs. 4, 5) with many urban centres having good numbers of community-led projects underway (See PFNZ National Trust map). Crofton Downs in Wellington was New Zealand’s first predator-free community project. Led by Kelvin Hastie this project has effectively reduced predator numbers to the point that some sensitive native birds e.g. Kākā (Nestor meridionalis), have begun to nest in this suburb after an absence of more than 100 years (See RNZ report). Also in Wellington, the Miramar Peninsula (Te Motu Kairangi) has become a focus, because of its advantageous geography, with a goal to make the area predator free by 2019. Possums had already been exterminated in 2006 (www.temotukairangi.co.nz).

Figure 4. John Innes (Wildlife Ecologist, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research) demonstrating trapping success. Removing pest mammals reduces predation, and also frees up the habitat and resources for our native fauna and flora to flourish. [Photo Neil Fitzgerald]

The One Billion Trees (1BT) programme was initiated by the new coalition government (Labour, NZ First, Greens) in 2017 with $238M released in 2018 for planting of both exotic and native trees across mixed land use types. It is not clear yet whether urban forest projects have received funding support but the guidelines suggest there is no reason why restoration of native forest in urban settings would not be eligible. While the emphasis is on exotic tree plantations, native species and long-term forest protection are increasingly being considered as viable options by the newly established government forestry agency Te Uru Rākau.

The policy setting for ecological restoration in urban environments is potentially becoming more favourable with the draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) currently in review and the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy under revision (See terms of reference). The draft NPSIB emphasises restoration of indigenous habitat in biodiversity depleted environments. Specifically, Policy 19: Restoring indigenous biodiversity depleted environments, recommends a target for indigenous land cover, which in urban areas and peri-urban areas must be at least 10 per cent. The revision of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy seems likely to give more emphasis to landscape scale restoration including urban environments.

Figure 5. New Zealand native lizards are extremely vulnerable to mammalian predation (e.g. mice, hedgehogs, ferrets, cats) as well as habitat destruction (e.g. new urban developments). [Photo Tony Wills]

Research update. Using the same targeted Google Scholar search method as reported in the EMR feature we have found 18 new peer reviewed papers published between 2015 and July 2019 (see updated bibliography) that are strongly focused on restoration in New Zealand urban environments. The single paper noted for 2015 was missed in our previous search. Again, we have not included books, book chapters or grey literature. This compares very favourably with the total 27 papers listed in our 2016 review of which more than half dated from 2009. An increasing publication rate confirms increasing interest and research efforts in aspects of urban ecological restoration. While most of the publications remain in the ecological science realm there are now some informed by other disciplines including engineering, psychology, landscape architecture and health sciences.

Most notably since our 2016 review, a new government-funded (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) research programme, People, Cities and Nature, began in November of 2016. This four-year $823 k per annum research programme ends in October of 2020 unless a funding rebid to be submitted in March 2020 is successful. The programme undertakes multidisciplinary research in nine NZ cities via six inter-related projects: restoration plantings; urban lizards; mammalian predators; Māori restoration values; green-space benefits and cross-sector alliances. While the emphasis was on the ecological science of urban restoration at the outset, the programme has become increasingly involved in understanding the multiple benefits of urban ecological projects including social cohesion and health and recreation benefits. The need to connect restoration research and practice has been met by undertaking multi-agency and community workshops involving researchers and practitioners in five cities to date with a further four scheduled before the programme ends.

Acknowledgements. The People Cities and Nature research programme is funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment under grant number UOW1601.

Information. Bruce D. Clarkson, Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand bruce.clarkson@waikato.ac.nz; Catherine L. Kirby, Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand catherine.kirby@waikato.ac.nz; and Kiri J. Wallace, Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand kiri.wallace@waikato.ac.nz.

Waterponding the Marra Creek, NSW rangelands – UPDATE of EMR feature

Ray Thompson and Central West Local Land Services

[Update of EMR feature – Thompson, Ray F (2008) Waterponding: Reclamation technique for scalded duplex soils in western New South Wales rangelands. Ecological Management & Restoration 9:3, 170-181. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2008.00415.x]

Figure 1.  Scalded country with 30cm of sandy loam topsoil swept away by wind after extensive overgrazing. (Photos NSW SCS)

Introduction. Overgrazing of native pastures in the second half of the 19th Century stripped vegetation and led to the wind erosion of sandy topsoil during inevitable dry periods.  By the 1960s, tens of thousands of square kilometres of rangeland sites in western NSW had a legacy of moderate or severely bare or ‘scalded’ lands. This left bare and relatively impermeable clay subsoil which prevents water penetration and is very difficult for plants to colonize (Fig 1.)

Waterponding is the holding of water on the scald in surveyed horseshoe-shaped banks, each covering 0.4 ha. The ponds retain up to 10 cm of water after rain which leaches the soluble salts from the scalded surface. This improves the remaining soil structure, inducing surface cracking, better water penetration and entrapment of wind-blown seed. Consequently, niches are formed for the germination of this seed and recovery of a range of (typically around 15 out of a total of about 30) locally native chenopod (saltbush) grassland species on the sites.

The original 2008 EMR feature described how barren scalds at a range of properties in Marra Creek, near Nyngan in semi-arid NSW were transformed during the 1980s and 1990s into biodiverse native pastures through a technique called ‘waterponding’ developed after five decades of work by consecutive soil conservation officers exploring a range of prototype treatments.  Over time, a wide range of machines have been used to construct waterponding banks including standard road graders (ridged frame and articulated) or similar. Pre-1985 road graders were generally too small to construct banks of sufficient size, which resulted in too many breached banks. Over a 4-year period, the Marra Creek Waterponding Demonstration Program, backed by committed landowners, researched different horsepower road graders, constructing different size banks, winning the dirt from different locations, and evaluating the economics of construction methods. The results showed that the higher-powered articulated road graders exceeding 200 HP proved to be the most economical and efficient for waterpond construction. This type of machine has the power to  form the bank with one pass on the inside of the bank and two passes on the outside, achieving a bank with well over 2 m base width and over 60 cm in height (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. The process of of waterponding including (a) ute-mounted laser levelling to design the waterpond for a particular site, (b) bulldozing the pond walls to the designed levels, (c) rainfall filling the pond to allow deep watering and cracking of the clay subsoil and (d) resulting revegetation within the walls of the pond. (Photos NSW SCS)

Update and the broader program.  Photos and pasture measurements undertaken on ‘Billabong’ Marra Creek NSW, till 2014 show that the waterponding site had increased ground cover (predominantly native species) from 1% in 2005 to 84 % in 2014. After five to seven rainfall years a typical treatment can result in recovery of up to 15 native species from a range of up to 31 species (Table 1). The method in the last 20 years has also included broadcasting seed of some of the more important perennial species of healthy native chenopod grasslands including  Oldman  Saltbush  (Atriplex nummularia), Bladder Saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria) and Mitchell Grass (Astrebla   lappacea) (Fig 3).  Landholders in the Marra Creek district observe a range of fauna frequently on and between the ponds, including Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus), Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus), Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), Brolga (Grus rubicunda) and the Eastern Bluetongue Lizard (Tiliqua scincoides). A species of Monitor (Varanus sp.) also sometimes traverses the waterponds. Formal monitoring of smaller reptile and invertebrate use of waterponded sites is yet to occur.

Figure 3. Curly Mitchell Grass (Astrebla lappacea) sown on pond banks. (Photo NSW SCS)

Marra Creek was not the first series of waterponding programs in the Nyngan area – nor the last. The outputs of the entire program by 2019 included over 80,000 waterponds laid out and constructed, resulting in 40,000 hectares returned to local native vegetation. A total of 164 properties in the rangelands area are now using waterponding, the majority of landholders in the Marra Creek district and representing an increase from 17 landholders back in 1984 when we first ran the waterponding.

Figure 4. Landholders themselves are teaching the Waterponding technique to other landholders. (Photos NSW SCS)

Economic model of waterponding. The primary driver for land reclamation was not biodiversity conservation but returning the natural capital of rangelands. As such the program has returned a clear profit to the landholders in terms of increased native pastures that can be grazed, improving ecologically sustainable income sources for farming families.

With the reinstatement of vegetation, there have be increases in total stock feed, resulting in an increase in lambing percentages and wool cuts, as well as the ability to carry stock further into prolonged dry periods with overhead cost per head remaining static. Once rehabilitation has been completed, stocking  rates have been raised from zero to one sheep to 1.5 ha. This iseffectively the long-term grazing average for  saltbush pastures in the Nyngan district.

A treatment involving the full design and survey, pond construction and revegetation cost the landholder about $144.00 per hectare. (This includes approximately $25 a hectare for seed.) If the landholder does all the work the cost is reduced to $72/ha. The type of land involved was calculated in 2008 to normally  have  a  resale  value  of  about $365.00 per hectare In its unproductive state.  Scalded land does not contribute to the farm income yet still incurs rates. Investment in rehabilitation, in contrast, improves carrying capacity thus reducing hand-feeding costs, improving lambing percentages and avoiding forced stock sales. This allows landholders to pass the property to the next generation in a far better condition than it has been previously.

Research has found that the scalds store approximately 18.7 t/h of soil organic carbon to a depth of 30 cm. Once the landscape has been restored by waterponding and revegetation, we have found there is a rapid increase in soil organic carbon up to 25 t/ha within five years. The results are indicating that land in the rangelands that has been rehabilitated using waterponds does sequester carbon. This could lead on to waterponding being eligible for a carbon abatement activity and hopefully lead to Carbon Farming Initiative activity for carbon credits.

Figure 5. Australian National University students attending ‘21 years of participation in Rangelands Waterponding’. (Photos NSW SCS)

Potential for further application. After decades of field days and uptake of the methodologies by local graziers (Fig. 4), waterponding now forms part of standard district farming methodologies and landholders are now passing on knowledge to new generations, including through universities (Fig. 5). The methodologies have also been applied at one national park and one Trust For Nature site in Victoria, and are being applied in the Kimberley, with potential for far greater application in desert conservation reserves throughout Australia and the rest of the world (See Fig. 6 and https://justdiggit.org/approach-2/#).

Contact. Kyra Roach, Central West Local Land Services, Nyngan, 2825 Australia. Email: kyra.roach@lls.nsw.gov.au

Figure 6. A total of 79 trainees from 26 Africa countries (including Ghana, Tunisia, Rwanda, Burundi and Djibouti) over a three year period were sponsored by AusAid to study waterponding in Nyngan. Resullting work in African countries is making a big difference to degraded lands particularly in North Sudan and Kenya (Photo NSW SCS)

Table 1. Species found in waterponds after standard revegetation treatments and five to seven rainfall years. The species found by Rhodes (1987b) are still commonly found, with additional species (marked with a diamond +) observed by Ray Thompson. (Plant names are consistent with the New South Wales Herbarium database PlantNet, http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/ and  growth forms are consistent with Cunningham et al. (1981) (Exotics are marked with an asterisk)

Scientific name Common name Growth form
Alternanthera denticulata Lesser Joyweed Annual forb
Astrebla lappacea+ Curly Mitchell Grass Perennial grass
Atriplex leptocarpa Slender-fruited Saltbush Perennial subshrub
Atriplex lindleyi+ Eastern Flat Top Saltbush Annual subshrub
Atriplex nummularia+ Oldman Saltbush Perennial shrub
Atriplex pseudocampanulata Mealy Saltbush Annual subshrub
Atriplex semibaccata+ Creeping Saltbush Perennial subshrub
Atriplex spongiosa Pop Saltbush Annual forb
Atriplex vesicaria Bladder Saltbush Perennial subshrub
Centipeda thespidioides Desert Sneezeweed Perennial forb
Chamaesyce drummondii Caustic Weed Annual or short-lived perennial forb
Chloris truncata Windmill Grass Annual or perennial grass
Diplachne fusca Brown Beetle Grass Perennial grass
Eragrostis parviflora Weeping Lovegrass Annual or short-lived perennial grass
Eragrostis setifolia Neverfail Perennial grass
Hordeum leporinum* Barley Grass Annual grass
Hordeum marinum* Sea Barley Annual grass
Maireana pentagona Hairy Bluebush Perennial subshrub
Malacocera tricornis Soft Horns Perennial subshrub
Marsilea drummondii Common Nardoo Perennial forb
Medicago minima* Woolly Bur Medic Annual forb
Medicago polymorpha* Burr Medic Annual forb
Osteocarpum acropterum+ Water Weed Perennial subshrub
Phalaris paradoxa* Paradoxa Grass Annual grass
Pimelea simplex Desert Rice-flower Annual forb
Portulaca oleracea Common Pigweed Annual forb
Salsola kali var. kali Buckbush Annual or biennial forb
Sclerolaena brachyptera Short-winged Copperburr Short-lived perennia
Sclerolaena calcarata+ Red Copperburr Perennial subshrub
Sclerolaena divaricata+ Pale Poverty Bush Perennial subshrub
Sclerolaena muricata Black Roly-poly Short-lived perennial
Sclerolaena trycuspis Streaked Poverty Bush Perennial subshrub
Sporobolus actinocladus Katoora Grass Perennial grass
Sporobolus caroli Fairy Grass Perennial grass
Tragus australianus Small Burr Grass Annual grass
Tripogon loliiformis+ Five Minute Grass Perennial grass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addressing ghost nets in Australia and beyond – update of EMR feature

Britta Denise Hardesty, Riki Gunn and Chris Wilcox

[Update of EMR feature  – Riki Gunn, Britta Denise Hardesty and James Butler (2010) Tackling ghost nets: local solutions to a global issue in Northern Australia, Ecological Management & Restoration, 11:2, 88-98. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00525.x]

Key words.  derelict fishing nets, ghost gear, GGGI, Indigenous livelihoods

Figure 1. Dead turtle caught in a derelict ghost net. (Photo: Jane Dermer, Ghost Nets Australia)

Introduction. The focus of our 2009 feature was to highlight the work of Indigenous rangers in addressing the local but widespread problem of abandoned, lost or derelict fishing gear (ALDFG) in Northern Australia, particularly ‘ghost nets’ that are carried on the currents and continue to fish long after they are no longer actively used (Figs 1-4). We also aimed to raise awareness of the efforts required to address this complex issue, whilst highlighting the work of Indigenous rangers working in the region.  The feature reported ghost net removal efforts taking place in Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria – which, by 2009, involved the removal of 5532 nets by over 90 Indigenous rangers from more than 18 Indigenous communities.  This highlighted the transboundary nature of the ghost gear issue, and identified that most nets likely originated from beyond Australia’s waters.

Figure 2. Napranum ranger Philip Mango releasing juvenile turtle trapped in ghost net. (Photo: Ghost Nets Australial)

Further work. Since 2010, the understanding of and approaches to addressing the derelict fishing gear issue have increased substantially. This has been reflected both in domestic efforts within Australia, and more broadly in the international community.

Domestically, in the last decade, the ranger program across northern Australia has evolved and grown, enabling more Indigenous people to remain culturally connected to their land and sea country through meaningful employment.  Ranger activities generally involve a range of restoration activities including feral and weed management, in addition to (for  coastal groups) ghost net removal. Across northern Australia, Indigenous ranger groups continue to remove nets on their country, demonstrating the success of the initial program supported by the Australian government. To date, nearly 15,000 ghost nets (three times the number reported in 2010) have been removed from the region. The net removal program has extended beyond Ranger groups working in the Gulf of Carpentaria to include the Torres Strait, the western part of the Northern Territory Coast, and parts of the Kimberly coastline in Western Australia.

Globally, the world is focused on the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) which aims to provide a ‘shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’ (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs).

A key focus for the SDGs is to help preserve the world’s oceans, a topic which touches on food security, poverty and economic growth, among other goals. Ensuring fishing practices are aligned with these goals includes reducing gear losses into the marine and coastal environment. In recognition of the issue and to end ALDFG, there is now a multi-stakeholder alliance of fishing industry, private sector, multinational corporations, non-government organizations, academics and governments, the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), which is focused on solving the problem of abandoned, lost and derelict fishing gear worldwide. Both CSIRO and GhostNets Australia were founding members of this alliance and have been instrumental in engagement and scientific endeavours which inform the GGGI.

Fig 3. An enormous effort is invested by Indigenous rangers in removing ghost nets from beaches along the northern Australian coastline (Photo: World Animal Protection/Dean Sewell)

Based on collaborative research between GhostNets Australia and CSIRO, it was determined that the primary source of derelict nets washing ashore along Australia’s northern coastline was the Arafura Sea. Engagement with fishers in the region through a series of workshops identified that major causes of gear loss included snagging of nets and over-capacity in the region. We also identified opportunities to help resolve ghost net issues in the region, though stakeholder engagement, points of intervention and livelihood tradeoffs. Much of this overcapacity and overcrowding has been attributed to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Subsequently, Indonesia went through a substantial change in practices with regards to allowing foreign vessels in their waters, effectively closed their borders to foreign fisheries operators. Anecdotally, information from multiple ranger groups in Northern Australia suggests that this highly publicized and significant change in practice has resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of ghost nets washing ashore along at least part of the northern Australian coastline.

Another outcome from the collaborative research effort was a new understanding based on deep citizen science engagement and modelling to identify potential high risk areas where ghost nets were likely to cause the most harm to turtles. In this work, we were able to suggest interdiction points for ghostnets, before they entered the Gulf of Carpentaria where they were likely to kill wildlife. We also identified the nets that were most harmful to wildlife and we estimated that nearly 15,000 marine turtles had likely been killed by derelict nets in the region.

There have also been some technological improvements in this area. These fall into both reporting and in tracking nets. Electronic data collection has improved the quality of data collection and can ensure errors are minimised. Development of the tool has also been designed such that those with reduced literacy are also able to collect valuable information, a feature that can be important in many communities. Using icons and photos to help identify nets improved data reliability.

Also within Australia, alternative livelihoods programs such as Ghost Net Gear evolved into the Ghost Net Art Project where the art works have excited the International art community.  This has resulted in purchases by many internationally renowned purveyors of artwork including the British Museum, the Australian National Museum and the Australian Maritime Museum. Works from Indigenous artists can also be seen at Australia’s Parliament House, and exhibitions have taken place in Monaco, Alaska, Singapore and France as well as in numerous national and regional galleries around Australia. A commemorative stamp was even made from the Ghost Nets artwork that lives in the Australian National Museum.

Figure 4. Large nets can become entangled in coastal vegetation. (Photo: World Animal Protection/Dean Sewell)

Future directions. While GhostNets Australia has not formally continued as a non-governmental organization, many of the components initiated through the program have continued and grown through time, as exemplified above. This early work also helped springboard CSIRO’s engagement in capacity building with the Indonesian government to tackle Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. This had led to a strong research collaboration relationship between the two countries, with a shared goal of reducing IUU fishing, building capacity on marine resource management, and improved monitoring, control and surveillance efforts in Indonesia.

CSIRO is also involved in an aerial (re)survey of the coastline across Northern Australia. In affiliation with World Animal Protection and Norm Duke and Jock Mackenzie from James Cook University, we are looking at changes in the number of ghost nets along the shoreline (Figs 3 and 4). Stereo images were recorded along the entire coastline and we are comparing ghost nets observed across the region with two other aerial surveys that have taken place in the last decade. The team have just completed flights (September 2019), so we are looking forward to analysing the images and comparing ghost net numbers across the region.

ContactDenise.hardesty@csiro.au; CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. rikigunn1@outlook.com; chris.wilcox@csiro.au

Registration of domestic cats on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean: stage one to an eradication program for stray and feral cats to mitigate social and environmental impacts – UPDATE of EMR feature

 David Algar, Neil Hamilton and Caitlyn Pink

[Update to EMR article: Algar, David, Stefanie Hilmer, Don Nickels and Audrey Nickels (2011) Successful domestic cat neutering: first step towards eradicating cats on Christmas Island for wildlife protection. Ecological Management & Restoration, 12:2, 93-101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00594.x]

Key words: domestic and feral cats, eradication program, cat de-sexing and registration, cat management, pet cat survey, local cat legislation

Figure 1. Stray cat on Christmas Island (Photo Neil Hamilton DBCA)

Introduction: In 2010 a ‘’Cat Management Plan’’ was commissioned by the various land management agencies on Christmas Island to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of cats (Felis catus) on the island (Fig 1). These impacts included contributing towards the decline of a number of native species through predation, as well as being a source of Toxoplasmosis gondii, a parasite that can lead to serious human health complications.

The plan proposed a strategy to eradicate cats entirely from the island as the domestic population died out and was adopted in late 2010. The essential first stage of the management plan was therefore the registration of all domestic cats. As part of this plan, amendments to the Local Cat Management Laws (Shire of Christmas Island Local Law for the Keeping and Control of Cats 2004 (WA)) under the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) were endorsed in August 2010. These revisions required that all domestic cats in the Shire of Christmas Island were legally bound to be de-sexed, tattooed, microchipped and registered with the Shire. The revisions were designed to limit domestic and stray/feral cat impact on the native fauna, promote responsible cat ownership, compliance and enforcement of cat management laws and prohibit the importation of new cats. Micro-chipping of domestic cats would enable the identification of those animals during trapping campaigns for stray and feral cats, so that they could be released rather than destroyed. De-sexing would prevent potential natal recruitment into the domestic, stray and feral populations. A survey of domestic cats was conducted prior to the veterinary program in October 2010 (see original feature), to guarantee that all domestic cats would be registered. One hundred and fifty-two cats were recorded during the initial survey in October 2010 of which 136 were registered as domestic pets.

Figure 2. Red-tailed Tropic-Bird with chick May 2012. (Photo Neil Hamilton DBCA)

Further works undertaken: Two further veterinary visits were conducted in May 2011 and 2012 following the domestic cat surveys to complete the veterinary program. Subsequent domestic cat surveys have been conducted each May in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. In 2016 prior to the domestic cat survey, it came to our attention that a number of un-registered cats were being kept as pets. It was decided by the ‘’Christmas Island Cat Eradication Steering Committee’’ that a short-term amnesty on pet cat ownership be invoked so that these animals could also be de-sexed and registered. Following this amnesty, a final veterinary program was endorsed and fines were still issued to those residents who wanted their otherwise illegal cat to be de-sexed and registered, or unregistered cats could be handed in and euthanased without charge. Further domestic cat surveys were conducted in May 2017 and October 2018.

Further results to date: Since October 2010, 184 cats have been registered following the various veterinary programs. The survey conducted in 2018 recorded 66 registered cats remaining. The total number of domestic cats registered each year, the sex population structure, the number of new registrations and number deregistered are presented in Table 1, with the decline of two-thirds relatively steady over the years.

Table 1. Total number of domestic cats registered each year, the sex structure, the number of new registrations and number de-registered.

Date No. registered New/re-registers De-registers
  Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male
October 2010 N/A N/A N/A 136 66 70 N/A N/A N/A
May 2011 138 69 69 18 10 8 16 7 9
May 2012 135 66 69 12 5 7 15 8 7
May 2013 111 53 58 0 0 0 24 13 11
May 2014 101 50 51 0 0 0 10 5 5
May 2015 87 45 42 0 0 0 14 5 9
May 2016 75 41 34 2 1 1 14 5 9
June 2016 93 49 44 18 8 10 0 0 0
May 2017 74 38 36 1 0 1 20 11 9
October 2018 66 36 30 0 0 0 8 2 6

Lessons learned and future directions: At the conclusion of the domestic cat survey in 2018, there were 66 registered cats present on the island. An additional seven domestic cats are known to have died before the planned 2019 domestic cat survey. Death of registered cats over the past nine years has been caused by a number of factors including: road fatalities; old age; disease; requests for cats to be euthanased for a variety of reasons and cats exported back to the mainland.

Domestic cats will remain on Christmas Island for a number of years, with the youngest cat approximately three years of age. Initially, as reported in the 2011 feature, it was predicted that the island would be domestic cat-free by 2024 however, this is unlikely given the subsequent and final veterinary program in 2016.

Further amendments to the island’s cat local laws were adopted in 2018, following consultation with the community and the Christmas Island Cat Eradication Steering Committee. This included an increase in penalties for illegal unregistered cats and compulsory transfer of ownership procedures to prevent future movement of registered pet cats into the designated pet cat prohibited zone. This zone protects nesting habitat for the ground-nesting Red-tailed Tropic Bird (Phaethon rubricauda, Fig 2.), where cat predation led to 90% failure of fledgling rates pre-control. Subsequent cat management in this zone has been successful in improving fledgling survival (See 2012 report).

There are several benefits of repeating the domestic cat survey each year as pet numbers decline: continue program awareness to all residents; maintain community support and involvement; offer pet health advice; thoroughly check for illegal cats to report to the Shire and respond to stray cat reports within the township. This continued effort will help ensure there is little opportunity or temptation to obtain new kittens as illegal pets while later stages of the eradication are progressing, and responsible cat ownership is maintained until the domestic cat population has died out.

The goal of eradicating cats remains highly relevant and is supported by the island community, local land management agencies and the federal government. The feasibility of long-term success is high and the outcome is likely to provide valuable lessons for other jurisdictions with social and environmental issues surrounding the presence of feral and domestic cats.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies: This is a collaborative project between Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and Parks Australia. The authors would like to thank Parks Australia, Christmas Island Phosphates, Shire of Christmas Island, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development and Australian Border Force for their financial, in-kind and logistical support. Special thanks to Robert Muller, Khaleisha Amin and Chris Su for their assistance in annual surveys. The warm welcome and assistance of the whole Christmas Island community during all domestic cat surveys has been appreciated.

Contact information: David Algar, Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Western Australia, Australia 6983) Email: dave.algar@dbca.wa.gov.au