Giving sharks their day in court - hsi.org.au · Giving sharks their day in court Technical...
32
Giving sharks their day in court Technical Bulletin Issue No 29, 2018 HSI vs Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Lethal drumlines: 10 more years of misguided mass-killing Inside NSW Biodiversity Laws 5 • Ending Mulesing 14
Transcript of Giving sharks their day in court - hsi.org.au · Giving sharks their day in court Technical...
Giving sharks their day in court
TechnicalBulletinIssue No 29, 2018
HSI vs Great Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityLethal drumlines: 10 more years of misguided mass-killing
Inside NSW Biodiversity Laws 5 • Ending Mulesing 14
Technical BulletinTechnical Bulletin No. 29, 2018Published by Humane SocietyInternational AustraliaPO Box 439, Avalon, NSW 2107 Australia
www.hsi.org.au
facebook.com/HSIAustralia
twitter.com/hsi_australia
+61 (02) 9973 1728
ISBN: 978-0-6481955-0-4Printed on recycled paper
New CEO ...............................................................................................3Making a world of difference for animals and their environment
New staffers .........................................................................................3Our team gets even stronger
Next generation laws ........................................................................4Facing the environmental challenges of the 21st Century
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act..............................................5New nature laws in NSW not up to scratch
Threatened Ecological Communities of Australia ....................6Map, listings and proposed nominations
Threatened............................................................................................8An overview of HSI’s Threatened Species Program
Wildlife Land Trust ..........................................................................10HSI’s private land conservation program hits 500 member milestone
Forests and climate ..........................................................................1 1UNFCCC negotiations wrap up with bare minimum of progress
Saving the world’s donkeys ...........................................................12HSI launches actions to save the downtrodden species
Animal testing for cosmetics .........................................................13Australia’s proposed ban remains in limbo
Ending mulesing ................................................................................14Are vested interests getting in the way of a genetic solution?
Disaster relief ....................................................................................15HSI on the ground in Puerto Rico in aftermath of Hurricane Maria
Free-range fraud ..............................................................................16Record fine dealt to WA producer after HSI complaint
Japan violates whaling laws—again ...........................................17Legislation passes Japanese parliament locking in commercial whaling ambitions
HSI vs GBRMPA (cover story) .......................................................18Giving sharks their day in court
Hammerhead sharks getting hammered ...................................20Will Minister Frydenberg list the species as Endangered?
Time to pull our NSW Shark Nets ...............................................2 1The latest statistics reveal more slaughter in our oceans
Disaster for albatross .....................................................................22Bigger fish quotas signals the death of more seabirds
CMS listings spell hope for species conservation ..................23New listings give additional protections for a range of threatened species
International Project .......................................................................24Supporting conservation in the Guinean Forests of West Africa Biodiversity Hotspot
The imperilled platypus ..................................................................26Trapped in our rivers while others shipped overseas
Australian sea lions .........................................................................27New gillnet closure to prevent sea lion deaths
High seas.............................................................................................28Protecting biodiversity in the great blue beyond
Protecting All Animals ....................................................................28HSI’s blog on animal welfare and wildlife conservation
North Head Sanctuary ...................................................................29Minister has head in the sand at Manly
Wombat slaughter ..........................................................................29Ongoing investigation into crime that shocked community
Ending the dog meat trade ..........................................................30South Korea and Indonesia key fronts in global battle
3
New CEO, same focusMaking a world of differencefor animals and their environment
HSI Australia is pleased to welcome on board Ms Erica Martinwho has been named the organisation’s new CEO effectiveSeptember 2017.
Erica joins HSI after a long career with the International Fund forAnimal Welfare (IFAW), most recently as the Vice President ofGlobal Communications based in the United States of America.Prior to that she was the Regional Director for IFAW Asia Pacific,based in Sydney.
“When the opportunity came to lead the incredibly talentedteam of HSI Australia, I jumped at it,” she said.
HSI has a stellar track record in Australia—the organisation wasa key driver of groundbreaking legislation such as the NSWThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the federalEnvironmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,and is now campaigning for new national environment laws forthe next generation of threats facing our nation's wildlife. Seestory on page 4.
“HSI has proven itself to be the most effective animal protectionand conservation NGO working in this region and I hope to helpthe team raise awareness of our work to attract new supportersand gain more wins for animals and the environment,” she said.
Erica also has much experience in government relations havingworked for the Australian Federal Government as Director ofCommunications for the then Department of Communications,Information Technology and the Arts in Canberra.
“Threats to biodiversity have never been greater. Unprecedentedhabitat loss and climate change continues to drive many speciesto extinction. Australia must do better at finding innovativesolutions to the conservation crisis and to make the welfare ofindividual animals a priority in that mission,” Erica said.
“No one NGO can solve the myriad issues as we work to protectour biodiversity. I admire HSI for their collaborative approach whichhas demonstrated real impact. And I am keen to continue workingwith other NGOs, with community groups, with landholders andwith local, state and territory and the federal government tosafeguard our precious natural heritage today and for the future.”
With Erica at the helm, Michael Kennedy and Verna Simpson,the founding directors of HSI Australia, will ease themselves intoretirement. However, they will remain working on a variety ofspecial projects for the next 12 months.
Our team gets even stronger In addition to Erica Martin being our new CEO, we have also welcomed two new staff members recently.
Ben Vozzo is our new Communications Coordinator. Havingworked as Digital Communications Manager on WWF’s EarthHour program for three years in Australia and Singapore, Benwill help expand our communication channels to new audiences.
He works on our social media platforms, HSI’s blog ProtectingAll Animals, and manages our external communications withAustralian journalists to garner greater press coverage of ourbroad campaign work.
Helen Church has recently joined the team as a new ProjectOfficer of the Wildlife Land Trust (WLT), working on recruitingsanctuaries, managing the network and organising its media.Helen studied Animal and Veterinary Bioscience at the Universityof Sydney, majoring in wildlife health and disease. She has a keeninterest in conservation of native species and the humanemanagement of invasive species, having volunteered at theAustralian Wildlife Conservancy’s bandicoot monitoring programand Care for Hedland’s flatback turtle monitoring program.
Australia must do better at findinginnovative solutions to theconservation crisis.”
4 NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS
You need only read successive State of the EnvironmentReports to know that Australia is rapidly losing its wildlifeand their habitats. It’s a tragic reality that in 2018 our nationstill allows the broad scale clearing of hundreds of thousandsof hectares of native bushland. So much so, that easternAustralia is considered a global deforestation hotspot.This is thoroughly shameful for a developed nation such asours. How can the laws that are allowing this to happen copewith the intensification of environmental challenges in thedecade ahead? Clearly, they can’t. We need new laws.
In 1999, HSI supported the passage of the CommonwealthEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Actthrough the Parliament. We advised senators at the time that,on balance, the EPBC Act was a substantial advance on the lawsit was replacing. Had we stuck with them, the resources andagricultural ministers could still be our environmental decisionmakers and the situation a whole lot worse. But the improvementswe gained in the EPBC Act 20 years ago are simply notenough to protect our environment against the remorseless and unrelenting assaults thrown at it, which will only worsen.
Chief among the EPBC Act’s limitations is its inability to dealwell with cumulative impacts. Too many species and ecosystemsthat are listed as Matters of National EnvironmentalSignificance are suffering their demise by a thousand cutsthrough an environmental assessment and approval processthat rarely, if ever, says no. Decision making powers may nowbe invested in the Environment Minister, but the trade-off wemade in 1999 to secure this was broad ministerial discretion—
this discretion allows short term political interests to overridethe long term national good over and over again. The Actalso contains far too many exemptions, including one thathas lately been abused to allow culling and displacement ofthreatened species for very dubious ‘national interests’. HSI is very concerned to see what the minister will exemptnext in the so-called national interest.
For these reasons HSI and the Places You Love Alliance, a coalition of the nation’s leading conservation advocacygroups, are calling for a new generation of environmentlaws to face the challenges of the 21st Century. Australianeeds national environment laws that demand strongleadership from our federal government, protect decisionmaking from political interference, empower independentand trusted institutions, have a central and meaningful rolefor the community and hold the government of the day toaccount. But most importantly, we need laws that plan forthe myriad compounding threats against wildlife and theirhabitats and provide resilience against climate change.
In developing our policy asks for new laws, the Places You Lovealliance has drawn on the law reform work undertaken by theAustralia Panel of Expert Environmental Lawyers apeel.org.au
HSI has further commissioned the Environmental DefendersOffice to prepare a paper on the clauses needed for thebiodiversity chapters in the next generation environment law.
Shamefully, we are a globaldeforestation hotspot #neednewlaws
Environmental approval process that rarely
—if ever—says ‘no’ and is delivering
death by a thousand cuts
5EVAN QUARTERMAIN, HSI HEAD OF PROGRAMS
Those who claimed that the writing was on the wall after theNSW Biodiversity Legislation Review was announced in 2015have had their scepticism justified with the commencement of thestate’sBiodiversityConservationAct2016andLocalLandServicesAmendment Bill 2016 in August last year. The review followedan election commitment by the National party, itself the resultof an agreement reached with the NSW Farmers Associationto repeal the Native Vegetation Act 2003.
HSI and other lead environmental groups have been campaigningfor strong state biodiversity laws since early 2015 as the Stand UpFor Nature (SUFN) alliance. Disappointingly, our efforts fell on deafears and NSW has squandered the chance for a real difference.Instead, after tokenistic consultation, they took theregressivestepof reducing land clearing regulation and putting the threatenedhabitats we have long campaigned to protect in the line of fire.
The National party ran the show with Niall Blair as the Minister forPrimary Industries while the environment portfolio was a revolvingdoor. First off the rank was Pittwater Liberal MP Rob Stokes,followed by Cronulla Liberal MP Mark Speakman, before finallythe current Minister, Vaucluse Liberal MP Gabrielle Upton. Muchof the SUFN alliance’s time was spent bringing newcomers upto speed on our concerns while Niall Blair was able to steer hisPrimary Industries intention through from outset to finalisation.
One thing that has remained consistent throughout MinistersStokes, Speakman and Upton’s tenures however, is the spruikingthat their package of $240 million over four years for private landconservation somehow balances out increased land clearing.This is an illogical justification: the conservation of biodiversitycannot be bought and any reliance on an offsetting system isflawed with a net-loss all but guaranteed. Establishment costsand salaries have already impacted the first year of theBiodiversity Conservation Trust budget, and their priorityinvestment strategy is several weeks behind schedule.
It would be naïve to take the government’s word on private landconservation investment as the necessary detail for thoroughjudgement is not available. For now we remain highly sceptical.
Claims of attempting to balance the needs of farmers and theenvironmentaredisingenuous, ignoringthe ‘balance’beingalready
well against the environment due to historic clearing. In addition,a rapidly growing body of science and commercial interests, suchas the banking sector, have been high lighting the benefits ofbiodiversity in productive landscapes for decades. This is not theideological battle between production and the environment asthe government and some industries try to portray, but a sensibleshift in thinking that is being ignored to the peril of both interests.
HSI is concerned at the potential for relaxed NSW land clearinglaws to increase impacts on Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Matters of NationalEnvironmental Significance. After former Queensland PremierCampbell Newman enacted similar legislation land clearing ratesskyrocketed, and the Federal Government has been unacceptablysilent regarding potentially thousands of instances involvingfederally protected ecosystems, shirking its responsibility toenforce the national law. We have written to Federal Ministerfor the Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg urging himto be vigilant but have received no response.
An important matter for the new NSW regime that is yet to beaccredited by the Commonwealth is a bilateral agreement for thestate Biodiversity Offsetting scheme. HSI has a matter in theFederal Court regarding the Commonwealth withholdinginformation we sought via a Freedom of Information requestconcerning their view of the previous NSW offsets policy—whichwas concerning enough to conservationists but was arguablysuperior to the current NSW Government offsets policy.
We are alarmed the offsetting program, that MinisterFrydenberg has signalled he intends to accredit, completelyfails to meet Commonwealth standards. Specifically, provisionsregarding the proportion of offsets that must be invested bydirect rather than supplementary measures (set at 90/10% inthe EPBC Act Biodiversity Offsets Policy) and ‘like-for-like’ rulesthat specify offsetting must focus on the matter that has beendegraded or destroyed, not a ‘triage’ style approach where theclearing of even the most critically endangered communitiescan be offset by less threatened habitats far from the site ofdevelopment. New Assistant Minister Melissa Price should sendthe NSW Government back to the drawing board.
Triage-approach promotes clearingof most criticallyendangered
6
HSI’s 23-year campaign identifying the most threatened habitatsin Australia, and preparing scientific nominations for theirprotection under the Environment Protection and BiodiversityAct 1999 (EPBC Act), had another successful year, with thethree Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) nominationswe submitted earmarked for assessment on the 2017Finalised Priority Assessment List.
These three nominations were for Robertson Rainforest in theSydney Basin Bioregion, Lowland Tropical Rainforest of the WetTropics Bioregion, and Melaleuca dominated Temperate SwampSclerophyll Forests on Coastal Floodplains of Eastern Australia.The independent Threatened Species Scientific Committee(TSSC) is due to provide its advice on each of the ecologicalcommunities to the Minister for the Environment in 2019.
The Lowland Tropical Rainforest of the Wet Tropics Bioregionnomination is a clear example of how TEC listings provideumbrella protection for a multitude of issues, with the impactsof historic clearing for sugar cane plantations on species suchas southern cassowaries and tree kangaroos now exacerbatedby urban development. Less than 20% of the community’soriginal extent remains, and of that at least 90% is highlyfragmented. Just 2% of the original extent of this vital habitatis in good, functioning condition. It is imperative that these lastremnants are protected as Matters of National EnvironmentalSignificance, and being on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef,reduced erosion and nutrient runoff are additional benefits toprotecting the threatened vegetation.
In official correspondence informing HSI of the success of ournominations, Matt White, the Director of Ecological Communitiesfrom the Department of Environment and Energy’s BiodiversityConservationDivisionwrote:“HSI’songoingleadershipinprovidingmany nominations that have led to successful listings of ecologicalcommunitiesovermorethanadecade,whichinturnhasledtomanyimportant habitat conservation outcomes, is well acknowledgedand appreciated by the Department and the Committee.”
HSI is now responsible for nominating 27 of the 78 (35%) TECscurrently listed under the EPBC Act, as well as 11 of the 14 (79%)currently under assessment. Listed communities that were initiatedthrough HSI nominations now total over 5,000,000 hectares of
threatened habitats across Australia, and assist in the targetingof Government recovery funding and initiatives such as Landcare,the Green Army and 20 Million Trees programme.
And HSI is already preparing further submissions for the 2018round of nominations, with current priorities being: KwongkanShrublands of Western Australia; a Eucalyptus resinifera /Brigalow Belt community; and a faunal community centred on the dingo’s importance to the Lake Eyre region.
Lack of listings, Minister in breachWhile HSI is doing our bit, the Minister needs to pick up the pace.HSI is greatly concerned that Federal Minister for the Environmentand Energy, Josh Frydenberg, did not make a TEC listing in2017. It is the first year since the Act’s commencement that anecological community has not been included on the schedulesof the EPBC Act since the commencement of the legislation in2000. By comparison, four communities were listed in 2016,seven in 2015, five in 2014, and eight in 2013.
What makes it even more alarming is that the Minister was in breach of the Act for more than two months after failing tomake a decision on a highly-important Threatened EcologicalCommunity: Poplar Box Grassy Woodland on Alluvial Plains insouthern Queensland and northern NSW, including the Pilliga.Nominated by HSI for listing in 2013 and included on the FinalisedPriority Assessment List of the same year, Minister Frydenberghad a statutory deadline to make a listing decision for theecological community within 90 business days of receiving theTSSC’s Conservation Advice in late April. After repeatedcorrespondence from HSI, including letters from our lawyers atthe Environmental Defenders Office NSW, the Minister finallydeferred his decision claiming he needs more time. The scienceis clear, so HSI suspects this is time to consider the politics ofthe agriculture and gas interests involved.
We are also waiting for decisions on Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) Coastal Floodplain Forest, Tasmanian Forestsand Woodlands dominated by black gum or Brookers gum(Eucalyptus ovata / E. brookeriana), and The community ofestuarine species dependent on salt-wedge estuaries ofsouthern Australia.
HSI passes a milestone while minister fails to front
EVAN QUARTERMAIN, HSI HEAD OF PROGRAMS
HSI’s leadership…is wellacknowledged and appreciated bythe Department and the Committee.”“
T h r e a t e n e d E c o l o g i c a l C o m m u n i t i e s
HSI-init iated nominations account for over
5,000,000 hectares of threatened habitats,
some 35% of current TECs
155°
0'0"
E
155°
0'0"
E
150°
0'0"
E
150°
0'0"
E
145°
0'0"
E
145°
0'0"
E
140°
0'0"
E
140°
0'0"
E
135°
0'0"
E135°
0'0"
E
130°
0'0"
E
130°
0'0"
E
125°
0'0"
E
125°
0'0"
E
120°
0'0"
E
120°
0'0"
E
115°
0'0"
E
115°
0'0"
E
110°
0'0"
E
110°
0'0"
E
160°
0'0"
E10
5°0'
0"E
165°
0'0"
E10
0°0'
0"E
10°0'0"S
10°0'0"S
15°0'0"S
15°0'0"S
20°0'0"S
20°0'0"S
25°0'0"S
25°0'0"S
30°0'0"S
30°0'0"S
35°0'0"S
35°0'0"S
40°0'0"S
40°0'0"S
Mon
soon
vin
e th
icke
ts o
nth
e co
asta
l san
d du
nes
ofD
ampi
er P
enin
sula
Arnh
em P
late
au S
ands
tone
Shru
blan
d C
ompl
ex
Thre
aten
ed E
colo
gica
l Com
mun
ities
of A
ustra
lia
East
ern
Inla
nd P
lain
sBr
igal
ow (
Acac
ia h
arpo
phyl
lado
min
ant a
nd c
o-do
min
ant)
Bulo
ke W
oodl
ands
of t
he R
iver
ina
and
Mur
ray-
Dar
ling
Dep
ress
ion
Bior
egio
ns
Coo
libah
- B
lack
Box
Woo
dlan
ds o
f the
Dar
ling
Riv
erin
e P
lain
s an
d th
e B
rigal
ow B
elt S
outh
Bior
egio
ns
Gre
y B
ox (E
ucal
yptu
s m
icro
carp
a) G
rass
y W
oodl
ands
and
Der
ived
Nat
ive
Gra
ssla
nds
of S
outh
-eas
tern
Aust
ralia
Nat
ural
Gra
ssla
nds
of th
e Q
ueen
slan
d C
entra
lH
ighl
ands
and
the
north
ern
Fitz
roy
Bas
in
Sem
i-eve
rgre
en v
ine
thic
kets
of t
he B
rigal
ow B
elt
(Nor
th a
nd S
outh
) and
Nan
dew
ar B
iore
gion
s
Wee
ping
Mya
ll W
oodl
ands
Whi
te B
ox-Y
ello
w B
ox-B
lake
ly's
Red
Gum
Gra
ssy
Woo
dlan
d an
d D
eriv
ed N
ativ
e G
rass
land
Nat
ural
gra
ssla
nds
on b
asal
t and
fine
-text
ured
allu
vial
plai
ns o
f nor
ther
n N
ew S
outh
Wal
es a
nd s
outh
ern
Que
ensl
and
Gia
nt K
elp
Mar
ine
Fore
sts
of S
outh
Eas
t Aus
tralia
Posi
doni
a au
stra
lis s
eagr
ass
mea
dow
s of
the
Man
ning
-Haw
kesb
ury
ecor
egio
n
Subt
ropi
cal a
nd T
empe
rate
Coa
stal
Sal
tmar
sh
Mar
ine
Envi
ronm
ents
Blue
Gum
Hig
h Fo
rest
of t
he S
ydne
y B
asin
Bio
regi
on
Cas
tlere
agh
Scr
ibbl
y G
um a
nd A
gnes
Ban
ksW
oodl
ands
of t
he S
ydne
y B
asin
Bio
regi
on
Cen
tral H
unte
r Val
ley
euca
lypt
fore
st a
nd w
oodl
and
Coa
stal
Upl
and
Swam
ps in
the
Syd
ney
Bas
inBi
oreg
ion
Coo
ks R
iver
/Cas
tlere
agh
Ironb
ark
Fore
st o
f the
Sydn
ey B
asin
Bio
regi
on
Cum
berla
nd P
lain
Sha
le W
oodl
ands
and
Sha
le-
Gra
vel T
rans
ition
For
est
East
ern
Sub
urbs
Ban
ksia
Scr
ub o
f the
Syd
ney
Reg
ion
Hun
ter V
alle
y W
eepi
ng M
yall
(Aca
cia
pend
ula)
Woo
dlan
d
Shal
e Sa
ndst
one
Tran
sitio
n Fo
rest
of t
he S
ydne
yBa
sin
Bio
regi
on
Sout
hern
Hig
hlan
ds S
hale
For
est a
nd W
oodl
and
inth
e S
ydne
y B
asin
Bio
regi
on
Tem
pera
te H
ighl
and
Pea
t Sw
amps
on
Sand
ston
e
Turp
entin
e-Iro
nbar
k Fo
rest
in th
e S
ydne
y B
asin
Bior
egio
n
Upl
and
Bas
alt E
ucal
ypt F
ores
ts o
f the
Syd
ney
Basi
nBi
oreg
ion
War
kwor
th S
ands
Woo
dlan
d of
the
Hun
ter V
alle
y
Wes
tern
Syd
ney
Dry
Rai
nfor
est a
nd M
oist
Woo
dlan
don
Sha
le
Sydn
ey B
asin
and
Hun
ter
Valle
y
Nat
ural
Dam
p G
rass
land
of t
he V
icto
rian
Coa
stal
Plai
ns
Gip
psla
nd R
ed G
um (
Euca
lypt
us te
retic
orni
s m
edia
na)
Gra
ssy
Woo
dlan
d an
d A
ssoc
iate
d N
ativ
e G
rass
land
Gra
ssy
Euc
alyp
t Woo
dlan
d of
the
Vict
oria
n Vo
lcan
icPl
ain
Nat
ural
Tem
pera
te G
rass
land
of t
he V
icto
rian
Volc
anic
Plai
n
Seas
onal
Her
bace
ous
Wet
land
s (F
resh
wat
er) o
f the
Tem
pera
te L
owla
nd P
lain
s
Vict
oria
n an
d R
iver
ina
Plai
ns
Nat
ural
Gra
ssla
nds
of th
e M
urra
y Va
lley
Pla
ins
Eyre
Pen
insu
la B
lue
Gum
(Euc
alyp
tus
petio
laris
)W
oodl
and
Iron-
gras
s N
atur
al T
empe
rate
Gra
ssla
nd o
f Sou
thAu
stra
lia
Kang
aroo
Isla
nd N
arro
w-le
aved
Mal
lee
(Euc
alyp
tus
cneo
rifol
ia) W
oodl
and
Pepp
erm
int B
ox (E
ucal
yptu
s od
orat
a) G
rass
yW
oodl
and
of S
outh
Aus
tralia
Swam
ps o
f the
Fle
urie
u P
enin
sula
Sout
h-ea
st S
outh
Aus
tral
ia
010
020
030
040
050
0km
© C
opyr
ight
| C
omm
onw
ealth
of A
ustr
alia
, 201
6.
* lis
ted
unde
r th
eE
nviro
nmen
t P
rote
ctio
n an
d B
iodi
vers
ity C
onse
rvat
ion
Act
1999
(the
EP
BC
Act
) as
at S
epte
mbe
r 201
6.
Map
pro
duce
d by
:Env
ironm
enta
l Res
ourc
es In
form
atio
n N
etw
ork
Con
text
ual
data
sou
rces
:fro
m t
he D
epar
tmen
t of
the
Env
ironm
ent
and
Ene
rgy,
Geo
scie
nce
Aus
tral
ia, P
ublic
Sec
tor
Map
ping
Age
ncy,
Dep
artm
ent
ofA
gric
ultu
re,
Com
mon
wea
lth S
cien
tific
and
Ind
ustri
al R
esea
rch
Org
anis
atio
nan
d th
e A
ustr
alia
n B
urea
u of
Sta
tistic
s.
Cav
eat:
The
info
rmat
ion
pres
ente
d in
thi
s m
ap h
as b
een
prov
ided
by
a ra
nge
of g
roup
s an
d ag
enci
es. W
hile
eve
ry e
ffort
has
bee
n m
ade
to e
nsur
e ac
cura
cyan
d co
mpl
eten
ess,
no
guar
ante
e is
giv
en,
nor
resp
onsi
bilit
y ta
ken
by t
heC
omm
onw
ealth
for
err
ors
or o
mis
sion
s, a
nd t
he C
omm
onw
ealth
doe
s no
tac
cept
res
pons
ibili
ty i
n re
spec
t of
any
inf
orm
atio
n or
adv
ice
give
n in
rel
atio
nto
, or a
s a
cons
eque
nce
of, a
nyth
ing
cont
aini
ng h
erei
n.
The
indi
cativ
e di
strib
utio
ns o
f 77
nat
iona
lly l
iste
d*Th
reat
ened
Eco
logi
cal C
omm
uniti
es
The
indi
cativ
e di
strib
utio
n m
appi
ng
repr
esen
ts
the
broa
d en
viro
nmen
tal r
ange
in w
hich
thes
e co
mm
uniti
esar
e lik
ely
to
be
foun
d.
Th
ese
com
mun
ities
ha
vety
pica
lly
been
he
avily
cl
eare
d an
d fra
gmen
ted
into
mos
tly s
mal
l sca
ttere
d pa
tche
s th
roug
hout
thei
r ran
ge.
Prot
eace
ae D
omin
ated
Kw
ongk
an S
hrub
land
s of
the
Sou
thea
st
Coa
stal
Flo
ristic
Pro
vinc
e of
Wes
tern
Aus
tralia
(Mar
k B
ourn
e)
Mon
soon
Vin
e Th
icke
ts o
n th
e co
asta
l san
d du
nes
of D
ampi
er
Peni
nsul
a. C
ape
Leve
que,
Dam
pier
Pen
insu
la. (
Ant
hony
Hof
fman
)
Euca
lypt
Woo
dlan
ds o
f the
WA
Whe
atbe
lt. (M
atth
ew W
hite
)
Gip
psla
nd R
ed G
um G
rass
y W
oodl
and
(Ros
emar
y P
urdi
e)
Kang
aroo
Isla
nd N
arro
w-le
aved
Mal
lee
Woo
dlan
d (M
atth
ew W
hite
)
Nat
ural
Tem
pera
te G
rass
land
of t
he
Sout
h E
aste
rn H
ighl
ands
(Dav
id E
ddy)
Cas
tlere
agh
Scrib
bly
Gum
and
Agn
es B
anks
Woo
dlan
ds
of th
e S
ydne
y Ba
sin
Bio
regi
on, P
etro
phile
ses
silis
, Vo
yage
r Poi
nt, S
ydne
y (A
ntho
ny H
offm
an)
The
com
mun
ity o
f nat
ive
spec
ies
depe
nden
t on
natu
ral d
isch
arge
of g
roun
dwat
er fr
om th
e G
reat
Arte
sian
Bas
in
The
EP
BC
Act
Lis
t of T
hrea
tene
d E
colo
gica
l Com
mun
ities
can
be
foun
d on
the
Dep
artm
ent's
web
site
: ht
tp://
ww
w.e
nviro
nmen
t.gov
.au/
cgi-b
in/s
prat
/pub
lic/p
ublic
look
upco
mm
uniti
es.p
lor
use
the
inte
rnet
sea
rch
term
'epb
c ec
olog
ical
com
mun
ities
'
Pro
file
info
rmat
ion
(incl
udin
g ha
bita
t, di
strib
utio
n, fl
oris
tics,
con
serv
atio
n ac
tions
and
le
gisl
ativ
e in
stru
men
ts) c
an b
e fo
und
on th
e S
peci
es P
rofil
e an
d T
hrea
ts d
atab
ase:
ht
tp://
ww
w.e
nviro
nmen
t.gov
.au/
spra
t
Map
s ar
e av
aila
ble
on th
e S
PR
AT p
rofil
es a
nd s
patia
l dat
a ca
n be
dow
nloa
ded
from
: ht
tp://
ww
w.e
nviro
nmen
t.gov
.au/
scie
nce/
erin
/dat
abas
es-m
aps/
ecne
s
Tech
nica
l adv
ice
is a
vaila
ble
from
the
Dep
artm
ent u
sing
the
gene
ral e
nqui
res
porta
l: ht
tp://
ww
w.e
nviro
nmen
t.gov
.au/
web
form
/web
site
-feed
back
Whe
re C
an I
Find
Mor
e In
form
atio
n?
Litto
ral R
ainf
ores
t and
Coa
stal
Vin
e Th
icke
ts o
fEa
ster
n A
ustra
lia
Low
land
Gra
ssy
Woo
dlan
d in
the
Sou
th E
ast
Cor
ner B
iore
gion
Broa
d le
af te
a-tre
e (M
elal
euca
viri
diflo
ra) w
oodl
ands
in h
igh
rain
fall
coas
tal n
orth
Que
ensl
and
Low
land
Rai
nfor
est o
f Sub
tropi
cal A
ustra
lia
Mab
i For
est (
Com
plex
Not
ophy
ll Vi
ne F
ores
t 5b)
Swam
p Te
a-tre
e (M
elal
euca
irby
ana)
For
est o
f Sou
th-
east
Que
ensl
and
Wet
Tro
pics
and
Coa
stal
For
est
Illaw
arra
and
Sou
th C
oast
Low
land
For
est a
ndW
oodl
and
Nat
ural
Tem
pera
te G
rass
land
of t
he S
outh
Eas
tern
Hig
hlan
ds
Nat
ural
gra
ssla
nds
on b
asal
t and
fine
-text
ured
allu
vial
plai
ns o
f nor
ther
n N
ew S
outh
Wal
es a
nd s
outh
ern
Que
ensl
and
New
Eng
land
Pep
perm
int (
Euca
lypt
us n
ova-
angl
ica)
Gra
ssy
Woo
dlan
ds
Silu
rian
Lim
esto
ne P
omad
erris
Shr
ubla
nd o
f the
Sout
h E
ast C
orne
r and
Aus
tralia
n A
lps
Bio
regi
ons
Upl
and
Wet
land
s of
the
New
Eng
land
Tab
lela
nds
and
the
Mon
aro
Plat
eau
Whi
te B
ox-Y
ello
w B
ox-B
lake
ly's
Red
Gum
Gra
ssy
Woo
dlan
d an
d D
eriv
ed N
ativ
e G
rass
land
Tabl
elan
ds a
nd H
ighl
ands
of
Sout
h-ea
st A
ustr
alia
Alpi
ne S
phag
num
Bog
s an
d A
ssoc
iate
d Fe
ns
Alpi
ne S
phag
num
Bog
s an
d A
ssoc
iate
d Fe
nsTa
sman
ia
Euca
lypt
us o
vata
- C
allit
ris o
blon
gaFo
rest
Low
land
Nat
ive
Gra
ssla
nds
of T
asm
ania
East
ern
Stir
ling
Ran
ge M
onta
ne H
eath
and
Thi
cket
Euca
lypt
Woo
dlan
ds o
f the
Wes
tern
Aus
tralia
nW
heat
belt
Perc
hed
Wet
land
s of
the
Whe
atbe
lt re
gion
with
exte
nsiv
e st
ands
of l
ivin
g sh
eoak
and
pap
erba
rkac
ross
the
lake
floo
r (To
olib
in L
ake)
Prot
eace
ae D
omin
ated
Kw
ongk
an S
hrub
land
s of
the
Sout
heas
t Coa
stal
Flo
ristic
Pro
vinc
e of
Wes
tern
Aust
ralia
Whe
atbe
lt an
d So
uth
Coa
st o
f Wes
tern
Aus
tral
ia
Shru
blan
ds a
nd W
oodl
ands
of t
he e
aste
rn S
wan
Coa
stal
Pla
in
Shru
blan
ds a
nd W
oodl
ands
on
Muc
hea
Lim
esto
ne o
fth
e S
wan
Coa
stal
Pla
in
Shru
blan
ds a
nd W
oodl
ands
on
Perth
to G
ingi
niro
nsto
ne (P
erth
to G
ingi
n iro
nsto
ne a
ssoc
iatio
n) o
fth
e S
wan
Coa
stal
Pla
in
Shru
blan
ds o
n so
uthe
rn S
wan
Coa
stal
Pla
iniro
nsto
nes
Thro
mbo
lite
(mic
robi
al) c
omm
unity
of c
oast
alfre
shw
ater
lake
s of
the
Sw
an C
oast
al P
lain
(Lak
eR
ichm
ond)
Thro
mbo
lite
(mic
robi
alite
) Com
mun
ity o
f a C
oast
alBr
acki
sh L
ake
(Lak
e C
lifto
n)
Aqua
tic R
oot M
at C
omm
unity
1 in
Cav
es o
f the
Leeu
win
Nat
ural
iste
Rid
ge
Aqua
tic R
oot M
at C
omm
unity
2 in
Cav
es o
f the
Leeu
win
Nat
ural
iste
Rid
ge
Aqua
tic R
oot M
at C
omm
unity
3 in
Cav
es o
f the
Leeu
win
Nat
ural
iste
Rid
ge
Aqua
tic R
oot M
at C
omm
unity
4 in
Cav
es o
f the
Leeu
win
Nat
ural
iste
Rid
ge
Aqua
tic R
oot M
at C
omm
unity
in C
aves
of t
he S
wan
Coa
stal
Pla
in
Asse
mbl
ages
of p
lant
s an
d in
verte
brat
e an
imal
s of
tum
ulus
(org
anic
mou
nd) s
prin
gs o
f the
Sw
an C
oast
alPl
ain
Cla
ypan
s of
the
Sw
an C
oast
al P
lain
Cor
ymbi
a ca
loph
ylla
- K
ingi
a au
stra
lisw
oodl
ands
on
heav
y so
ils o
f the
Sw
an C
oast
al P
lain
Cor
ymbi
a ca
loph
ylla
- X
anth
orrh
oea
prei
ssii
woo
dlan
ds a
nd s
hrub
land
s of
the
Sw
an C
oast
al P
lain
Scot
t Riv
er Ir
onst
one
Ass
ocia
tion
Sedg
elan
ds in
Hol
ocen
e du
ne s
wal
es o
f the
sou
ther
nSw
an C
oast
al P
lain
Sout
h-w
est W
est A
ustr
alia
n C
oast
Bank
sia
Woo
dlan
ds o
f the
Sw
an C
oast
al P
lain
7
8
Threatened features contributions by our organisation’s
Head of Programs Evan Quartermain, our Marine
Scientist Jessica Morris, EDO NSW Senior Policy and
Law Reform Solicitor Nari Sahukar, Dr Judy Lambert
AM, Paul Sattler OAM, former Places You Love Alliance
Director Glen Klatovsky, EDO NSW Solicitor Stacey Ella,
Humane Society International Senior Program Manager
Alexia Wellbelove and Laura Muir.
A hardcopy of Threatened can be purchased for $48.90(postage included) from Humane Society International
Please call (02) 9973 1728 to order your copy today
In April we released our landmark publication Threatened—an account of 22 years of campaigning for threatened speciesand their environments in Australia.
The book is a critical assessment of the federal government’sthreatened species policies and details a comprehensive suite oflegislative and policy improvements to secure wildlife and habitatprotection for the country going forward.
The book lists the 73 species that HSI has either directly nominatedfor protection or been indirectly involved in protecting underCommonwealth, state or territory laws. We also succeeded in thelisting of 28 Threatened Ecological Communities in Australia, whichprovide umbrella protection for 186 threatened flora species and94 threatened fauna species over several million hectares.
In the marine realm, Threatened explores our legislative pursuit ofJapan’s whaling operations, our work to defend shark populationsunder threat from government control programs, and our effortsto protect marine mammals and seabirds falling victim to bycatchin fishing operations.
On land, the publication highlights our campaigns for thepersecuted and threatened grey-headed flying-fox and the dingo, as well as the expansion of the Wildlife Land Trust (WLT), HSI’s private landconservation program now covering tens ofthousands of hectares across the country.
Outlining the crucial improvements to nationalconservation policy and law for threatened species and their environments in Australia is explored in depth in Threatened. Campaigning hard for strong next generationenvironment laws is top of our national policy agenda, and we will continue to seek access to the courts to force effectiveimplementation of existing wildlife law. The future of the nation’swildlife and wild places remains in the balance.
Putting on record what we’ve doneand how our government is doing
9
Species Nominated EPBC Status Other State Legislative Protection
Seabirds
Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans 1994 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Sooty albatross Phoebetria fusca 1996 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Black-browed albatross Thalassarche melanophris 1996 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Shy albatross Thalassarche cauta 1996 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC
Amsterdam albatross Diomedea amsterdamensis Endangered TSCA NSW
Antipodean albatross Diomedea antipodensis Vulnerable
Tristan albatross Diomedea dabbenena Endangered
Southern royal albatross Diomedea epomophora Vulnerable
Gibson's albatross Diomedea gibsoni Vulnerable TSCA NSW
Northern royal albatross Diomedea sanfordi Endangered
Light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Buller’s albatross Thalassarche bulleri Vulnerable
Indian yellow-nosed albatross Thalassarche carteri Vulnerable FFG VIC
Grey-headed albatross Thalassarche chrysostoma Endangered FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Chatham albatross Thalassarche eremita Endangered
Campbell albatross Thalassarche impavida Vulnerable
Salvin's albatross Thalassarche salvini Vulnerable
Pacific albatross Thalassarche nov. sp. (platei) Vulnerable
White-capped albatross Thalassarche steadi Vulnerable
Northern giant petrel Macronectes halli 1999 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus 1999 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Manly Point population of little penguins 1996 Vulnerable TSCA NSW
Sharks
White shark Carcharodon carcharias 1997 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FMA NSW, FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Grey nurse shark Carcharias taurus 2000 Critically Endangered – East, Vulnerable – West FMA NSW, FFG VIC
School shark Galeorhinus galeus 2003 Conservation Dependent
Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus 2009 Migratory FMA NSW B
Longfin mako shark Isurus paucus 2009 Migratory FMA NSW B
Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini 2010 Awaiting Listing Approval FMA NSW
Great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran 2009 Awaiting Listing Approval FMA NSW
Dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus 2009 FMA NSW B
Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas 2010 FMA NSW B
Sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 2010 FMA NSW B
Marine Turtles
Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered
Flatback turtle Natator depressus Vulnerable
Pinnipeds
Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina 1999 Vulnerable
Sub-antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis 1999 Vulnerable FFG VIC
Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea 2016 Vulnerable
Cetaceans
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis 1996 Vulnerable
Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 1996 Vulnerable TSP TAS
Fish
Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus 2003 Conservation Dependent
Eastern gemfish Rexea solandri 2002 Conservation Dependent
Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii 2006 Conservation Dependent FMA NSW, FFG VIC
Dwarf galaxias Galaxiella pusilla 1994 Vulberable FFG VIC, TSP TAS
Elizabeth Springs goby Chlamydogobius micropterus 1994 Endangered
Oxleyan pygmy perch Nannoperca oxleyana 1994 Endangered FMA NSW
Murray hardyhead Craterocephalus fluviatilis 1994 Endangered FMA NSW, FFG VIC
Red-finned blue-eye Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis 1994 Endangered
Terrestrial Mammals
Grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus 1999 Vulnerable TSCA NSW, FFG VIC
Spectacled flying-fox Pteropus conspicillatus 2016 Vulnerable
Pilbara leaf-nosed bat Rhinonicteris aurantia 1999 Vulnerable
Semon’s leaf-nosed bat Hipposideros semoni 1999 Endangered
Greater large-eared horseshoe bat Rhinolophus robertsi 1999 Endangered
South eastern long-eared bat Nyctophilus corbeni 1999 Vulnerable FMA NSW, FFG VIC
Large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri 1999 Vulnerable TSCA NSW
Christmas Island pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus murrayi 1999 Critically Endangered
Bare-rumped sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus 1999 Critically Endangered
Koala (Avalon population) Phascolarctos cinereus 1996 TSCA NSW
Bramble Cay melomys Melomys rubicola 1996 Endangered
Carpentarian rock-rat Zyzomys palatilis 1996 Endangered
Northern marsupial mole Notoryctes caurinus 1996 Endangered
Southern marsupial mole Notoryctes typhlops 1996 Endangered
Long-nosed bandicoot (North Head population) Perameles nasuta 1996 TSCA NSW
Kangaroo Island dunnart Sminthopsis aitkeni 1996 Endangered
Boullanger Island dunnart Sminthopsis boullangerensis 1996 Vulnerable
Reptiles
Allan’s lerista Lerista allanae 1994 Endangered
Western spiny tailed skink Egernia stokesii badia 1994 Endangered
Blue Mountains water skink Eulamprus leuraensis 1994 Endangered TSCA NSW
Dreeite water skink Eulamprus tympanum marnieae 1994 Endangered FFG VIC
Bellingen River emydura Emydura signata 1994 Delisted (taxonomic issues) TSCA NSW C (delisted 2009)
Namoi River elseya Wollumbinia belli 1994 Vulnerable TSCA NSW
Mary River turtle Elusor macrurus 1994 Endangered
Amphibians
Green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea 1996 Vulnerable TSCA NSW
EPBC status = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999TSCA = New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995FMA = New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994 (threatened species provisions)FFG = Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
TSPA = Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995B On hold pending new data C Delisted 2009
Threatened species listings in Australia as a result of HSI nominations
10 EVAN QUARTERMAIN, HSI HEAD OF PROGRAMS
The Wildlife Land Trust (WLT), HSI’s private land conservationprogram, is now supporting the wildlife and habitat protectionefforts of nearly 500 landowners covering more than 60,000hectares across Australia—approximately four times the size ofSydney’s Royal National Park. While our inclusive agreementsdon’t offer legislative protection in and of themselves, the WLT’srapidly growing and broad membership—from covenantedproperties in the thousands of hectares through to otherwiseunprotected peri-urban residential blocks that provide habitatfor wildlife species rare and common alike—portrays thebeneficial community and organisational support theAustralian WLT network offers.
Among the 87 new refuges to have joined the WLT ranks last year were several involved in our recently establishedSanctuaries You Can Stay program. This is an increasinglypopular benefit of membership whereby our members’ eco-accommodation services are advertised free of charge throughthe WLT website and publications. Private conservation efforts(which deliver considerable public biodiversity benefits) areoften self-funded, so by choosing to visit Sanctuaries You CanStay properties people can make a direct financial contributionto the protection of native wildlife and their habitats. The intentof the program is to benefit accommodation providers andvisitors alike, and Sanctuaries You Can Stay advertisementsprovide exposure for participating WLT members while givingpeople the opportunity to visit stunning places and witnesssome of the incredible work being carried out.
But the WLT program is certainly not just about member benefits,indeed those participating in the program give far more back tous all than we could ever hope to for them. A recent analysis ofhow Australian WLT members contribute to the conservation of threatened species revealed a significant and uncanny rule of two-thirds.
Comparing the locations of WLT sanctuaries with sites involvedin the NSW Government’s Saving Our Species program, wefound that two thirds of our NSW members intersect with placesidentified as key for the protection and recovery of threatenedspecies such as the yellow-spotted tree frog (Litoria castanea),regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), eastern chestnutmouse (Pseudomys gracilicaudatus), Bathurst copper butterfly(Paralucia spinifera), and Minyon quandong (Elaeocarpussedentarius).
Similarly, a strong presence of conservation landholders withinthe Great Eastern Ranges (GER) conservation corridor areunited through their WLT membership, with two thirds of our
Australian members located inside the GER’s bounds. Thesesanctuaries cover tens of thousands of hectares of habitat forwildlife, including threatened species such as the spotted-tailedquoll (Dasyurus maculatus), koala (Phascolarctos cinereus),sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps), and glossy black-cockatoo(Calyptorhynchus lathami).
Conservation International has identified 35 global biodiversityhotspots, the places on earth richest in biodiversity. Whilerepresenting just 2.3% of the planet’s land surface, thesehotspots collectively support more than half of the world’s plantdiversity and 43% of bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibianspecies. The hotspots have all lost at least 70% of their originalhabitat, and two are in Australia: the Forests of Eastern Australia;and Southwest Australia.
The WLT, again, has a two thirds presence of membersprotecting habitat within them. All 5,000 hectares of the 33current Western Australian WLT sanctuaries fall within thebounds of the Southwest Australia hotspot, contributing to thepreservation of habitat for a plethora of threatened species.Among these are iconic animals such as the greater bilby(Macrotis lagotis), numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus), quokka(Setonix brachyurus), chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii) and woylie(Bettongia penicillata), as well as birdlife including forest red-tailed (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso), Baudin’s (Calyptorhynchusbaudinii), and Carnaby’s (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) black-cockatoos.
With our already battered biodiversity under increasing pressurenationally, there is no doubt that private land conservationinitiatives such as the WLT will play an ever-more important rolein protecting threatened wildlife and their habitats. To increaseour ability to support the movement WLT staff attended therecent annual Australian Private Land Conservation Conference,which was hosted by the Tasmanian Land Conservancy inHobart. I had the pleasure of chairing the conference session on Protection and Stewardship, hearing from a wide range ofdedicated individuals, organisations and government agenciesat the forefront of this burgeoning Australian movement. Alongwith our US colleagues at the Humane Society Wildlife LandTrust, we were also present at the 2017 Land Trust Alliance Rallyin Denver, Colorado. The US has long been the leader in privateland conservation, made evident through the level ofparticipation in last year’s Rally (2,000 delegates), and theWLT’s strong ties across the Pacific are of huge benefit to theAustralian program.
500 members,60,000+ hectares and another milestone
PEG PUTT, HSI CONSULTANT 11
Photo: Dr Jim Watts
Natural forests play a significant role in tackling climate changeinternationally and in Australia. Emissions from the land sectorare some 20% of total global emissions, and those from forestscomprise a substantial proportion of that figure. Logging thesecarbon dense ecosystems in industrial logging regimes,conversion to tree plantations, or deforestation, all release vastcarbon stocks to the atmosphere more or less immediately.The benefit of ongoing sequestration provided by intact nativeforests is also lost when the forests are cut, compounding theclimate damage.
If we retain these native forests we would keep that carbon outof the atmosphere and remove more over time as the treescontinue to grow and other forest carbon pools build up. If weget serious about restoration of natural ecosystems, especiallycarbon dense ones like forests, they will also suck more carbonout of the atmosphere. The tree truly is nature’s good, oldfashioned carbon capture and storage device. Intact ecosystemsare more resilient in the face of climate change than man madeenvironments,nottomentionthepositiveimpactforestprotectionhas on other important values like saving forest biodiversity.
The Paris Agreement comes into force in 2020, and work is under -way at the UN climate negotiations on how the achievements of countries will be measured against their commitments(accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and removals), andon assessing how adequate the sum total of actions is to meetthe international target to keep temperature rise below 2°Cand attempt to limit it to 1.5°C.
Whilst accounting accurately for carbon emissions andsequestration in forests is vital to underpin climate policy andcommitments, it is by no means guaranteed. Under the KyotoProtocol land sector accounting has been full of loopholes anddeliberate contrivances affecting baselines used for measurement.The result is understated emissions and actual emissionsincreases booked as reductions. This has not been accidental.The breathtaking shortcomings have enabled developedcountries to present accounts that appear to have substantialemissions reductions that are not real. The atmosphere hasnot agreed to take part in the scam.
The world can’t afford to cook the books for the Paris Agreement.It’s time to abandon creative accounting and use the existing
reporting system under the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) as the basis for measurement ofprogress. That system is established and already utilised by allat varying levels of competency, and is directly pursuant to theConvention, not to another discrete instrument such as theKyoto Protocol. Will countries be prepared to be honest andcomprehensive in measuring their progress? Will Australia showleadership or try to keep sweeping emissions under the carpet?
Badpolicyandwasted financial incentivesalso flowfromdishonestaccounting. This is nowhere more evident than in relation tobioenergy—particularly the combustion of native forest biomassfor energy production.
Burning wood is actually more emissive than burning coal perunit of energy generated. Yet proponents claim it is carbonneutral. In part this is because of the over simplistic argumentthat trees grow back—ignoring that they may never grow back towhat they were after the forest is brought into logging rotations;that the time period to regrow is much greater in decades thanthe time we have in which to make serious emissions reductions;and that the ability of those trees cut for bioenergy to continueto sequester carbon is also lost.
The other source of the carbon neutrality misapprehension is unfitcarbon accounting. It was decided to account the combustionof bioenergy at zero in the energy sector, on the understandingthat it would be fully accounted in the land and forests sector—but then the accounting rules failed to ensure that occurred,as outlined above. The emissions loopholes and scams getignored and governments give subsidies and policy incentivesto forest biomass burning despite its serious emissions impacts.
Europe, the US and Korea lead the world on counterproductivebioenergy use. This is tragic, and a waste of time and money ifthe hope is to tackle climate change. Others are going to emulatethem in ignorance. The world has to fix this travesty by gettingthe accounting right.
HSI has been lobbying hard independently, and through the specialist
global NGO coalition on forests and carbon Ecosystem Climate Alliance
(ECA), since before the Bali Road Map meeting, and has had a strong
presence all through the UNFCCC negotiations. We are currently reviewing
our climate change/forest program activities, preparing new campaign
strategies and national and international policy ideas for all political parties.
Forests and climate—it’s thecarbon accounting stupid!
Stop PressThe UN Climate Conference hosted by Fiji in Bonn has wrapped up with the bare minimum of progress on the technical work
that is essential to the long term integrity of the Paris Agreement. The important role of ‘natural solutions’, being protecting
and restoring forests and natural ecosystems for contributing to emissions reduction and sucking carbon back out of the
atmosphere, is getting a good airing. It’s a matter of turning this realisation into action, which starts with counting accurately
what’s happening, so good contributions can be recognised and supported whilst anti-climate actions,
like burning native forests for energy production, get exposed.
Disappointingly, the area of minimum progress was on accounting rules. We can still make it to finalise them
by the deadline of the end of 2018, but nations will need to get their skates on.
12
HSI has long worked on protecting the world’s donkeys, but wedidn’t anticipate the passionate response we received from HSIsupporters when we launched a series of new actions to protectthis downtrodden species. Last September we sent out ourappeal asking for urgent help to tend to the global crisis unfoldingthat has been decimating donkey populations across the world.
Donkey prices have skyrocketed due to a growing demand for theanimals’ skins to feed the production of ejiao, a gelatin-basedtraditional medicine with dubious health benefits made fromdonkey hides. Its unsubstantiated claims include helping every -thing from impotence to cancer, and it is also increasingly beingused in beauty treatments. With donkey populations plummetingin China, the market is looking to Africa and other parts of theworld to keep up production of ejiao. A staggering 1.8 million skinswere traded for the product last year out of a global donkeypopulation of only 44 million, highlighting the rapid responseneeded to curtail this demand. Illegal wildlife traffickers are nowtaking advantage of the burgeoning demand, with ejiaoseemingly shaping up to be the new ivory on the market.
Many rural communities in Africa are being left decimated with -out their sole means of survival, as their donkeys—used forfarming and transport—are stolen in the night and inhumanelyslaughtered to feed the ferocious market. In response to theemergency, many African countries have banned the sale of skins.Currently 15 countries have stood against the trade, includingNiger, Burkina Faso and Mali.
Examining current trends, it is feared that 4–10 million donkeysmay die each year, which would annihilate populations acrossthe world. Our first action in countering this trade is to surveythe market in China so that we educate consumers about theethical and animal welfare issues surrounding the production ofejiao, and the empty health promises purported by its vendors.HSI is working with our team on the ground in China to launchthe survey, and we have a multi-stage plan to not only curb thedemand but to work with partner NGOs in Africa to protectdonkeys in rural communities from facing a devastating end.
We’re also campaigning nationally to ensure that misguidedfederal and state government plans don’t fuel this vicious trade.
Alarmingly, China has approached Australia in search of morehides, with the Northern Territory government now consideringfarming donkeys to cash in on the growing demand for ejiao.Recent Department of Primary Industry draft documentsrevealed an interest in a live-trade shipment of donkeys to China:“the Northern Territory Government has fielded enquiries frompotential investors...driven by the decline in the availability ofdonkeys in China...”. Our petition to the Minister for AgricultureDavid Littleproud is asking for prohibition of the export of feraldonkeys from Australia whether alive or dead. Intensive farmingof donkeys, especially for the production of ejiao, carries seriouswelfare implications for the species, as graphically outlined in theJanuary 2017 report Under the Skin by The Donkey Sanctuary:“Welfare concerns for intensively farmed donkeys must beconsidered as a threat and one which should be particularlyconcerning for those donkeys most highly prized for their skinsand with limited value placed upon their flesh.”
The donkey petition has already broken records with thousandssigning up to demand the Australian Government abandon theidea of opening a local trade in donkeys. We promise that we won’tstop until this unbelievably cruel and unnecessary trade is ended.
Rapid response needed to save the world’s donkeys
BENJAMIN VOZZO, HSI COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
A stag gering 1.8 mil l ion skins were traded
in just one year—slaughtered from a global
population of 44 mil l ion donkeys
13
More than thirty countries already have bans on animal testingfor cosmetic purposes. Australia has legislation going throughthe parliament with the potential to join them. Unfortunately, ascurrently worded Australia’s proposed ban contains a loophole.
In June the Turnbull Government tabled the Industrial ChemicalsBill 2017 which overhauls the regulation of chemicals introduced to Australia. It contains a ban on the use of animal test data tosupport the introduction of new chemicals for use in cosmeticssold in Australia. While this should be very welcome, on closerinspection we discovered the ban would only apply to chemicalsintroduced solely for use in cosmetics. This is a serious problemwhen most chemicals used in cosmetics are multi-purpose. Thewording of the legislation allows for a company to submit any orall new chemical registrations as “multi-use”, side-stepping the banand making it still possible for ingredients tested on animals to maketheir way into cosmetics products in Australia. The Department ofHealth’s latest figures show that 79% of chemicals introduced thatused animal test data were multi-use, therefore the inclusion of theword ‘solely’ effectively nullifies the ban.
Fortunately, The Hon Tony Zappia on behalf of the ALP, NXTSenator Stirling Griff, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon and SenatorDerryn Hinch are all sponsoring amendments Humane SocietyInternational and #BeCrueltyFree Australia have recommendedto remove the loophole to ensure Australia’s ban will becomprehensive and robust.
The global movement against animal testing for cosmetics isescalating with over 200 companies—led by brands such as LUSH,H&M and Paul Mitchell—shunning the outdated practice of cruellyapplying chemicals directly onto the skin or into the eyes of liveanimals. Those who have remained in the cruelty game arefeeling increasingly uncomfortable and are running out of placesto hide as consumers demand their beauty without cruelty.
At present, a total of 37 countries or political regions, including theEuropean Union, Guatemala, India, New Zealand, Norway, SouthKorea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Israel and Turkey have banned or limitedthe use of animals for cosmetics testing. The global #BeCrueltyFreecampaign has been actively working to get similar bans passedin Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and the United States.
The more countries that completely close off their markets toanimal tested cosmetic ingredients the stronger the disincentivewill be for big chemical companies to continue using cruel animaltesting. HSI estimates that around 500,000 animals suffer and diejust for cosmetics each year globally.
As at November 2017, the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 has passedthe lower house of parliament and we await its introduction to theSenate where the amendments to close the loophole will bedebated and voted on. If the amendments pass the Senate, it willbe back down to the Lower House where we hope the Governmentwill agree to them and show that it is truly prepared to endcosmetics cruelty in Australia.
#BeCrueltyFree Australia is a partnership between Humane SocietyInternational and Humane Research Australia. HSI’s global#BeCrueltyFree campaign will continue until animal testing forbeauty products and ingredients is made illegal worldwide.
GEORGIE DOLPHIN, HSI PROGRAM MANAGER – ANIMAL WELFARE
Australia’s cosmetics animal-testing ban in limbo
37 countries already ban or l imit animal
testing—Austral ian Government must
find the means to join this l ist
14
The holy grail of campaigning is to find those ‘win-win’ solutionswhere all stakeholders get a positive outcome. Such a solutionis possible when it comes to the cruel practice of mulesing, butvested interests appear to be getting in the way.
An extraordinary Senate Estimates hearing in October sawAustralian Wool Innovation (AWI) chief Wal Merriman front aninquiry into the controversy surrounding the industry body’spractices and vested interests. During questioning by SenatorsMcKenzie, O’Sullivan, Abetz and Rhiannon, it was revealed thatAWI board members have financial interests in sheep thatrequire mulesing and the inadequate pain medication given tothem once mulesing takes place. These revelations have beenlong suspected by HSI, and now they are on public record.
Merino sheep were originally ‘plain-breeched’, with no wrinkles orwool on their buttocks which made painful mulesing unnecessary.The good news is they can be again with no loss to productionor profitability. It was the Vermont Merino Rams introduced toAustralia from America in 1883 that had folds of skin along theirperineal region to increase surface area and yield more woolwhich, coinciding with the arrival of a major new fly speciescausing ‘fly strike’, gave wool producers in Australia and NewZealand a serious, ongoing problem.
Fly strike is a severe condition caused by maggots. Sheep aremost commonly attacked around folded skin on the rear endwhere the wool becomes soiled by faeces and urine.
Mulesing is a surgical procedure developed in the 1920s in anattempt to reduce the incidence of the fly strike in Australia. Skinis sliced from the buttocks of lambs to scar the skin and preventwool growth and skin wrinkles. Skin is also stripped from thesides and the end of the tail stump. Anaesthetic is only appliedafter the procedure is done, and it is temporary and inadequate.
Research shows that following mulesing, once the temporary painrelief wears off, lambs show distinctive behaviours that indicateextreme pain: an arched back and hunched body, prolongedstanding with avoidance of lying and feeding, decreasedsocialisation, and avoiding the person who mulesed them.
New Zealand has banned the practice of mulesing on welfaregrounds, but it continues to be used routinely to combat fly
strike throughout Australia with millions of merino lambsmulesed each year.
It is not surprising then that animal welfare sensitive markets arelooking elsewhere to buy their wool for the fashion industry. Woolfrom non-mulesed sheep from South Africa and South Americais taking more and more market share. This presents a major riskto Australia’s sheep industry. Australia produces a quarter of theworld’s wool with 75% of it going to clothing and fashion. Thered meat industry has also raised the alarm on the reputationalrisks to Australia’s sheep industry from continued mulesing.
It doesn’t need to be this way. Through careful genetic selection,sheep can be bred which do not require mulesing and, contraryto industry criticism, this solution can produce plain-bodieddisease resistant sheep within five years, sometimes as rapidlyas just three years. The Soft Rolling Skin (SRS® system) developedby Dr Jim Watts is one example, providing the genetic tools forthe sheep breeder to breed plain bodied sheep requiring nomulesing and naturally resistant to all forms of fly strike acrossthe whole body. It delivers a high fleece weight, low fibre diameterand impeccable wool quality. Their smooth coats allow forsignificantly easier shearing and the added benefit of low stressstock handling. Genetic solutions to mulesing could potentiallyrevolutionise the Australian wool industry and guarantee asustainable and highly profitable future that is kinder to animals.
HSI is working to get as many Australian wool farmers on board,and we are also working with high street fashion companiessuch as H&M to pursue industry-wide policy change againstmulesing.
The catch appears to be the industry’s own stubborn resistanceto get on board which may be influenced by the conflictedinterests of AWI board members in the anaesthetic used formulesing and in the wrinkly type of Merino sheep. AWI, theindustry peak body, appears to be doing its own industry adisservice by not embracing the win-win innovation that canput mulesing and fly strike in the past.
HSI is calling for the Australian Government to show leadershipand support the industry to rapidly phase out cruel mulesingand transition to smooth bodied breeds.
NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS
Genetic solution to mulesing is a win-win, why the opposition?
15VERNA SIMPSON, HSI DIRECTOR
As we write this piece we have disaster teams fighting floods, fires,earthquakes and hurricanes in far flung locations. Our teamsbarely have time to recover and restock and they are on theroad again. The following is from our team leader in PuertoRico, just one of the areas we are currently deployed in.
Amidst the tragedy and suffering wrought by Hurricane Mariain Puerto Rico—and that toll exacted on animals and people isincalculable—there are also extraordinary demonstrations of thepower and durability of the human bond with animals. AdamParascandola, Director of Animal Protection and Crisis Responseat Humane Society International (HSI) Washington, reports thatthe teams have been visiting small villages in Puerto Rico that havenot had many services and have been bringing dog and cat foodand setting up makeshift clinics as needed. When they arrivepeople flood out of their houses with their animals to show themoff and pick up food. They want to provide nourishment to theanimals as badly as they want food for themselves.
“Despitepeoplehaving lostsomuch, theyarestilldeeplyconcernedabouttheiranimalsandgrateful thatassistance isavailableforthem,”Adam told me. “In each of these places there are also people whofeed and care for the stray animals. I think it is a really powerfultestament to the bond between people and animals.”
One colleague recounted a story of a woman chasing the HSI truck,while somehow juggling four Chihuahuas in her hands and arms.
At our public animal clinics, we have seen hundreds of animalsaffected by the hurricanes. Cindy Mitchell, who moved from Texasto Vieques earlier this year, found a dog she named Nefertiti livinginside a tire with her seven puppies, no more than six weeks old.They had ridden out two storms, and were “terrified and starved,”Cindy told our staff at the clinic. Dr. Dickie Vest, DVM, conductedcheckups and administered distemper vaccines to all the dogs.
Ten-year-old Jayshwua heard about our clinic from a friend andrushed his dog, Pen, to receive care, waiting patiently in line for histurn. “My dog is sick and I didn’t know how to help,” Jayshwausaid. “It’s hot and a long line, but I’m happy I waited for my turn.”
Since the hurricane HSI has been bringing food and medical aidto animals and people. In addition to delivering approximately70,000 pounds of humanitarian and animal aid supplies, includingwater, diapers, baby food, dog, cat, and equine food, and more, to
the island’s residents, we are operating public animal care clinics invarious locations on the island, where our team of responders andveterinarians is providing free medical care for dogs, cats, horses,goats, and other animals so they can stay with their families.
These public clinics in Vieques have helped more than 400animals so far and supported hundreds of families in their effort toprovide basic care and food to their pets. On mainland PuertoRico, we are reaching countless others. We have distributed food,water, and other essentials to at least 1,000 households that havepets, mainly in low-income neighborhoods in Naguabo, Fajardo,Ceiba, Rio Grande, Loiza, Las Marias, and Isabela.
We had already been on the ground in Puerto Rico for the lastthree years as part of our Humane Puerto Rico program, designedto lift the circumstances for animals and the people who careabout them on the main island and also in Vieques. Some of thehardest hit during this storm are shelters we are working with,under our Sister Shelter Project, and we are making sure theseshelters are getting the support and supplies they need.
Wherever we can, we are transporting animals that were inshelters prior to Hurricanes Irma and Maria off of the island toanimal rescueorganisations on the mainland. We have transportedmore than 1,200 animals from shelters in Puerto Rico, who havebeen routed to more than 50 animal rescue organisations in theUnited States. Generous supporters continue to sponsorlifesaving flights of hundreds of animals from hurricane-tornshelters in Puerto Rico to the mainland. These flights also bringin resources, including humanitarian aid and pet food, that aredistributed to the sister shelters.
Our HSI team is also working with the government in Costa Ricaafter Tropical Storm Nate. Many of the areas were blocked and theteam had to cross rivers and hike, all while carrying in needed foodand supplies. Their work expanded to the other affected areas inCosta Rica as access opened up.
For all those affected by these disasters, we are giving them ourall, and we don’t plan on relenting. The suffering continues, andthat requires our continued resolve and focus and investment.Wayne Pacelle, President and Chief Executive Officer of TheHumane Society of the United States and HSI
Puerto Rico Report: Rememberinganimals during disasters
16 GEORGIE DOLPHIN, HSI PROGRAM MANAGER – ANIMAL WELFARE
Thegenuinefreerangeeggindustrycelebratedamilestonevictoryin July 2017 when the Federal Court in Western Australia orderedSnowdale Holdings Pty Ltd, one of Australia’s largest eggproducers, to pay more than $1 million for deceiving consumersover fraudulent free range eggs. The company was ordered topay penalties totalling $750,000 for making false or misleadingrepresentations that its eggs were ‘free range’ plus an additional$300,000 in court costs. The proceedings were brought by theAustralian Competition and Consumers Commission (ACCC)following a complaint from HSI five years ago.
This major victory has been touted as the highest penalty everhanded down in a case of this kind. The largest fine for a similarcase had been $300,000, so it is reassuring that the judgerecognised the seriousness of this deception and held SnowdaleHoldings to account. Snowdale had been charging top dollar foreggs produced in anything but free range conditions for 14 years.
Our formal complaint was submitted to the ACCC in 2012 after initialinvestigations revealed that Snowdale may have been falselylabelling eggs as ‘free range’. The ACCC took action by runningits own investigation which revealed that the Perth-basedcompany sold 71 per cent of its eggs as ‘free range’ from 2012-13priced at a premium. The evidence showed that Snowdale’s so-called free range eggs, sold throughout WA under a number ofbrand names including Swan Valley Egg Farm and Eggs by Ellahwere farmed in industrial conditions rather than free range.
Snowdale hens were reportedly squeezed into barns in numbersvastly exceeding those recommended in the Model Code ofPractice which set the standard for free range at the time. TheACCC uncovered that most of the hens from Snowdale shedsdid not move around on an open range because the conditionssignificantly inhibited them. Evidence of cruel and unsanitaryconditions were also revealed in local media reports.
With major supermarkets selling tens of thousands of Snowdaleeggs throughout the period in question, it begs the question as towhy this major deception was not uncovered by their own qualityassurance schemes. The fact that Coles and Woolworths ignored
our correspondence and instead continued to sell Snowdale’s ‘freerange’ labelled eggs even after the guilty verdict was announced isa major concern.
Following several cases of deceptive conduct over the years, theAustralian government took it upon itself to intervene to clarifythe definition of free range and early last year they released anInformation Standard for Free Range Eggs. This should havebeen a positive move but they caved in to big egg corporationlobbying and have formally rubber stamped intensively farmedhens to be classified as free range. Their new standard allows anoutdoor stocking density of a staggering 10,000 hens perhectare which is a far cry from the 1,500 hens per hectare CSIROrecommended in the former Model Code of Practice.
This is also in stark contrast with international standards for freerange where 2,500 hens per hectare is the highest density in afree range system elsewhere in the world. In all of the surveys andsubmissions 95% of consumers supported a free range stockingdensity of no more than 1,500 hens per hectare. This meansconsumers who want to do the right thing by the hens that laytheir eggs cannot trust the new label and confusion will continue.
HSI recommends consumers who seek higher welfare eggs lookfor a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1,500 birds perhectare and not be fooled by free range labels at higher densities.In 2006 we launched our Humane Choice certification scheme.Born out of a desire for a truthful and accredited label for genuinehumane animal products, the label guarantees that the animalhas been treated with respect and care over the entire course ofits life, representing the highest standards of animal welfare.
With Humane Choice producers spanning the country, our latestrecruit is Clarendon Farms run by Ian Littleton, a free range eggproducer located near Mudgee in New South Wales. The traditionalfarming model that he has followed for the past 20 years has notchanged, with hens that are never confined and that are protectedfrom potential predators by a team of guardian dogs. We willcontinue to support these genuine free range producers.
Record fine for free range fraud:WA egg giant must pay $1m
17NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS
HSI looks forward to the Technical Bulletin when we have nothingto report on commercial whaling. Sadly, it’s not this one and withJapan’s parliament passing domestic laws to lock in its whalinginterests, it may not be for a few issues yet.
The Japanese legislation passed in July 2017 blatantly admits whatwe have always known, that their whale hunts have little to do withscience and are being done in order to resume commercialwhaling. The law is explicit in its wording that cetaceans are “animportant food source” and “that it is important that Japanesetraditional food culture…and dietary habits related to cetaceansbe passed on”. It says “The main aim shall be to obtain scientificinformation for the implementation of commercial whaling” andthat “The research shall be implemented in accordance with thetreaties and other international agreements that Japan is party to,as well as established international laws and regulations, and shallbe based on scientific knowledge.”
Clearly Japan’s interpretation of the international treaties it isparty to differs greatly from the interpretation of the rest of theworld and the courts. In 2014, the International Court of Justice(ICJ) ruled Japan’s whale program in Antarctica was illegal, ashas the Australian federal court in relation to the part of the huntthat is routinely conducted in Australia’s Antarctic territorialwaters. There is nothing about the whale hunts it has conductedsince that make them any more lawful than the one that wasstruck down by the ICJ.
Japan is now also in violation of CITES—the UN Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species—and HSI welcomes thedecision of the CITES Standing Committee meeting in Novemberto send a mission to Japan to investigate their breaches of theConvention. Japan falls foul of CITES in their North Pacific whalehunt where they are killing Endangered sei whales. Sei whales arelisted on Appendix I of CITES meaning international trade in thespecies is strictly prohibited. Unlike minke whales, Japan doesnot hold a ‘reservation’ against the sei whale listing and shouldtherefore abide by the prohibition on international trade.International trade includes ‘introductions from the sea’, thetechnical term for when Japan brings the cuts of sei whales
home from international waters. No doubt Japan will argue thatthe ‘introductions from the sea’ are not ‘primarily for commercialpurposes’ and therefore the CITES ban will not apply. Governmentsat CITES should be no more fooled by the scientific purpose ofthe North Pacific hunt, than governments are at the InternationalWhaling Commission and the judges were at the ICJ. The Japaneseparliament has admitted as much in the domestic law it passed.
At least 40 countries are not fooled. They are the signatories toa firmly worded statement issued on December 18, 2017 callingfor Japan to end its lethal research.
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, the European Union and its member states, Mexico,New Zealand, Panama, Peru and Uruguay all say they remainfirmly committed to the global moratorium on commercialwhaling which has been in place for over thirty years.
Meanwhile, HSI has by no means given up on sequestering the$1 million fine the Federal Court handed down as the penaltyagainst the Japanese whale company in the contempt of courtproceedings we brought against them. With the help of theEnvironmental Defenders Office we are seeking advice from a barrister and specialists in the sequestration of assets.
Japan in violation of internationalwhaling laws—again
Ruled i l legal , Japan’s interpretation of
treaties it signs differs greatly from that of
the rest of the world
COVER STORY – JESSICA MORRIS, HSI MARINE SCIENTIST
The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most complex natural environ -ments on earth. As one of the most significant ecosystems forbiodiversity conservation, Australia has a legal responsibility toensure its protection. As apex predators, sharks play a vital rolein maintaining the health of the Great Barrier Reef, which is why inMarch last year, we were astounded to learn that a ten year approvalwas given for 173 lethal shark drumlines to cull sharks within theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area.
HSI, represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO),has lodged a legal case to the Administrative Appeals tribunal(AAT) to challenge the permit which was given to the QueenslandGovernment's Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).
The drumlines are part of the Queensland Shark Control Program,the lethal program which runs from the Gold Coast up to far northQueensland and includes the Great Barrier Reef that aims to kill26 species of sharks under the guise of ocean bather protection.Over the life of the Queensland Shark Control Program, whichbegan in 1962, over 105,000 animals have been ensnared in netsand drumlines, nearly 9,000 of which are federally protectedspecies, including marine turtles, dugongs, dolphins and rays. The program has shifted from nets to drumlines which hasreduced bycatch but the culling of sharks and death of non-target species is still ecologically damaging and unnecessary.
Threatened and protected sharks are among the species targetedby the Queensland Government for their shark cull, and themajority of the 26 target species deliberately killed in the programhave never been responsible for an unprovoked attack on anocean user. Tiger sharks and reef sharks are among the mostcaptured species, and these animals are extremely important inmaintaining the function of reef ecosystems.
Through the court case HSI hopes to rid the Great Barrier Reef oflethal drumlines and end the mandatory euthanasia policy for the26 species of shark, which are shot dead if found alive on drumlines.
There are many studies which show that shark culling programs,such as those operating in both Queensland and NSW, do notreduce the already very low risk of shark bite. Considering the
Great Barrier Reef is not suitable for surfing, and swimmers arerare on Queensland beaches during stinger season, HSI findskilling sharks even less defensible. It is a threat to the vibrantecosystem that is our Great Barrier Reef.
As part of our legal appeal we are calling for non-lethalalternatives for bather protection, and with technologicaladvances making waves throughout Australia, there are betterand ecologically safer options out there to give ocean userspeace of mind when out in the water. Our AAT case will beheard this year and we will present the court with expertevidence based on the best available science relating to sharkculling programs, and the reasons why they are outdated andineffective. The AAT will then determine whether the program as approved should go ahead, be revoked or varied.
HSI vs GBRMPA:Sharks to get their day in court
Th e m a j o r i ty o f t h e G ove r n m e n t ’s t a rg e t
s p e c i e s h ave n eve r b e e n re s p o n s i b l e f o r
a n u n p rovo ke d a t t a c k o n a n o c e a n u s e r
18
19
Over 105,000 animals have been ensnared,
nearly 9,000 of them were protected,
including tur t les , dolphins, dugongs, rays
20 JESSICA MORRIS, HSI MARINE SCIENTIST
Hammerhead sharks getting hammeredThree species of hammerhead sharks are on the verge ofreceiving Federal protection as Endangered species. Followingnominations from HSI, Federal Environment Minister JoshFrydenberg is considering whether to protect great, scallopedand smooth hammerhead sharks as Endangered under ournational environment law—the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). As of September2017, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee has submittedits advice to Minister Frydenberg. While this advice remainsconfidential until the Minister makes a decision, HSI knows theymeet the criteria for listings as Endangered and is lobbying theMinister to give the sharks the protection they deserve.
Hammerheads are Endangered due to the global shark fin trade,with fins from almost 370 tonnes of hammerheads allowed to beexported from Australia every year. Surely this is no way forAustralia to treat species listed as Endangered under the IUCNand under the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and the Convention ofMigratory Species (CMS).
HSI is working hard to convince the Minister that hammerheadsharks deserve to be listed as Endangered, and not asConservation Dependent—which is a lesser category available inthe EPBC Act for ministers to list commercially fished andtherefore politically difficult species. A Conservation Dependentlisting will mean that these globally Endangered species willcontinue to be allowed to be killed commercially in Australianfisheries, and exported to Asia for shark fin soup. An Endangeredlisting will provide appropriate protection for hammerheads andlimit the continued population loss from over fishing, as a resultof poorly managed state fisheries and shark control programs. A total of 14,447 hammerhead sharks have been killed in theQueensland Shark Control Program between 1962 and 2016, andmore than 5,000 have been killed over the course of the NSWshark meshing program.
HSI has serious concerns with the management arrangements forstate fisheries in regard to hammerheads. In Queensland, fishersare not even required to land sharks with their fins naturally
attached until 75% of their quota has been reached. TheQueensland East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) currentlyoperates within the Great Barrier Reef and now rates as one ofthe worst managed fisheries in operation in Australia. With on-board observer and enforcement lacking at the fishery, it’s aserious concern for over fishing of hammerheads. In WesternAustralia, the state government has openly disclosed to us that it is not proposing additional management measures if theconservation dependant listing of hammerheads comes intoeffect. Accurate reporting is a major concern for WesternAustralian fisheries, and this could impact hammerheadpopulations through overfishing.
HSI is currently engaging with shark scientists on this issue andwe are asking all our supporters to write to the EnvironmentMinister to counter the lobbying from state commercial fisheriesand recreational fishers to only list the sharks as ConservationDependent.
Read more about our international work on sharks at theConvention of Migratory Species on page 23.
Conservation Dependent is a threatened
category for species that are polit ical ly
diff icult
21JESSICA MORRIS, HSI MARINE SCIENTIST
Time to pull outNSW Shark Nets HSI has been continuing our campaign to stop the use of lethalshark nets in NSW and replace them with non-lethal and ecologicalfriendly alternatives. Shark nets on ocean beaches do not createa physical barrier to sharks. They are intended to cull sharks. Theireffectiveness as a beach safety measure is unfounded. Researchfrom CSIRO and Deakin University has shown that lethal sharkcontrol does not make our beaches safer and only imperils marinelife that is supposed to be protected.
The latest NSW shark meshing 2016/2017 statistics show morethan 373 animals were captured in nets. Tragically, many wereCritically Endangered, threatened and protected species, including17 Critically Endangered grey nurse sharks, six of which were killed,and 10 marine turtles, including four Vulnerable green turtles andtwo hawksbill turtles which were killed.
HSI has been collaborating with the NSW Greens to stop the nets,joining in a beach event at Bondi in September which garneredsignificant media attention. The use of SMART drumlines has alsoincreased along the NSW coast. HSI has reservations over theinvasiveness of the tagging used in the SMART drumline programand the long term survival of the sharks. However, if they werebeing used to replace the lethal and indiscriminate nets we mightwelcome them as a ‘lesser evil’. Sadly, they are being used toadd to and supplement the existing lethal shark net program.
The introduction of new lethal shark nets in Northern NSW lastyear was a very disappointing development. Fast track legislationwas used to rush approvals through the NSW Parliament andFederal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg misused a loopholein the EPBC Act, ostensibly for emergency measures in the ‘nationalinterest’ to exempt the nets from federal environmental impactassessment and approval.
HSI had been very supportive of the NSW Government’sefforts to trial non-lethal alternatives as part of their sharkmanagement strategy and the introduction of new lethal netswas a retrograde step.
This was not the only time HSI had to criticise the actions ofMinister Frydenberg on sharks. We were also disappointed whenhe failed to include our nomination for shark control programs
including nets and drumlines as a Key Threatening Process(KTP) on his Priority Assessment List for the Threatened SpeciesScientific Committee to assess for listing under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).
You would think with all the public controversy over lethal sharkcontrol programs the Minister would seek scientific counsel on theissue, but it seems the Daily Telegraph and The Australian willcontinue to dictate shark control policy in Australia for thetime being.
HSI is at least thankful to Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson forchairing an inquiry into shark culling. It saw a wide range of supportfor non-lethal shark control from both government and the public,with some politicians more willing than others to give up the culls.
HSI plans to use the upcoming federal election to call for moresensible policies in relation to sharks from the major parties.
You can take action for marine life affected by lethal shark netprograms by signing our petition at http://bit.ly/hsiaction1
The statistics from 2016/2017 show more
than 373 animals were captured in NSW nets,
including a Crit ical ly Endangered species
Photo: NSW Greens
22 NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS
Southern bluefin tuna recoveryspells disaster for albatrossWhile evidence is mixed, scientists are confident that southernbluefin tuna is showing signs of recovery and global tuna fishersare looking forward to boosting their quotas when the Commissionfor the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) next setsthem in 2020. If the recovery eventuates it would be something tocelebrate, were it not for the seabirds killed on the longlines usedto catch most of the tuna. For as long as global seabird bycatchmitigation remains inadequate and wholly unenforced, bigger fishquotas will mean more hooks in the water, which will mean moreseabirds will be killed.
If only tuna regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs)would take the advice of the expert body set up with the intentionof helping them prevent their seabird bycatch. The Agreement forthe Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP), negotiatedunder the auspices of the UN Convention for Migratory Species,was established by albatross and petrel range states, with Australiaa leader among them—the Secretariat is based in Hobart. At thetime of its negotiation, and I was at the table for HSI, it wasintended that a key function of ACAP would be to give advice tothe tuna RFMOs so that they could best minimise their currentlyhorrific levels of albatross and petrel bycatch. It seemed like agood plan at the time, but it requires the tuna RFMOs to have thesense to pay attention.
ACAP has issued best practice advice for minimising seabirddeaths from pelagic longline fishing. ACAP recommends thatthe most effective way to reduce seabird bycatch is to use threepractice mitigation measures simultaneously (branch lineweighting, night setting and bird scaring lines). Most tuna RFMOshave only gone so far as to require fishers to choose to use 2 outof the 3 measures, which will often see the most effective measure,line weighting, left at port. Further, monitoring to ensurecompliance is notoriously poor.
Rightly or wrongly, ACAP relies heavily on those of its memberstates who are also members of one or more of the tuna RFMOsto act as its agents. These states are supposed to take ACAPadvice and promote it at the RFMOs. Historically, we have relied onAustralia for this purpose. Indeed, the Australian Government didput up a seabird bycatch resolution to the 2017 CCSBT meetingheld in Indonesia in October. Unfortunately, the resolution fell shortof ACAP best practice advice. Knowing the recalcitrance of Japanat the CCSBT, Australia was very low in its ambition. The Australian
resolution only asked the CCSBT to require bird scaring lines todeter seabirds (which, on their own, is an inadequate measure andrarely used). Australia’s resolution also went along with the currentstatus quo at CCSBT which is to urge member states to use theinadequate measures of the other area based tuna RFMOs whenSBT fleets are fishing in their geographic waters. The resolutionwas supported by New Zealand and, in a positive development, byKorea and Taiwan; but Japan couldn’t even bring itself to agree tothis modest recommendation as a binding mitigation measure!Japan sticks doggedly to the excuse that the CCSBT is only aboutthe conservation of SBT and not the other species killed in theirthousands in the course of SBT fishing. Australia will need to domuch more inter-sessional diplomatic work for seabird bycatchmeasures to succeed at CCSBT.
And succeed they must. For the failure of CCSBT to act effectivelywas made all the more depressing by the findings coming out ofthe most recent ACAP meeting in Wellington in September whichreflected on the conservation status of albatross and petrel species.Their assessments indicate that, of the 31 species covered by ACAP,21 (68%) are believed to be at risk of extinction, four of which areCritically Endangered, five Endangered, 12 are Vulnerable, andeight are Near Threatened. Twelve (40%) species on the list arein decline, eight are believed to be increasing with a further eight(27%) stable. This is a very serious conservation situation. Thesustained ongoing decline of so many albatross populationsclearly indicates current mitigation arrangements in tuna longlinefisheries are not working.
To save albatross and petrels, no increase in SBT quota should becontemplated by CCSBT unless fishers are fully mitigating theirseabirdbycatchbyusing the3outof3measuresACAPrecommendswhen in areas where seabird bycatch is a risk. That should alsoapply domestically to the growing numbers of tuna longliners inAustralia who are leasing SBT quota from the purse seine operatorswithout consideration for the deadly consequences for albatross.
Humane Society International had representatives at both theCCSBT meeting in Yogyakarta in October and the ACAP meetingin Wellington in September. We are also working on the AustralianGovernment’s revisions to the Threat Abatement Plan for LonglineFishing, the drafting of a new National Plan of Action for Seabirdsand the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s SeabirdBycatch Strategy.
23JESSICA MORRIS, HSI MARINE SCIENTIST AND CMS DELEGATE
CMS listings a beacon of hope infight for global conservation African lion, giraffe, leopard, chimpanzee, whale shark, duskyshark and blue shark all given new protections
It’s rare that there is so much good news to celebrate at the end of a UN conference for the protection of animals. But the recentlycompleted Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties tothe Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS CoP12) in thePhilippines was so ground breaking for many iconic animals thatit’s given campaigners hope for the future of global conservation.
The UN Conference is one of the major international treaties forthe world's wildlife, covering terrestrial, marine and avian migratoryspecies throughout their range.
HSI was advocating for the listing of the African lion, leopard andgiraffe, and for the whale shark, dusky shark, blue shark, angel shark,wedgefish and common guitarfish. Excitingly, listings for all ofthese species and more were endorsed by a majority of countriespresent and then confirmed at the Conference’s plenary.
The CMS agreement lists threatened species in two appendices.Those threatened with extinction are listed on Appendix I andthe convention member nations are then required to addressthreats to them, including ending any hunting or other deliberatekilling (with some small potential exceptions). Species that needor would significantly benefit from international co-operation arelisted in Appendix II of the Convention, and for many this leads tothe development of global or regional agreements. Species cantherefore be listed on both appendices.
The African lion, giraffe and the leopard were all listed on AppendixII, and the chimpanzee on Appendix I and II, giving it the highestpossible protection under the UN treaty. These proposals weremet with some controversy, with listings for all four of the Africanspecies forced to go to a vote—the first time this has happened inthis treaty's history.
These iconic African species are under threat due to habitat lossfrom land clearing, deforestation, illegal poaching and trade, anddrought as a result of climate change. Shockingly, giraffe populationshave plummeted by a drastic 40% in the past 15 years and almost
50% of lion populations have been lost in the past 20 years. TheCMS listings are a vital step to reverse these alarming trends.
In the marine realm, nations agreed unanimously to upgrade thewhale shark to the highest level of protection on Appendix I. Theblue and dusky sharks were listed in Appendix II, and the angelshark added to Appendix I and II. The Mediterranean populationof the common guitarfish was added to Appendix I, and the entireray species to Appendix II. The White-spotted wedgefish, anotherspecies of ray, was added to Appendix II but not without concernsexpressed by Australia that the proposal was pre-emptive.
The blue shark is the most migratory and wide ranging of allsharks but it is caught in fisheries and as bycatch at a staggering20 million individuals a year, making it the most commonlyfound shark in the destructive global fin trade.
The dusky shark is also a prominent species in the fin trade. Bothblue and dusky sharks are killed in longline fisheries, including inAustralia, and their fins exported to Asia.
Disappointingly, the Australian Government has repeated pastactions by taking out reservations against the blue shark, duskyshark and wedgefish. In the past Australia has taken outreservations against CMS listings for hammerheads and threshersharks to avoid giving them strict protection under our nationalenvironment laws, so they can continue to be caught bycommercial and recreational fishers. This isn’t acceptable. Youcan tell the Australian Government not to take out reservationsfor these shark species at http://bit.ly/hsiaction16
In total 34 proposals were endorsed at CMS CoP12, with oneproposal withdrawn. Other notable listings included the near-extinct Gobi Bear, with only 45 individuals remaining in the wild,included on Appendix I and the Caspian Seal included on bothCMS Appendices.
Representatives from various HSI offices around the worldattended the conference, and I was the NGO representative onthe Australian delegation.
Photo: HSI supporter Sandy Kelly
24 MICHAEL KENNEDY, HSI CO-FOUNDER
Supporting conGuinean Forests of West A
HSI is in its 18th year of a global program designed to help keypartner NGOs undertake conservation activities in their respectivebiodiverse nations. More often than not this work falls within theboundaries of some of the world’s 35 biodiversity hotspots;bioregions that have spectacular numbers of endemic but highlythreatened plants and animals. These biodiversity hotspotsrepresent approximately 2.3% of terrestrial Earth, around 50% of the planet’s endemic plants species, and some 42% of itsland vertebrates.
The Guinean Forests of West Africa Biodiversity Hotspot extendsthrough Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo,Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon, and HSI supports work in seven ofthese nations. The Guinean Forests Hotspot itself is one of eightbiodiversity hotspots in Africa (including Madagascar) and HSIhas conservation partnerships in seven of them. The CriticalEcosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) notes that,
“The Guinean Forests support impressive levels of biodiversity,having high levels of species richness and endemism.Approximately 9,000 species of vascular plant are believed tooccur in the hotspot, including 1,800 endemic species. The hotspotalso supports an exceptional diversity of other terrestrial species.There are 416 mammal (representing nearly a quarter of themammals native to continental Africa), 917 bird, 107 reptile and269 amphibian species within the hotspot boundary, of which 65 mammals, 48 birds, 20 reptiles and 118 amphibians are thoughtto be endemic to the hotspot. The hotspot is among the world’stop priorities for primate conservation, with five CriticallyEndangered and 21 Endangered species” (CEPF, EcosystemProfile—Guinean Forests of West Africa Biodiversity Hotspot—Summary. December 31, 2015).
In Guinea and Sierra Leone, in cooperation with our Washingtonoffice, we provided the resources to allow the effective trainingof wildlife law enforcement officials targeted through theappropriate wildlife protection authorities.
In Nigeria, Ghana and the Ivory Coast, we have contributedresources to the varied work of the Turtle Conservation Fund (TCF)in protecting the world’s most highly endangered and IUCN RedList freshwater turtles and tortoises. Ten separate programs have
been supported covering the Nubian flapshell turtle (Cyclanorbiselegans), the Senegal flapshell turtle (Cyclanorbis senegalensis),Home’s hinge-back tortoise (Kinixys homeana), the forest hinge-back tortoise (Kinixys erosa) and six other hinge-back tortoisespecies.
In Benin, HSI and the Born Free Foundation supported a programthat aimed to find long-term, low cost, sustainable strategies tomitigate human elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) conflicts aroundthe W biosphere reserve. Working with the Directeur des Forêtset des Ressources Naturelles, and Project Leaders from the Centrede Gestion de la biodiversité et du Terroir, the program aimed tohelp to both improve people’s attitudes towards elephants andalso prevent disastrous elephant raids. By enabling the farmersto save their crop production, their incomes would increase andtheir negative attitudes towards elephants would reduce. In thefinal analysis the project staff noted that “For 100% of farmerswho agreed to participate in the experiment, whatever themethod of elephant repellant used (for example capsicum resin)or the dose, treatment was performed successfully to repel theelephants. According to farmers, elephants come to the edge offields, have contact with a device, and then return but withoutentering the field and never come back.”
More recently, in 2017, we again worked with the Born FreeFoundation entering into an agreement for the protection of threatened fauna at the Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary(BMWS) in Cameroon. The triple key goals are: halting of elephant(Loxodonta cyclotis) poaching, and ensuring that forest elephantscan move within the greater landscape unimpeded and safefrom persecution; safe-guarding the (Nigeria/Cameroon)chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti) and drill (Mandrillusleucophaeus) populations and seeing their populations recover;and to garner support for conservation and the presence of theSanctuary from local communities.
The project proposal notes that the BMWS sanctuary, whichprovides the key study site for this critical program, is some66,000 hectares in area and was established in 1996. The BMWSis a part of a wider landscape of protected forests, including the1.2 million hectare Korop National Park (KNP)—to the west of
25MICHAEL KENNEDY, HSI CO-FOUNDER
the Sanctuary, and contains relatively undisturbed lowlandrainforest which supports extremely important populations ofPreuss’s red colobus monkey (Procolobus pennantii preussi) andforest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis). The proposed BakossiMountains National Park is to the south of the sanctuary.
Previous faunal surveys in the BMWS were conducted a decadeago by the Born Free Foundation’s current Associate Director,African Conservation, Dr Elizabeth Greengrass, when she foundchimpanzee populations of around 700-1,500 individuals andforest elephants in the region of 100-200 individuals. However,she has demonstrated a clear decline in both elephant andchimpanzee populations in a series of very recent rapidassessments in the greater landscape.
In response, priority aims and objectives have been developedfor the project and Dr Greengrass and her monitoring teams arealready at work in the Sanctuary beginning the implementationof essential conservation actions. Those priority aims andobjectives are:
• Determine the status, relative abundance and distribution ofelephants and key areas such as “bais” (forest clearings) that areimportant to elephants at the BMWS and in surrounding forests
• Establish an elephant monitoring programme inside the BMWSand neighbouring forests
• Establish a community-based Elephant Guardian programmearound the BMWS and KNP (2017), where corridors areestablished and conflict is minimized
• Determine the status, relative abundance and distribution ofchimpanzees and identify remaining areas which supportrelatively high densities of chimpanzees (2016-2018)
• Establish a more permanent chimpanzee and drill monitoringprogramme inside the BMWS (2018)
• Provide income generating opportunities for members of localcommunities living around the BMWS
• Reduce human-elephant conflict in areas where crop raidingby elephants still occurs
• Investigate rural and livelihood challenges in communities, andassist communities to solve these, where feasible.
Our support for a range of critical conservation initiatives throughexpert partner organisations is set to continue into 2018, and welook forward to bring good news on progress in Cameroon’smagnificent forests.
The hotspot is among world’s toppriorities for primate conservation,with five Critically Endangered and 21 Endangered species .”
“
servation in the frica Biodiversity Hotspot
26 EVAN QUARTERMAIN, HSI HEAD OF PROGRAMS
Australia’s iconic platypus was in the press for all the wrongreasons in 2017, and HSI has been keeping close watch on thethreats to what is one of the most evolutionarily distinct animalsin existence.
Species for sale: Government pursues zoo swaps
Last June HSI wrote to Federal Environment Minister JoshFrydenberg urging him to reject a controversial plan to exporttwo platypus from Taronga Zoo to San Diego Zoo in exchangefor an African Okapi, calling on the Minister to instead prioritisethe conservation of the species in the wild in Australia, where itis clear they face a multitude of threats including habitat lossand drought.
Prior to these plans surfacing, there has in effect been anunwritten policy in operation for decades which has ensured thatno platypus have been exported from Australia. This is based onthe premise that it is far too risky for the individual animals’ survivalto send them to overseas zoos, and that there is no conservationbenefit from stocking overseas zoos with the species.
In response to HSI’s letter, Minister Frydenberg acknowledgedthat he has to accept or reject the export plan through a formalprocess under the Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), but continues to speak infavour of the export publicly. It was also revealed by GreensSenator Lee Rhiannon in Senate Estimates that San Diego Zoohad announced it would be investing half a million dollars into aplatypus conservation project under the auspices of Australia'sThreatened Species Prospectus—the conservation fundingseemingly conditional upon the proposed export. Such a speciesexport for cash deal is a dangerous precedent.
The last time that Taronga Zoo, then in partnership with UneoZoo, proposed exporting live platypus to Tokyo Expo in Japanfor a short-term loan was in 1994. It caused such public furoreand intense media interest that the New South Wales andCommonwealth Governments backed down from theproposed transaction.
HSI issued a call to action for letters to be written to MinisterFrydenberg urging him to reject the platypus export, which at thetime of writing has generated many submissions in opposition to
the plan. However these letters appear to have been ignored, as in his final media appearance former Threatened SpeciesCommissioner Gregory Andrews heaped praise on the potentialdeal, claiming he had brokered it and that it retained the supportof the Minister.
Death by drowning: Rampant sale and illegal use of deadly traps
Recent reports have also laid bare the many risks faced by theplatypus, with approximately half of a locally endangeredpopulation wiped out due to lethal opera house traps being usedin a Victorian waterway.
These illegal fishing traps are still being sold across the east coastof Australia and in Tasmania despite being banned from use inthe range of the platypus. HSI is investigating where and howthese traps are being purchased and used in an effort to makesure no other native wildlife are subjected to the distressing fateof being drowned in their natural environment. It is not just platypusthat suffer, but other aquatic life such as turtles and native rodents.
We have recently joined the Victorian Alliance for Platypus SafeYabby Traps in their call to have the enclosed traps banned in allVictorian waterways through cruelty laws, and will also beimminently writing to all responsible state and federal politiciansarguing the case for further bans to be put in place.
It is likely that platypus interfering with these traps was behindthe bodies of three platypus being discovered in the AlburyBotanic Gardens, two with their heads cut off. Reports confirmedthat the platypus had been trapped and deliberately killed usinga sharp object, with the shocking crimes prompting HSI to offera $5,000 reward for information leading to the identification,arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible. Leadsare currently being investigated.
Threatened species nomination
In response to ongoing threats to the platypus, HSI is reviewingthe latest scientific research in preparation for a potential EPBCAct threatened species nomination in 2018 should our analysisdetermine it is warranted. The latest comprehensive assessmentcontained within The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012classified the species as ‘Near Threatened’, approaching aVulnerable status.
Platypus trapped in our riverswhile others shipped overseas
NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS 27
We were pleased in September last year when the AustralianFisheries Management Authority (AFMA) put in place a newgillnet closure in a fishing zone in South Australia to preventAustralian sea lion deaths.
The new gillnet closure follows the Australian Sea LionManagement Strategy, which HSI worked with AFMA and thefishing industry to develop and introduce in June 2010. TheStrategy has now put in place a number of closures, and is aimedat ensuring populations of Australian sea lions can recover. Newclosures are required in areas where bycatch of sea lions exceedtrigger limits and tragically, this is what has brought about thenew closure in South Australia. We are thankful to AFMA for itsdecisive action to protect this wonderful species and commendfishing operators for their cooperation to ensure the closure canbe implemented effectively.
HSI has a long history of working to ensure this threatened speciesis protected from cruel gillnets in Australia. In 2007, to settle acourt case, we reached an agreement with AFMA and the FederalEnvironment Minister to ensure a critical condition to reduceAustralian sea lion bycatch deaths was placed on the Southernand Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), a multi-speciesfishery that covers almost half of the Australian Fishing Zone.
Worryingly, latest research shows the species is still sufferingprecipitous population declines. This doesn’t mean that fishingclosures aren’t working. Sea lions mature by the age of six and ithas been now six years since the first closures were enacted, soonly now can we hope to start seeing a turn-around in theanimal’s fortunes. Further funding is desperately needed tomonitor the effectiveness of the fishing closures.
Reports indicate the South Australian population of the speciesis suffering a 3% decline every year, or a 25% decline in sitesmonitored 8-10 years earlier. Because of this, HSI nominated thespecies for an upgraded Endangered listing under nationalenvironment laws to adequately reflect the threatened status of the animal. We will, however, have to wait until the end ofSeptember 2018 for the Federal Environment Minister’s decisionon our nomination.
We will continue to advocate for careful protection of thesespecial Australian marine mammals that remain one of theworld’s rarest sea lion species.
HSI has nominated the Austral ian sea l ion
for protection as Endangered
Industry on board to help Australian sea lions
Worryingly, latest research shows thespecies is still suffering precipitouspopulation declines.”“
If you are seeking information on animal welfare and wildlifeconservation, then our blog Protecting All Animals is the answer.It’s the most effective way to stay up to date on the work we’redoing to ensure animals and their environments are protected inAustralia, our region and the world.
Featuring in depth posts from our team of campaigners based inAustralia, as well as global campaign news from other HSI officesaround the world, you can be assured our blog gives you our first-hand commentary on animal welfare and conservation issues toensure you get the full story.
Recently we’ve given a run down on the government’s new Billto end animal testing for cosmetics in Australia, and a quick andeasy summary of the pros and potential loopholes in the proposedlegislation. Our blog has also extensively covered our disaster
relief efforts in the US and Mexico following last year’s devastatinghurricanes and earthquakes, giving our audiences the latest onthe ground accounts and exclusive images of what we’re doingto ensure the animals in the region are protected.
We are blogging on everything from Endangered species tomarine conservation, disaster relief, animal welfare and wildlifeconservation. If it’s related to animals, we’ve got it covered.
New posts are published every week, so you’ll be set if you’relooking for some extra reading material on your weekendswithout taking up too much of your time.
To subscribe, simply head to hsi.org.au/blog and submit yourdetails and we’ll notify you each time we have a new post so you won’t miss a beat.
Protecting all animals
28
Protecting biodiversityin the great blue beyondSixty percent of the world’s oceans are the high seas and outsideof any one country’s sovereignty. Biodiversity in the high seas isvast, spectacular and mostly unprotected. At the UN, after overa decade of pre-negotiation, governments are set to startnegotiations proper for the text of a new international treaty toconserve biodiversity on the high seas—or biodiversity beyondnational jurisdictions (BBNJ)—under the auspices of the UNConvention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
On March 16th last year in Sydney, HSI was one of the hosts of a forum of the key international players that will be involved in these negotiations to discuss the role and consequences forAustralia. The forum recognised that the Australian Governmenthas played a leading role in bringing these negotiations about,beginning with the Hon Robert Hill when he was EnvironmentMinister in the Howard Government and who was a speaker atthe forum.
A key recommendation from the forum is for Australia “to continueto champion the shared global responsibility to protect BBNJ andwork in international collaboration with other nations to achieve
and implement a legally binding ocean governance frameworkunder UNCLOS”.
The Sydney forum Marine Biodiversity Beyond NationalJurisdiction—Australia’s continuing role was hosted by theAustralian Committee for IUCN, HSI, the University of QueenslandGlobal Change Institute and the Environmental Defenders Officeof NSW. The event was generously supported by The ThomasFoundation. Expert speakers from international and Australianmarine conservation organisations including IUCN, HSI, WWF,Oceans Unite, Pew Charitable Trusts and the Global OceansCommission gave their perspectives on what is at stake with,and perhaps more importantly without, the new treaty. Over 50 Australian stakeholders attended the discussions includingrepresentatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs, theDepartment of Environment and Energy and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The report of the forumand our recommendations for the Australian Government canbe found here http://bit.ly/bbnj2017.
NICOLA BEYNON, HSI HEAD OF CAMPAIGNS
visit hsi .org .au/blog
29
Ongoing investigation into horrific wombat slaughter
The picturesque North Head Sanctuary located in Manly, NewSouth Wales, is a site celebrated for its breathtaking views,indigenous and military heritage, and diverse flora and fauna.These latter values are epitomised through the presence of ashowcase remnant of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub of theSydney Region (ESBS)—an Endangered ecological communitylisted under both the Federal Environment Protection andThreatened Species Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) andNSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.
The most recent assessment of the community by the NSWThreatened Species Scientific Committee resulted in a PreliminaryDetermination that it met the criteria for listing as CriticallyEndangered, noting a significant reduction in geographicdistribution since its original listing. The 2004 Recovery Plan forESBS clearly identifies ‘clearing and fragmentation’ as the mostsignificant impacts on this already diminishing ThreatenedEcological Community.
These facts make it all the more alarming that in January 2017the Commonwealth agency that manages North Head Sanctuary,the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, hired contractors thatundertook substantial clearing of ESBS vegetation from the
historic Third Quarantine Cemetery at the site. During this workalmost all vegetation more than a metre in height was removed,including shrubs and small trees. Also removed was ground coverwhich formed a significant part of the community, exposing thesite to erosion that occurred when a storm deluge hit the areajust days after the work.
The clearing action was taken prior to completion of anenvironmental impact assessment, with no referral made to FederalMinister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg to determinewhether or not the proposed works were “likely to have a significantimpact” on the Threatened Ecological Community. Last FebruaryHSI wrote to Minister Frydenberg noting our concerns regardingthe management actions and seeking his assurances that nofurther impacts on the ESBS present would be allowed to occur.
In the absence of a response, HSI successfully submitted a requestfor information regarding the clearing under the Freedom ofInformationAct 1982, andwearecurrently reviewingthedocumentsobtained from this request with a view to having a higher focusplaced on threatened vegetation when it comes to futuremanagement of North Head Sanctuary.
In late June of last year, a shocking discovery was made at acampsite in South Gippsland, Victoria. Five wombats were founddead, with one wombat found badly burnt and the campsitetrashed with a burnt out picnic table, vandalised trees and a signlaced with shotgun bullets. HSI decided to put out a $5,000reward for information that led to the conviction of thoseresponsible for the horrific attack on these typically solitarycreatures. Initial investigations couldn’t determine whether thewombats had been shot or run over, and the Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) in Gippsland,Victoria commenced their own investigation into the matter.
After our reward offer generated great press interest in the localarea, we received a number of tips from people with information,
and we passed this information on to DELWP Gippsland.
As of writing, DELWP Gippsland is making steady progress withtheir own ongoing investigation, with a number of persons ofinterest being interviewed in relation to the crime. The possession orincorrect disposal of dead wildlife is a crime in Victoria, so regardlessof how they were killed, there is still a case to be answered.
We are thankful to the DELWP Gippsland for their thorough andongoing investigation into the crime. It’s an example of thedetermination and detail necessary for investigating wildlife crimesin Australia and how crucial it is to ensure perpetrators of thiskind are brought to justice.
EVAN QUARTERMAIN, HSI HEAD OF PROGRAMS
BENJAMIN VOZZO, HSI COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
Minister has head in sand at Manly
30
South Korea and Indonesia key fronts in the dog meat battle HSI continues to fight against the dog meat trade wherever itis happening in the world.
Our efforts continue in full force in South Korea, where we havejust shut down our tenth dog meat farm bringing the total numberof dogs that we have been able to save from slaughter to 1,222.All of the dogs HSI rescues from dog meat farms in South Koreaare sent to the US, the UK or Canada where they are adoptedout into new homes. Australia’s strict quarantine laws make itdifficult for HSI to consider bringing them here for adoption.
The dogs we found in our latest rescue displayed conditionstypical of those in farms across South Korea. The golden retrievers,spaniels, beagles, greyhounds, Korean jindos, mastiffs, and otherbreeds found on the farm in Namyangju, a two-hour drive fromthe 2018 Winter Olympic Stadium, had never received anyveterinary care and many suffered from eye infections, skindiseases, and painful sores from days of standing and sitting onthe metal wires and bars that make up the flooring of their cages.The rescue took place at the beginning of South Korea’s winter,just in time to ensure the dogs didn’t suffer any longer in thefreezing conditions.
As gratifying as it is to rescue each animal from their misery,we are also aware that given the large number of dog meatfarms in Korea, we cannot tackle this problem entirely on ourown. South Korea remains the only country in the world withestablished dog breeding for human consumption. There are astaggering 17,000 dog meat farms across the whole country,and an estimated 2.5 million dogs are slaughtered for the tradeevery year. With the eyes of the world on South Korea as theWinter Olympics approaches, our rescues provide the country’sgovernment with a blueprint for change to help dog meatfarmers transition out of this gruesome trade and into morehumane livelihoods. In all 10 dog meat farms that we have closed,HSI has worked in co-operation with the farmers. We are alsoworking on legislation and have launched a global petitioncalling on the South Korean government to end the slaughterof companion animals for human consumption. You can signthat petition at http://bit.ly/hsiaction6
In Indonesia the situation is equally as devastating where up to a million dogs are slaughtered for the dog meat trade everyyear. In November, HSI joined the Dog Meat-Free Indonesiacoalition to launch a campaign to end this trade with JakartaAnimal Aid Network, Animal Friends Jogja and Change forAnimals Foundation.
Many of the dogs that are slaughtered in Indonesia are stolenfamily pets. One of the most horrific parts of the dog meat tradeis that the animals often must watch on as other dogs aredragged away from the cages and brutally slaughtered in publicmarkets, whilst they wait their turn. The footage obtained bythe Dog Meat-Free Indonesia coalition for the campaign launchwas some of the most horrifying that our seasoned campaignershad ever witnessed.
Indonesia’s dog meat trade is also threatening to undo all of thecountry’s hard work towards achieving rabies-free status by2020. The World Health Organization has explicitly highlightedthe trade in dogs for human consumption as a contributingfactor to the spread of rabies with its devastating impact onhuman and animal health.
Dog Meat-Free Indonesia is raising global awareness about thetrade, and lobbying local and central governments to strengthenanimal cruelty laws and end the dog meat trade across thewhole country. We hope to focus the world’s eye on this tradein Indonesia, much as we have done in China and South Korea.The campaign is of particular interest to our supporters, as thetrade is happening on Australia’s doorstep. You can take actioncalling on the Indonesian Government to ban the trade in andslaughtering of dogs, and consumption of dog meat throughoutIndonesia at http://bit.ly/hsiaction13
Our work in Korea and Indonesia is part of our global campaignto end the dog meat trade. We are also supporting local partnersin China to intercept dog meat traders’ trucks and to combatthe Yulin dog meat festival, and have a goal to end the tradeacross the world.
BENJAMIN VOZZO, HSI COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR
The Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) is Humane SocietyInternational’sglobalnetworkofprivatelyconservedlands. Initiated by the Humane Society of the UnitedStates in 1993, it was launched in Australia by HSIin 2007 to preserve and protect our vital nativehabitats and the animals that depend on them.
Working under the guiding principle of humanestewardship,theWLTprotectsbothvast, impressivelandscapes and smaller, humbler placesproviding for wildlife, rare and common alike.
Complementing HSI’s other habitat protectioninitiatives such as our Threatened EcologicalCommunities nomination program, Australia’sWLT network is thriving with more than 500
member sanctuaries and some 60,000 hectares.
The program is voluntary and simple to join asthere are no costs or legal obligations. Becominga WLT member effectively just augments anyarrangements landowners have on theirproperties, legal or otherwise.
An exciting range of WLT initiatives are in storethis year, including two focusing on assistingwildlife rehabilitators and helping promotesanctuaries that offer accommodation.
We invite everyone with an acre or more ofwildlife-friendly land and an interest inconservation to join our burgeoning network.
• The opportunity to talk about the invaluablework undertaken to protect important wildlifehabitats through feature pages on our websiteand in our biannual Wildlife Lands newsletter;
• Complimentary for-sale advertising on the WLTwebsite and social media profiles to assist infinding a like-minded buyer for your property;
• Free Wildlife Land Trust signage for yoursanctuary to declare your membership;
• Conservation funding opportunities through theannual Private Land Conservation Grantsprogram (only available in NSW at present);
• Lobbying assistance and advice on biodiversityissues should your refuge come under threat;
and
• Guidance on covenanting options throughoutAustralia to help further your conservationcommitment if desired
Benefits of Wildlife Land Trust membership include:
For more information or to apply for WLT
membership visit wildlifelandtrust.org.au
If you have a question or would like an information
pack please call HSI on 1800 333 737.
Photo: John McCann
Photo: Evan Ahearn
235suggested
Commonwealth policy actions
An overview of HSI’sThreatened Species
Program &
RECORD + RESEARCH + RECOMMENDATIONSLike its subject matter, this book is unique and invaluable
Going, going, gone
We’ve just published an assessment of Australia’s threatened species policy requirements,
detailing what needs to be done to protect them.
This is 150+ pages of reference and research material in one easy-to-read tome.
Unfortunately, we could only afford a really small print run so don’t delay, order your
copy now (only $39 + $9.90 p&p): [email protected] or Freecall: 1800 333 737.
