News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Demand for more funds to protect biodiversity 

Demand for more funds to protect biodiversity

15 Jan, 2010 03:48 AM
PROGRAMS to protect endangered species and threatened ecosystems are seriously underfunded by the Rudd Government, a broad mix of conservationists and farming organisations have warned.

The fresh calls for more funding to protect Australia's environment comes as the 2010 UN International Year of Biodiversity started this week with a series of events around the globe - though no events were organised by the Australian Government.

The diverse groups urging the Government to better invest in biodiversity include the Australian Conservation Foundation, the National Farmers Federation and a number of prominent scientists.

While the amount of annual government spending on biodiversity is hard to determine, the federal Environment Department's primary programs allocates $1 billion a year annually.

The state governments and other federal departments also commit funds to protecting the natural environment.

An ACF national liaison officer, Amy Hankinson, said yesterday there was serious under-investment in biodiversity and at least another $1 billion a year should be put into environmental programs to protect ecosystems from the effects of climate change.

As a comparison, she said, the Federal Government now offers $5 billion a year in fuel tax credits to industries such as mining and transport.

"We have neglected our wildlife for too long, close to half of all mammal extinctions in the last 200 years have occurred in Australia," she said.

The ACF also pointed to a scientific report commissioned by the Government in August last year that finds ''our environment has suffered low levels of capital reinvestment for decades. We must renew public and private investment in this capital.''

One of the co-authors of the report, Dr Mark Stafford Smith, science director at the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, said increased funding of the protection of the environment was essential because biodiversity was crucial to producing clean water and crops, and protecting animal and plant species.

In a statement to mark the start of the UN Biodiversity Year the National Farmers Federation also called for a major investment in the environment because ''biodiversity and agriculture are interdependent, and both are pivotal in addressing looming climate change and food security pressures.''

While the NFF has not nominated a particular sum, the federation's president, David Crombie, said the 2010 federal budget should ensure that there was enough funding to cover every animal and ecosystem listed as endangered.

Another 40 conservation groups, including the WWF and Greenpeace, have called on the Government to lift investment in a range of biodiversity programs to $3 billion a year.

A spokesman for the acting Environment Minister, Penny Wong, said a biodiversity strategy would be finalised by early this year.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It does not help that the Rudd Govt has restricted funding to landcare and community groups. Envirofund was a excellent program that gave farmers and community groups dollars to do real work - caring for country is a waste of time and quite restrictive!! give the dollars back to the communtities that do real work and achieve real outcomes.
Posted by agree fully, 15/01/2010 6:54:02 AM
Don't waste your time. People should know by now that agricultural always wins against preserving the natural environment.
Posted by Get Real, 15/01/2010 12:37:59 PM
If Get Real had even the slightest clue about how much farmers work towards protecting their land he/she/it might just be able to grasp a simple fact. In Qld, if a farmer plants a tree, he then has the problem of proving he planted it. Then there is the Vegetation Management Act which prohibits the cutting down of any "regrowth" within 50 metres of a waterway. Then he has to prove that any vegetation elsewhere is not endangered, he has to pay $300 for a PMAV which is supposed to give him rights to farm the bits the Govt don't want, and if he wants to preserve some timber for his own use for fencing etc, he has to submit a Notice of Forest Practice. Now, if you want the farmer to do all these wonderful things like planting trees for the environment and the animals and earthworms etc, you have to think about how to make it attractive to the city slicker who wants all the warm fuzzy things and the farmer who wants to preserve his land and make a living too. Now, tell me smartie, how would you go about achieving these goals?
Posted by Trugger, 16/01/2010 6:32:14 PM
They don’t care about the animals and environment, they just shoot and clear them lol.
Posted by Get Real, 18/01/2010 12:06:34 PM
Get Real, You are obviously a real self styled expert on rural affairs. You still haven't answered me, How would you solve your perceived problem? Because, in reality, you are describing things that the vast majority of farmers don't do. I guess you are comfortable in your nice little suburban house built from timber from somewhere rural, with a wooden dining table and eating the best rump steak the rural industries can provide, and sopping up the gravy with bread made from wheat grown by a farmer, with mono unsaturated margarine on the bread made from oilseeds grown by a farmer. And, of course, swished down with a glass of dry red made from grapes grown on a farm near-by and topped off with a latte with milk from an Aussie cow. Now, what is your problem? Should we import ALL of our food just for your benefit so we won't be perceived to be shooting everything and clearing everything. For Petes' sake, you get real!
Posted by Trugger, 18/01/2010 9:03:04 PM
It’s quite simple; we need to slow down our population, that way no more land will have to be cleared. And cut down on our consumption of unnecessary food (mainly junk food and animal products), we don’t need that much food, just look at obesity rates.
Posted by Get Real, 20/01/2010 12:56:18 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
NFF president, David Crombie.
NFF president, David Crombie.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
14 January, 2010
POLL
Q: Does the 'catastrophic' fire warning unnecessarily inflate bushfire danger?

Yes - it is over used and its meaning diluted
(61.8%)

No - it truthfully represents danger and should not be ignored
(28.3%)

I don't know what it really means
(9.9%)

Total Votes: 212
Poll Date: 13 January, 2010



 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...