Senate Estimates on Live Animal Exports, Whaling, GE & Natural Resource Management
Blog Post | Blog of Rachel Siewert
Wednesday 4th June 2008, 12:35pm
by TimNorton in
To follow on from Tim H's post on Senate Estimates transcripts, I thought I'd also post a few links to some of the more interesting discussions coming out of estimates.
Rach asked some questions on Live Animal Exports, in particular around those Memorandum of Understandings that the Australian Government have with countries to which we export live animals.
The Government were quick to defend the possible leasing of the Oceanic Viking ship to the Japanese, for 'scientific research'. I posted about this a few days back, but still worth a read in its entirety.
Genetically Modified foods continues to be an issue, particularly following the WA Government's calls for a halt on all Genetically Modified food approvals until they are fully tested for safe human consumption and rigorous national labelling laws are in place. Yet another misleading report from ABARE was scrutinised under Estimates, where it was revealed that the Bureau based their report on the assumption there would be a 100% take-up of GE crops.
Later today we shall tackle the Food Standards issues surrounding labelling of GM products in food.
Our usual concerns around Caring for our Country were again raised after the Government were unable to give a coherent account of funding priority guidelines. You can read some of it here, followed up the next day here.
The issues surrounding ongoing funding for Landcare are covered here.
More as they come.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Given research shows that
Given research shows that once released GM/GE plants can not be contained, ABARE's 100% take up estimate is probably correct - albeit via an involuntary take up. Perhaps this an admission of what GM/GE opponents have know all along?
Re the food labelling, I recommend the Michael Pollan rule of thumb, "Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognise." Unfortunately for great grandma, if she's never told it's GM/GE flour, she will never know she's part of very large scale, longitudinal experiment based on many tenuous assumptions. Surely consumers must have a right to know what they are ingesting in this country?
I manage a program called
I manage a program called SeaNet that has received NHT funding for the past 10 years. Like the Threatened Species Network and the Marine and Coastal Commuity Network, we are also waiting to find out if we will receive funding to run our program.
SeaNet employs 8 extension officers around the country that work with the Australian commercial fishing industry to help them work towards environmental sustainability. Over the last 10 years we have helped industry greatly reduce its bycatch of unwated species and also greatly reduce interaction between fishing practices and EPBC listed species (seabirds, seaturtles, dolphins, whales, seals etc etc).
We have been expecting to find out about our program funding since about March this year, and it is just ridiculous that we have had to wait this long to know whether we will be funded or not. Surprisingly we have not yet lost any of our staff (it is a testiment to how dedicated they are), but as this thing drags out further and further, we are not even going to be able to give staff the mandatory 4 weeks notice before putting them off.
Unemployment is now 3 weeks away and the government still won't tell us if we have funding or not. This is such poor form from a labour government, that is all about workers rights.
Mel @ 2. Perhaps you could
Mel @ 2.
Perhaps you could peruse comment at the following thread:
http://greensblog.org/2008/03/03/estimates-transcripts-on-climate-biosec...
There is another side to fishing industry problems that should ensure you receive even more funding than whatever your program has requested.
The seabirds, turtles, whales and dolphin you mention also eat pilchards, herring and anchovies that are seagrass dependent. However supply of these food web fish is devastated due to devastation of seagrass being smothered by algae and epiphyte grown fed by unprecedented nutrient pollution from sewage outfalls and deep dredging. I have the evidence.
Without scientific evidence the media constatly blames overfishing for fish stock depletion but destruction of seagrass food web habitat is in my opinion a major factor, together with gagging of debate toward all possible causes and solutions.
Imagine a beef industry without feed for cattle, caused by too much fertilizer and ignorance. There is dire urgent need for The Greens to bring general attention to relevant marine issues in Parliament.
Since 1982 I have investigated and tracked causes of fish stock devastation and can now narrow down the overall situation to a single question. Is there an eddy between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs or not, yes or no? I submit the answer will lead to major funding for marine natural resource management.
Science should to be harnessed to sustain fishing in order to urgently help sustain world food supply.
There is no such thing as
There is no such thing as sustainable fishing.
If you want to urgently help sustain world food supply, promote veganism, thus promoting a solution to 18% of global greenhouse gas production and removing one of the top three causes of pollution and environmental degradation across the board.
Daily Veg Editor, sharks
Daily Veg Editor, sharks might disagree with you on the 'no such thing as sustainable fishing' point, they have been fishing sustainably for millions of years. If they can do it, why can't we?
It's not what we eat that's the problem, it's the quantities we eat, how we go about 'producing' this food, and our shear numbers that are the problems. Giant synthetic monoculture farms of grains, vegies and fruit would satisfy vegans, but is it sustainable? Only with costs to the environment externalised and with massive inputs of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Those costs also include the killing of sentient beings, 'pests' that would eat the crops.
Eat less, shake the hand that feeds you (or grow your own), and eat mostly grains,vegetables and fruits. These seem sensible tenets for sustainability, and they don't exclude meat, dairy or fish, but do put them in their place.
http://solomonstarnews.com/in
http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177...
Landcare aside for a moment,
Landcare aside for a moment, what about ocean care? Why does Coastcare focus on dry sandhill vegetation and not also on underwater estuary sand bed vegetation like seagrass?
The hands of fishermen and the marine environment have fed humans since beginning of known time but presently Australia is importing fish even to feed aquaculture. I think this includes baitfish pirated from developing nation waters.
Total cost of fish product imported into Australia must now be over A$1.3 billion annually. Could someone in the Greens Party please find and comment on the most recent total annual import cost?
There is need for Aus Gov to get heads around all of this to estimate research resources essential for due and complete scientific research and solutions before a point of no return is reached.
John, given that the Pacific
John, given that the Pacific Oceans temperatures and acidity are being measured as rising (UCLA), how are the Solomon Islands' reefs doing? Any coral bleeching? If so how much, and is this more than 'normal'?
I suppose I am wondering if ocean warming and acidification are happening faster near the equator? Anecdotal evidence will suffice in the absence of the empirical.
Mcfarm, @ 8 I choose words
Mcfarm, @ 8
I choose words in reply very carefully. It is apparent a very significant amount of coral in heavily populated and downstream areas of Solomon Islands is dead or very scarse compared to say 20 and more years ago.
A big coral head on which a 9 year old boy hurt himself so badly he remembers the incident, no longer exists. That boy is now about 36 yrs old.
In my opinion and according to so far irrefutable evidence, nutrient pollution is the cause of destructrion of coral in SI waters. I consider seasonal prevailing wind-driven ocean surface current is already heavily loaded with nutrients before reaching SI. Local nutrient input then adds and can cause the destructive nutrient pollution.
Yes, it is apparent damage to coral is worse closer to the equator BUT where nutrient pollution is also most likely present.
Healthy coral appears to exist where I think nutrient polluted current does not perhaps occur so often.
There is dire urgent need for political understanding to estimate adequate due resources for conclusive scientific research. There is even more urgency for solutions to social and economic impact caused by nutrient pollution.
Post new comment