In 1992, 1700 scientists warned that human beings and the natural world were “on a collision course”. Seventeen years later, scientists described planetary boundaries within which humans and other life could have a “safe space to operate”.

These are environmental thresholds, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and changes in land use.

Crossing such boundaries was considered a risk that would cause environmental changes so profound, they genuinely posed an existential threat to humanity.

This grave reality is what our major research paper, published today, confronts.

In what may be the most comprehensive evaluation of the environmental state of play in Australia, we show major and iconic ecosystems are collapsing across the continent and into Antarctica. These systems sustain life, and evidence of their demise shows we are exceeding planetary boundaries.

We found 19 Australian ecosystems met our criteria to be classified as “collapsing”. This includes the arid interior, savannas and mangroves of northern Australia, the Great Barrier Reef, Shark Bay, southern Australia’s kelp and alpine ash forests, tundra on Macquarie Island, and moss beds in Antarctica.

We define collapse as the state where ecosystems have changed in a substantial, negative way from their original state – such as species or habitat loss, or reduced vegetation or coral cover – and are unlikely to recover.

The good and bad news
Ecosystems consist of living and non-living components, and their interactions. They work like a super-complex engine: when some components are removed or stop working, knock-on consequences can lead to system failure.

Our study is based on measured data and observations, not modelling or predictions for the future. Encouragingly, not all ecosystems we examined have collapsed across their entire range. We still have, for instance, some intact reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, especially in deeper waters. And northern Australia has some of the most intact and least-modified stretches of savanna woodlands on Earth.

Still, collapses are happening, including in regions critical for growing food. This includes the Murray-Darling Basin, which covers around 14 percent of Australia’s landmass. Its rivers and other freshwater systems support more than 30 percent of Australia’s food production.

The effects of floods, fires, heatwaves and storms do not stop at farm gates; they’re felt equally in agricultural areas and natural ecosystems. We shouldn’t forget how towns ran out of drinking water during the recent drought.

Drinking water is also at risk when ecosystems collapse in our water catchments. In Victoria, for example, the degradation of giant Mountain Ash forests greatly reduces the amount of water flowing through the Thompson catchment, threatening nearly five million people’s drinking water in Melbourne.

This is a dire wake-up call — not just a warning. Put bluntly, current changes across the continent, and their potential outcomes, pose an existential threat to our survival, and other life we share environments with.

In investigating patterns of collapse, we found most ecosystems experience multiple, concurrent pressures from both global climate change and regional human impacts (such as land clearing). Pressures are often additive and extreme.

Take the last 11 years in Western Australia as an example.

In the summer of 2010 and 2011, a heatwave spanning more than 300,000 sq km ravaged both marine and land ecosystems. The extreme heat devastated forests and woodlands, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs. This catastrophe was followed by two cyclones.

A record-breaking, marine heatwave in late 2019 dealt a further blow. And another marine heatwave is predicted for this April.

These 19 ecosystems are collapsing: read about each

What to do about it?
Our brains trust comprises 38 experts from 21 universities, CSIRO and the federal Department of Agriculture Water and Environment. Beyond quantifying and reporting more doom and gloom, we asked the question: what can be done?

We devised a simple but tractable scheme called the 3As:

• Awareness of what is important
• Anticipation of what is coming down the line
• Action to stop the pressures or deal with impacts.

In our paper, we identify positive actions to help protect or restore ecosystems. Many are already happening. In some cases, ecosystems might be better left to recover by themselves, such as coral after a cyclone.

In other cases, active human intervention will be required – for example, placing artificial nesting boxes for Carnaby’s black cockatoos in areas where old trees have been removed.

“Future-ready” actions are also vital. This includes reinstating cultural burning practices, which have multiple values and benefits for Aboriginal communities and can help minimise the risk and strength of bushfires.

It might also include replanting banks along the Murray River with species better suited to warmer conditions.

Some actions may be small and localised, but have substantial positive benefits.

For example, billions of migrating Bogong moths, the main summer food for critically endangered mountain pygmy possums, have not arrived in their typical numbers in Australian alpine regions in recent years. This was further exacerbated by the 2019-20 fires. Brilliantly, Zoos Victoria anticipated this pressure and developed supplementary food — Bogong bikkies.

Other more challenging, global or large-scale actions must address the root cause of environmental threats, such as human population growth and per-capita consumption of environmental resources.

We must rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero, remove or suppress invasive species such as feral cats and buffel grass, and stop widespread land clearing and other forms of habitat destruction.

Our lives depend on it
The multiple ecosystem collapses we have documented in Australia are a harbinger for environments globally.

The simplicity of the 3As is to show people can do something positive, either at the local level of a landcare group, or at the level of government departments and conservation agencies.

Our lives and those of our children, as well as our economies, societies and cultures, depend on it.

We simply cannot afford any further delay.

Dr Dana M Bergstrom, principal research scientist, University of Wollongong; Dr Euan Ritchie, professor in wildlife ecology and conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University; Dr Lesley Hughes, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, and Dr Michael Depledge, professor and chair, Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Megan Darby, deputy editor of Climate Home News

China launched an “international green development coalition” last week, in the face of growing concern about its coal investments.

The Environment Ministry hosted an event on the “green belt and road” as part of a leaders’ summit in Beijing to promote Chinese investment in partner countries.

According to the official progress report on President Xi Jinping’s flagship foreign policy: “The Belt and Road Initiative pursues the vision of green development and a way of life and work that is green, low-carbon, circular and sustainable.

READ MORE: Climate Weekly: Activists hold London landmarks

“The initiative is committed to strengthening cooperation on environmental protection and defusing environmental risks.”

However, China’s energy investments abroad – it is a major investment and aid donor in the Pacific – continue to favour coal, threatening to blow the global carbon budget.

More than 30 heads of state were due at the summit, including from countries with shared coal, oil and gas interests such as Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan.

In a press conference before travelling to join them, UN chief Antonio Guterres said greening the initiative was important to meeting international climate goals.

“We need a lot of investments in sustainable development, in renewable energy, and a lot of investments in infrastructure that respect the future,” he said, as reported by Xinhua.

Test for China
The test is whether China will require its belt and road projects to meet international standards, in line with the Paris Agreement on climate change, said Greenpeace China climate analyst Li Shuo.

“China is certainly becoming more conscious about the criticisms around president Xi’s diplomatic initiative, particularly the environmental impacts of some of the Chinese projects,” said Li.

“Now comes the hard part – will any substantive progress be made at the policy level?”

China is financing 102 gigawatts of coal power capacity outside the country, 26 percent of the total under development, according to green think tank the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

It has become the “lender of last resort” for projects Western banks deem too risky.

Investment in renewables grew in 2018, US-based campaign group NDRC noted, but was still dwarfed by support for fossil fuels.

“There is a huge potential for renewable energy in these partner countries, but then they don’t have great policy set-ups for renewables,” NRDC energy policy expert Han Chen said.

Indonesian coal plants
In a commentary for the Jakarta Globe, campaigner Pius Ginting criticised the Indonesian government for seeking investment in four coal power plants instead of cleaner hydroelectric projects.

An opinion poll of six key emerging economies commissioned by UK-based thinktank E3G found a strong preference for renewables over fossil fuels. In Pakistan, 61 percent of respondents said renewable energy was a better investment for development in the long term, rising to 89 percent in Vietnam.

In these and Turkey, Indonesia, South Africa and the Philippines, solar power was seen as top priority. Coal had some positive associations, most strongly in Pakistan, where 41 percent said it created jobs, but in the rest of the countries polled these were outweighed by pollution concerns.

Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Jeremaiah M. Opiniano in Manila

The Philippines is among the world’s top sources of metallic deposits like nickel. But in this Southeast Asian mining haven, love may have been lost between the Philippine government and the mining industry.

The country’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has ordered the closure of 23 mines and the companies operating them, plus suspending five others. The firms’ closures and suspensions were recommended by experts who conducted mining audits for the DENR between July and August 2016.

The audits were done in response to reports of these mining firms’ compliance or non-compliance with prevailing regulations on responsible mining and maintaining of environmental standards.

Philippines’ Environment Secretary Regina Lopez is in hot water from the mining industry given her closure and suspension orders, all announced in early February.

Policy and legal battles related to the months-old government of President Rodrigo Duterte have triggered a closer watch on the mining issue.

Mining sector protests
The controversy erupted after February 2 with the announcement of the cancellation and suspension orders by Lopez. Six days later, Lopez had signed the cancellation and suspension orders of the 28 affected companies.

The DENR also released results of the mining audit online explaining why the firms’ mining operations were ordered cancelled or suspended.

Protests followed from the mining sector, especially the industry association Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP). The group said an estimated PhP70 billion (NZ$1.9 billion) in gross production value and some P20 billion (NZ$556 million) in taxes would be lost because of these closure orders, and some 67,000 workers may be displaced.

The COMP said the orders were released “without due process,” but Lopez said  on February 10 that DENR “meticulously observed due process.”

Lopez was referring to the work of the multi-sectoral audit teams that looked at the mining projects in the identified areas. Experts from the central and regional offices of the DENR; from the DENR attached agencies like the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB and the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB); experts from the Departments of Health and Agriculture; and representatives from various civil society organisations conducted the audits.

The multi-sectoral audit teams, Lopez explained, used criteria on the requirements of the different mining and environmental laws of the country. The teams also did cross-auditing, with auditors who reviewed the projects come from another Philippine geographical region. Lopez added the teams also staged entry and exit conferences with stakeholders, including the mining companies.

Seven days were given to the companies to respond to the technical results of the audits and the “show cause” orders. Afterwards, and spanning five months, a technical review committee conducted further review on the companies’ replies to the audit teams’ reviews

Bombardment
After the February 2 announcement from Secretary Lopez, COMP sought the help of the economic managers of Duterte’s cabinet, including Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez who co-chairs with Lopez an inter-agency Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC).

On February 9, Secretaries Lopez and Dominguez — as MICC co-chairs— decided to form a multi-stakeholder committee that will review and advise DENR on Philippine mining operations, to include the recent decisions handed out to the 23 closed and five suspended mining firms.

The mining companies had operations in identified mining hotspots of the country, such as Benguet province (north of Manila, in Luzon island), Zambales province (in the western part of Luzon island), Surigao del Sur (in eastern Mindanao island), Dinagat Island (also in eastern Mindanao), and Eastern Samar (in eastern Visayas region).

Zambales province saw four mining companies —BenguetCorp Nickel Mines, Inc., Eramen Minerals, Inc., LNL Archipelago Minerals, and Zambales Diversified Metals Corp — ordered closed due to alleged illegal logging activities, and for conducting mining operation near a river that had led to siltation in the municipality of Sta. Cruz. Nickel is said to be being extracted there close to a watershed.

Seven mining firms operating in Dinagat Islands were also ordered closed for a build-up of silt on coastal waters: AAM Philippines Natural Resources Exploration, Krominco, Inc., SinoStell Philippines H.Y. Mining Corp., Wellex Mining Corp., Libjo Mining Corp., and Oriental Vision Mining Corp.

In Surigao del Sur province, a further seven mining firms were ordered closed, also for silt in coastal waters and for mining in watersheds: ADNAMA Mining Resources Corp., Claver Mineral Development Corp., Platinum Development Corp., CTP Construction and Mining Corp., Carrascal Nickel Corp., Marcventures Mining and Development Corp. and Hinatuan Mining Corp.

Companies Mt. Sinai Exploration Mining and Development, EMIR Mineral Resources and Techlron Mineral Resources, with operations located in Eastern Samar, were also ordered closed not only because of the siltation of coastal waters, but because of the destruction of a functional watershed.

Mining audits
Apart from the 23 firms whose operations were ordered cancelled and closed by DENR, five other firms were given suspension orders. These are Berong Nickel Corp., OceanaGold Phils., Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp., Citinickel Mines and Development Corp. and Strong Built Mining Development Corp.

DENR conducts mining audits on a regular basis. Some of the firms whose licences were cancelled by Lopez were suspended in previous years and were asked to respond to findings of mining audits.

Some of the firms were also listed in the Philippine stock market, as a few others are joint ventures by a Philippine and a foreign company. For example, Zambales Diversified Metals Corp. is a joint venture between Filipino-run D.M. Consunji Inc. (DMCI) Mining Corp. and the Australia-headquartered Rusina Mining Corp.

Another closed firm, Oriental Synergy Mining Corp., was established by Qishu Mining Corp., a subsidiary of Qishu Enterprises with headquarters in Fujian, China.

Suspended company OceanaGold Philippines, for its part, is a subsidiary of OceanGold Corp., a mid-tier multinational gold producer with assets found in the Philippines, United States and New Zealand.

Other mining companies were also sued by local residents through the writ of kalikasan (nature), a legal remedy provided by the country’s constitution for anybody to sue those who allegedly violate environmental laws and cause environmental havoc.

Lopez alleged last Thursday that some mining firms had links to local politicians, allowing the industry to flourish.

High stakes
The Philippines houses the world’s leading supply of nickel, as it was estimated by the MGB that some PhP54.9 billion (NZ$1.53 billion) of nickel products were produced in 2015.

Nickel prices at the London Metal Exchange’s LMEX Index actually rose to a 16-month high last November 2016. But the stainless steel alloy’s performance at the LMEX dropped again since January, and the price of nickel rose to over-US$10,400 per tonne last Feb. 3 given Lopez’s closure order.

There are 40 metallic mines (including 27 nickel mines) and 62 non-metallic mines in the Philippines, not to mention five processing plants, 16 cement plants, and 2397 small quarries and sand and gravel operations. The Philippines’ mining operations are governed by the 1995 Philippine Mining Act, with some 9 million ha. of land identified to have “high mineral potential” says the MGB.

MGB data shows that the Philippines earned some US$2.8 billion (NZ$3.9 billion) in exports of minerals to Japan, Australia, Canada and China. The Philippines’ minerals industry is currently employing an estimated 236,000 workers, with a job in the mining sector said to be providing four indirect jobs. Mining companies had also paid some PhP25.78 million (NZ$717.2 million) in taxes in 2015.

But a report by the country’s National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) showed that the mining and quarrying industry contributed only less than a percent — 0.7 percent— of the country’s gross domestic product during the period 2000 to 2015. The sector also contributed 5.6 percent of total exports in the same 15-year period, as the mining sector also generated an average of 236,400 jobs from 2011 to 2015.

The Philippines is said to have as many untapped mineral deposits, according to industry experts.

COMP said in a strongly-worded February 7 statement that Lopez “has trained her guns on the legitimate (mining) operations, while turning a blind eye to un-permitted, undocumented, non-tax paying and non-compliant mining operations who are the real violators of the environment.”

‘Pose a danger’
Lopez’s closure and suspension orders, COMP said, “pose a danger to other industries” like logistics, processing companies, manpower and transportation service providers and even the education and health sectors.

“The country needs minerals and environmental policies to be handled with technical competence and sensitivity to the complexities of the issues,” COMP wrote. “We respectfully appeal to… President Duterte to thoroughly review the actions of (Lopez)… and their serious repercussions as a whole as they are without basis and legality.”

The environment secretary, a member of the Lopez family that runs a gamut of Philippine companies found in the media, power generation and distribution and energy sectors, however claimed to have the support of President Duterte.

She also wanted to prove a “green economy” model that, Lopez claims, “can provide more jobs than destructive mining.”

“My issue is not about mining,” Lopez said February 5. “My issue is about social justice.”

The closed and suspended firms have 15 days, possibly before February ends, to respond to the DENR’s cancellation and suspension orders.

Assistant Professor Jeremaiah Opiniano is coordinator of the undergraduate and graduate journalism degree programmes of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) in Manila, Philippines.