The twins in a modern conundrum - climate and biodiversity
Environmentalists in Australia are popping the champagne corks thanks to two decisions by Australia’s Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, turning down proposals that would have had huge impacts on key wetland areas. But in a broader context, it might be wiser to put the champagne on ice.
The ramifications of these decisions will ripple out across the world from those wetlands, because both are important destinations, resting and breeding places for tens of thousands of migratory birds that annually traverse what is known as the East Asian-Australasian flyway.
This is one of nine global flyways and encompasses 22 countries stretching between the Russian far east and Alaska and Australasia. It is home to over 50 million migratory shorebirds from over 250 different populations, including 36 threatened species and 19 near-threatened species.*
Minister Plibersek’s has recognised the critical importance of two Australian wetlands protected under the international Ramsar Convention – Western Port in Victoria and Toondah Harbour in Queensland.
Australia has been a signatory since 1975 to the Ramsar Convention^, which is regarded as the peak global governance framework for intergovernmental cooperation on wetland issues, and has listed 67 sites under Ramsar. This makes it a key participant on the East Asian-Australasian flyway ranking second only to China (82).
Ms Plibersek’s Western Port decision declined the Victorian Government-based Port of Hastings proposal for the development of the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal (VRET), which would form part of the supporting infrastructure for development of a large wind turbine farm in the Bass Strait off the South Gippsland Coast.
The second was a pitch by property developer, The Walker Corporation, for a substantial real estate development in Toondah Harbour near Brisbane, Queensland. It proposed the creation of artificial islands in the harbour and the construction of around 3,000 luxury apartments with a 200-berth marina.
Both of these would have impacted on adjacent wetlands, with disturbance and permanent change to the marine environment and shorelines through dredging, excavation and even land reclamation works.
It was probably the Western Port proposal that presented the greatest dilemma with respect to environmental impact. The refusal of the Port of Hastings proposal was a setback in both the wind turbine development and the achievement of the Victorian State’s ambitious objective for renewable energy to support 50% of its energy requirements by 2030 and to reduce its carbon emissions by between 75% and 80% of 2005 levels by 2035.
Similarly, it presented a conundrum for environmentalists and Western Port communities, opposed in principle to the VRET development and its impact on marine ecosystems, but also supportive of accelerated climate action through reducing emissions.
This balancing act between renewables infrastructure, particularly solar and wind generation facilities, and their impact on environmental and agricultural aesthetics and function is taking place all over Australia.
It raises the valid question as to how much their Ramsar listing and Australia’s obligations as a signatory weighed into the Environment’s Minister’s decision. Attribution to various factors is always a hazardous occupation, but if Ramsar did substantially influence the stop on these proposals, what does this say for future decisions where ecosystems enjoy less formal recognition and protection?
Ramsar wetlands are one of nine categories of habitats and places that need protecting as matters of national environmental significance under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. It is this legislation that provides the framework for recommendations on appropriate rulings and courses of action by bureaucrats to the Environment Minister.
The other eight areas covered by the EPBC Act are:
World Heritage areas
Commonwealth Heritage places
Listed threatened species and listed ecological communities
Listed migratory species (protected under international agreements)
Commonwealth marine areas
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Nuclear actions (including uranium mines)
Water resources (relating to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development)
The Act also variously protects the environment on Commonwealth land, activities by Australian Government agencies anywhere in the world and actions that impact Commonwealth heritage places overseas.
The Minister’s scope is quite broad and development proposals can sometimes run aground on more than one consideration under the Act. For example, ‘listed migratory species’ was another point of failure for the two Ramsar proposals.
However, there is strong evidence that powers under the EPBC Act have done little to address Australia’s biodiversity decline. In its 2021 State of the Environment Report, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water said the trends were worrying. It’s Threatened Species Index showed a 72% decrease in plant populations (1995-2017), 38% in mammal populations (1995-2017) and 52% in bird populations (1985-2017).
One notable omission and source of criticism relating to the EPBC legislation is climate change mitigation, with critics arguing that future threats to species resulting from climate change should be factored into decisions on proposed developments.
In a 2023 article, Australia’s Climate Council noted that “climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest threat Australia’s natural environment faces”.
For the Climate Council and others advocating for this inclusion in the legislation, it would have added enormous complexity and uncertainty to widely welcomed decisions like Western Port.
While it is true that climate change will impact ecosystems and the biodiversity they support, it will only be realised over extended timeframes – decades, maybe even centuries. But an ill-conceived port expansion or property development will show impacts from the day the first dredge moves through the waterway.
The latter will markedly reduce plant populations and their capacity to capture substantial amounts of carbon. In the case of wetlands skirted by mangroves and seagrasses, this sequestration capacity is between 30 and 50 times that of similar areas of terrestrial forest.
What would the inclusion of climate action in the EPBC Act would have meant for the recent Western Port decision. How would carbon reduction benefits from the construction of a large scale wind generation facility in Victoria have offset Ramsar and other environmental considerations in relation to the VRET proposal in Western Port?
Climate change and biodiversity are flip sides of the same coin – one interacting and ultimately dependent upon the other. From a human perspective, this makes it impossible to divorce climate action and mitigation from biodiversity protection.
There will be compromises, but Australia’s Western Port and Toondah decisions are clear signs that there are times when the protection of certain ecosystems is non-negotiable.
*Partnership for the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, What is a flyway? 2023