Conservation is not just about the cute and cuddly November 23, 2009

According to Australian Koala Foundation estimates, there are fewer than 100,000 koalas left in Australia. Needless to say, koalas were in abundance when the European settlers first set foot on these shores in the late 1700s.

As with many of our native species, habitat loss is the major problem. As we have chopped down trees and cleared the land for development, koalas have lost their homes and food supply. Under stress, koalas become susceptible to the disease, chlamydia.

It was stress-induced chlamydia (an extremely painful condition that leads to infections in the eyes, urinary, reproductive and respiratory tracts) that led to the demise of bushfire hero and mascot, Sam the koala. No amount of surgery could repair the damage to her organs and she was euthanized.

Sam’s story helped to create awareness of the plight of koalas and there is a move to promote their conservation by adding them to the list of vulnerable species under the Federal EPBC Act (Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). Speaking on the 7PM Project recently, Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the government was reviewing its koala conservation strategy.

Most of us love koalas – they are as integral to Aussie culture and heritage as vegemite and Ned Kelly. But what about all the other native species that are disappearing at an alarming rate; species that may not be so attractive and emotive? Because there are lots of them; approximately 1500 plants and animals and close to 3000 ecological communities are threatened with extinction due to inappropriate land-management practices.

In her book, On our Watch, zoologist and conservationist Dr Nicola Markus points out that the restoration of a patch of native eucalypt woodland for koalas would also benefit a large number of birds, mammals, nectar feeders, invertebrates and small reptiles. This is all to the good. Effective conservation is not just about individual species but about repairing whole ecosystems.

Markus highlights some of the inadequacies and inconsistencies in environmental law and the politics surrounding conservation. Vast amounts of money and resources were invested in recovery plans for the orange-bellied parrot as compensation for giving a wind farm the go-ahead. Markus argues that many other threatened species would have resulted in a better return on investment. They just weren’t as high profile.

While I applaud moves to upgrade the protection of koalas, real conservation progress will only come when less sexy creatures – such as the common mistfrog, the Boggomoss Snail, the broad-toothed stag beetle, the Plains Rat, the bog willow herb, the square tassel-fern and the woolly ragwort (all listed as threatened under the EPBC Act) also cause a public outcry.

We can’t just latch onto the cute and cuddly creatures and hope the environment will take care of itself. Every native plant and animal, however large or small, has a part to play in maintaining the health of our natural environment. Now that climate change pressures are adding to the stresses on our brown and arid land, the need for realistic and targeted conservation action becomes all the more urgent. It’s no coincidence that the subtitle to Markus’ book is ‘The Race to Save Australia’s Environment.’

November 16, 2009

At this year’s Melbourne Writers’ Festival, I had the pleasure of meeting author of The Horse Boy, Rupert Isaacson.

Isaacson and his wife Kristin Neff discovered that their son Rowan was autistic when he was two-and-a-half. What started as an endless round of behavioural therapies, conventional and complementary treatments, not to mention high stress levels, eventually turned into a journey of healing and adventure.

As you may guess from the title of the book, animals – particularly horses – have played a vital role in Rowan’s education and path to living a full and meaningful life. Although an ex-professional horse trainer, Isaacson deliberately kept Rowan away from horses considering them too dangerous. But Rowan found his own way to horses by running into a neighbour’s paddock (in Austin, Texas) and prostrating himself at the foot of a bay mare, Betsy. Strangely, the normally feisty mare adopted a stance of voluntary obeisance and merely nuzzled the four-year-old child.

Rowan’s extraordinarily close relationship with the horse and his love of animals – both toy and real – is one of the reasons why Rupert decides to take his family on a healing adventure to Mongolia; birthplace of both horses and traditional shamanic medicine. As well as spending most of the journey on horseback, they encounter deer, ibex, reindeer, goats and other animals that delight Rowan.

Before embarking on their trip, Isaacson visits adult autist and professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University, Dr. Temple Grandin, to learn more about how animals can act as the connecting point between the ‘normal’ human world and the autistic world.

“Because animals think the same way – visually – autistic people often connect well with animals. When they’re young they sometimes communicate what they want to say to their fellow humans through the medium of an animal, especially an animal they are close to,” explains Temple Grandin.

A few months after interviewing Isaacson, I was fascinated to read a newspaper article about a severely autistic Melbourne boy, Simon, who is being helped by a specially trained autistic dog. The golden retriever – Galaxy – provides support, comfort and emotional focus. The dog seems to sense when Simon is on the point of having a tantrum (which in autism terms is all about crossed wires and messages in the brain), and will cuddle him putting his paws around Simon’s neck.

Not everyone with an autistic child can ride across Mongolia on horseback or afford to buy and keep an autistic dog, but it is clear that spending time in the natural world and bonding with animals has great benefit for autistic people.

To read my interview with Rupert Isaacson, go to: http://www.novamagazine.com.au/article_archive/2009/2009-11-ahealingalchemy.htm

Taking a stand against climate change deniers and lobbyists November 10, 2009

Reading an article about Al Gore and his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, it (sadly) came as no surprise that climate change deniers and lobbyists outnumber environmental lobbyists eight to one.

Gore compares the campaign against regulating greenhouse gas emissions with the campaign run by the tobacco industry to stop the regulation of tobacco. Industry-backed lobbyists are nothing new; they are out there and working hard to protect the interests of oil, arms, pharmaceutical, agro-chemical, mining and other companies.

Years ago, I remember watching a documentary about the health benefits of sugar – funded, you guessed it, by UK-based global sugar company, Tate & Lyle plc. With celebrities endorsing sugar-laden drinks as healthy energy-boosters for children (no mention of dental decay) and pictures of sun-kissed fields of sugar cane, I was almost taken in. Today, Tate & Lyle have a slick website advertising themselves as: ‘Consistently first in renewable ingredients’, and there’s a nice, shiny Social Responsibility button too.

A recent article in The Age revealed research showing that about 120 companies potentially affected by climate change laws employ firms with more than 300 lobbyists.

That’s why individual action – People Power – is so vital in the climate change debate. We need to make conscious and informed decisions about the companies we invest in, the goods and services we buy, the politicians we vote for and the community organisations that we support. If we feel powerless to influence change, we sell out to industry and interest groups. Whether we go meatless one day a week, choose renewable energy systems in our homes, recycle our grey water, drive more fuel-efficient cars, sign petitions or write letters to the relevant ministers, we must take action NOW.

One inspiring example of individuals making a stand and doing something to raise awareness about climate change is Run for a Safe Climate. 25 runners drawn from the emergency services – many of them directly or indirectly involved in tackling last summer’s Victorian bushfires – donated annual leave to run the 6000-km relay run down the eastern seaboard during November.

The run started in Cooktown bordering the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area on 2 November and finished on St. Kilda Beach in Melbourne on Sunday 29th November. Along the route, scientists and climate change specialists joined the runners at 30 community events to raise awareness about global warming and take part in discussions with local groups, schools and businesses.

Organised by Safe Climate Australia, an organisation launched by Al Gore in Melbourne earlier this year, Run for a Safe Climate raised funds towards the development of a business model for Australia to rapidly reduce carbon pollution and tackle what Gore refers to as “a planetary emergency”.

Worryingly, the industry-backed lobbyists are having a marked impact on public opinion. Down from 44 per cent in April, only 35 per cent of Americans see global warming as a serious issue today. Initiatives like Run for a Safe Climate raise awareness of the real issues and break through the web of misinformation and complacency.

Why I still give to charity November 3, 2009

I was depressed – or perhaps just bored – to read yet another round of articles and letters in The Age relating to charities and their cost/income ratios. This discussion comes up with tedious regularity; it was a particularly hot topic around the time of the 2004 Asian tsunami, and to a less extent, during last year’s Victorian bushfires.

Is it really worth giving to charity, does our money reach the beneficiaries or do charities squander it all on marketing, operational and administration costs? These are the kind of questions that are asked again and again.

Charities are like any other business. They need to generate money to conduct their core business and meet their objectives – in this case, to fulfil a community need. Charities exist to plug the gaps left by government and welfare systems, and they operate in a highly competitive market place. Not only do charities have to compete with all the other charities for the punter’s dollar (there are over 700,000 charitable organisations in Australia alone) but also with all the for-profit businesses relentlessly chasing our hard-earned dollars.

So it should come as no surprise that charities need to invest money in advertising and marketing across all types of media from Direct Marketing to social networks. They need to constantly update their skills and knowledge and explore new ways of building their donor (customer) base and income. The larger, better-resourced charities may choose to work with marketing and fundraising consultants to do this. And as with most business models, there may be a negative cash flow for the first one or two years until there is a return on the investment or marketing spend.

But before you vent your spleen about how charities misuse your donation, think about what it takes to actually run a charity. There is a common misconception that charities should be run without paid staff and instead by volunteers. Anyone, who like me, has worked on a professional basis for a charity, will tell you that it takes a lot more than enthusiastic volunteers and do-gooding retirees selling cakes and plants at fundraisers to build new aged-care centres, rehabilitate drug addicts, help the homeless, conserve eco-systems – let alone fund development programs overseas.

I have worked for a range of not-for-profits in the UK and Australia over the last 12 years, both as an employee and a freelancer. I have witnessed first-hand the tight cost controls and annual audits (no fancy Christmas parties), not to mention the strict monitoring and evaluation processes in place. But working in the not-for-profit sector is more than that.

It requires great dedication, vision and commitment from staff who are prepared to work for lesser pay but often, for longer hours. During the Boxing Day tsunami crisis, many staff working for overseas aid agencies interrupted their Christmas holidays and returned to work without hesitation.

A colleague, who works for one of the largest overseas development agencies in the world, told me recently what her CEO tells the charity-doubters. It concerns the lifecycle of a donor’s dollar. The gist goes something like this: you mail a dollar to the charity of your choice. When it gets there, someone has to open the envelope, record your details and perhaps generate a thank-you letter (otherwise you may feel aggrieved). Making sure your wishes are respected, this office worker must now earmark your donation for a particular project before putting it in a new envelope, addressing it, taking it to the post office and sending overseas.

Unless said charity has already established networks and best practice standards in the project area, the envelope containing your precious dollar may be intercepted and pocketed by an unscrupulous middleman. It may never reach the beneficiary. Well, you did say you wanted to make a direct donation?

Running a charity is a complex business and requires the same respect and support as any for-profit businesses. Charities rely on our support and donations to survive as do their beneficiaries. Listening to those who trot out the so-called scandals of uneven cost/income ratios make it all too easy for Jo Public to continue his me-me-me existence and avoid helping those in need.