Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Bunyip birds and brolgas: how can we better protect species important to Indigenous people?

News Feed
Friday, September 6, 2024

Bradley Moggridge, Author providedKamilaroi Country lies in far northwest New South Wales, past Tamworth and crossing over the Queensland border. Here, the bunyip bird (Australasian bittern, Botaurus poiciloptilus), and the brolga (Grus rubicunda or burraalga in Kamilaroi) have been part of life, lore, spirit, dance and culture with Country for thousands of generations. In this Country, these two species are now rare. Kamilaroi people want to turn this around. But to do that, we come up against a gap between Western conservation laws and culturally significant species/entities. Under Australia’s conservation laws, a species is considered threatened when its numbers fall so low, or its distribution shrinks so much, it might not recover. But the threatened species legal protections – and any recovery funding it provides – are focused on the Western approach of countable nature, not the Indigenous focus on nature-with-culture. We are not splitting hairs. The difference is momentous, as we document in recent research. It determines whose environmental research and management is considered legitimate and resourced, and the terms on which knowledge is shared and exchanged. Understanding this helps find common ground between ecological and Indigenous priorities. It will also be crucial to the now-delayed major overhaul of Australia’s nature laws. Brolgas in a wetland in Victoria. Birdsaspoetry/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND Threatened species on Country To list a species as threatened under federal and New South Wales law, two things must be determined. The first is how many animals or plants of a given species are still in their habitat and how consistent this is over generations. Second is how widespread the species is compared to the past, and how much habitat is left. This formula – abundance plus distribution – determines if the species is in decline and if it needs urgent attention. Kamilaroi Country is home to the Gwydir wetlands, an immensely sacred place where brolgas and bunyip birds were once present in great numbers. Brolgas are known for their elaborate mating dances, and embodying their spirit is an important Indigenous dance. With long legs and necks, Brolgas are this continent’s largest water bird. But their presence has fallen sharply in southern Australia. These days, brolgas appear in the Kamilaroi wetlands less often. It’s also rarer to see or hear the well-hidden bunyip bird. The Kamilaroi believe the bittern’s’ booming cry signals the presence of the bunyip, a creature from ancestral times whose songs and stories keep people away from sacred water holes. Waterbirds flock to the Gwydir wetlands in their thousands. These wetlands form where the Gwydir river empties into an inland valley. Jor/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND Buruuugu (Dreaming) stories passed down from the old people connect these birds with Kamilaroi people and freshwater life, encompassing culture, lore, language, dance, meaning and existence. The brolga is listed as vulnerable in New South Wales and the bunyip bird is endangered. Both species have been found or their presence predicted in regions close to Kamilaroi Country. Because these species are present close by, it makes it harder for Kamilaroi people to access Country, government funding, resources and protections for these species. The problem is worse where culturally significant species / entities are generally abundant, but on a shrunken range. Species important to Indigenous people may be lost entirely from Country where they belong, yet government programs offer very few options for protection or resources. When one plus one does not equal two There is a growing openness among ecologists, governments and Western land managers to foreground and include Indigenous knowledge in decision making, Indigenous people are ready and waiting. This respectful knowledge exchange is often called two-way learning. It’s common to think of these different value sets as additive: ecological values plus Indigenous values equals better conservation. At times, reports on threatened species will include a section on Aboriginal people’s cultural values. And Indigenous caring for Country is seen as a vital tool in the toolkit for recovering threatened species. But Kamilaroi knowledge is not just a management tool. And these species are not separate from the people who care for them. For Kamilaroi, the brolga and the bunyip bird are culture and kin. This is not nature plus culture, two categories alongside each other, but nature with culture – a transformation rather than an addition. Typically these two categories are divided for study and management, as in the natural and social sciences. But Country weaves nature and culture together and focuses on which relationships are important and why. From this viewpoint, ecological species and habitats become folded into Country, which also includes its people. Bunyip bird at rest: the Australasian bittern is hard to spot – but unmistakable if you hear it. Imogen Warren/Shutterstock So what do we suggest? Our current conservation policies look for ways for Indigenous peoples to fit in with biodiversity conservation approaches. Instead, we need to find protections and resources to support Indigenous people’s knowledge and relationships with Country. The significant growth of Indigenous Protected Areas is a start, as these large areas of land and sea are managed by Indigenous groups and rangers. But we need our environmental laws, reporting frameworks and levels of resourcing to include support for Indigenous governance across their systems. These matters go well beyond protected area boundaries. It could mean writing laws to recognise and invest in culturally significant species under Indigenous guidance. It could mean programs supporting Indigenous peoples to set their own priorities and measures of success for Country and culture, and set the terms of how knowledge about Country is used and exchanged. And it could mean flipping governance so conservation is increasingly led by Indigenous people, to be the voice for and with responsibilities to Country – the enfolded relationships of brolga and bunyip bird and Kamilaroi people – at the fore rather than an afterthought. When the migrating brolga arrives in the Gwydir Wetlands to perform its hopping, swooping dance, to nest and mate, you get an ecological outcome: a vulnerable species is breeding. But you can also witness how and why the world’s oldest living culture keeps brolgas close, as kin. The authorship order for citing this article is Moggridge, Weir, Morgain and Moon. Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Freshwater Science Society and The Biodiversity Council Jessica Weir is a member of the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre. 󠁡​​Rachel​ ​Morgain has received funding from the Australian and Victorian Governments, Australian Conservation Foundation, Bush Heritage Australia and The Nature Conservancy. She is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council and consults with NRM Regions Australia.Katie Moon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

For the Kamilaroi of north-western New South Wales, the brolga and bittern are vital to culture. But conservation often doesn’t account for cultural knowledge or significance.

Bradley Moggridge, Author provided

Kamilaroi Country lies in far northwest New South Wales, past Tamworth and crossing over the Queensland border. Here, the bunyip bird (Australasian bittern, Botaurus poiciloptilus), and the brolga (Grus rubicunda or burraalga in Kamilaroi) have been part of life, lore, spirit, dance and culture with Country for thousands of generations.

In this Country, these two species are now rare. Kamilaroi people want to turn this around. But to do that, we come up against a gap between Western conservation laws and culturally significant species/entities.

Under Australia’s conservation laws, a species is considered threatened when its numbers fall so low, or its distribution shrinks so much, it might not recover. But the threatened species legal protections – and any recovery funding it provides – are focused on the Western approach of countable nature, not the Indigenous focus on nature-with-culture.

We are not splitting hairs. The difference is momentous, as we document in recent research. It determines whose environmental research and management is considered legitimate and resourced, and the terms on which knowledge is shared and exchanged.

Understanding this helps find common ground between ecological and Indigenous priorities. It will also be crucial to the now-delayed major overhaul of Australia’s nature laws.

brolga birds
Brolgas in a wetland in Victoria. Birdsaspoetry/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Threatened species on Country

To list a species as threatened under federal and New South Wales law, two things must be determined.

The first is how many animals or plants of a given species are still in their habitat and how consistent this is over generations.

Second is how widespread the species is compared to the past, and how much habitat is left.

This formula – abundance plus distribution – determines if the species is in decline and if it needs urgent attention.

Kamilaroi Country is home to the Gwydir wetlands, an immensely sacred place where brolgas and bunyip birds were once present in great numbers.

Brolgas are known for their elaborate mating dances, and embodying their spirit is an important Indigenous dance. With long legs and necks, Brolgas are this continent’s largest water bird. But their presence has fallen sharply in southern Australia. These days, brolgas appear in the Kamilaroi wetlands less often.

It’s also rarer to see or hear the well-hidden bunyip bird. The Kamilaroi believe the bittern’s’ booming cry signals the presence of the bunyip, a creature from ancestral times whose songs and stories keep people away from sacred water holes.

wetlands and birds on high trees
Waterbirds flock to the Gwydir wetlands in their thousands. These wetlands form where the Gwydir river empties into an inland valley. Jor/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Buruuugu (Dreaming) stories passed down from the old people connect these birds with Kamilaroi people and freshwater life, encompassing culture, lore, language, dance, meaning and existence.

The brolga is listed as vulnerable in New South Wales and the bunyip bird is endangered. Both species have been found or their presence predicted in regions close to Kamilaroi Country.

Because these species are present close by, it makes it harder for Kamilaroi people to access Country, government funding, resources and protections for these species.

The problem is worse where culturally significant species / entities are generally abundant, but on a shrunken range. Species important to Indigenous people may be lost entirely from Country where they belong, yet government programs offer very few options for protection or resources.

When one plus one does not equal two

There is a growing openness among ecologists, governments and Western land managers to foreground and include Indigenous knowledge in decision making, Indigenous people are ready and waiting. This respectful knowledge exchange is often called two-way learning.

It’s common to think of these different value sets as additive: ecological values plus Indigenous values equals better conservation. At times, reports on threatened species will include a section on Aboriginal people’s cultural values. And Indigenous caring for Country is seen as a vital tool in the toolkit for recovering threatened species.

But Kamilaroi knowledge is not just a management tool. And these species are not separate from the people who care for them. For Kamilaroi, the brolga and the bunyip bird are culture and kin. This is not nature plus culture, two categories alongside each other, but nature with culture – a transformation rather than an addition.

Typically these two categories are divided for study and management, as in the natural and social sciences. But Country weaves nature and culture together and focuses on which relationships are important and why. From this viewpoint, ecological species and habitats become folded into Country, which also includes its people.

bittern bird in wetland
Bunyip bird at rest: the Australasian bittern is hard to spot – but unmistakable if you hear it. Imogen Warren/Shutterstock

So what do we suggest?

Our current conservation policies look for ways for Indigenous peoples to fit in with biodiversity conservation approaches. Instead, we need to find protections and resources to support Indigenous people’s knowledge and relationships with Country. The significant growth of Indigenous Protected Areas is a start, as these large areas of land and sea are managed by Indigenous groups and rangers.

But we need our environmental laws, reporting frameworks and levels of resourcing to include support for Indigenous governance across their systems. These matters go well beyond protected area boundaries.

It could mean writing laws to recognise and invest in culturally significant species under Indigenous guidance. It could mean programs supporting Indigenous peoples to set their own priorities and measures of success for Country and culture, and set the terms of how knowledge about Country is used and exchanged.

And it could mean flipping governance so conservation is increasingly led by Indigenous people, to be the voice for and with responsibilities to Country – the enfolded relationships of brolga and bunyip bird and Kamilaroi people – at the fore rather than an afterthought.

When the migrating brolga arrives in the Gwydir Wetlands to perform its hopping, swooping dance, to nest and mate, you get an ecological outcome: a vulnerable species is breeding. But you can also witness how and why the world’s oldest living culture keeps brolgas close, as kin.

The authorship order for citing this article is Moggridge, Weir, Morgain and Moon.

The Conversation

Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Freshwater Science Society and The Biodiversity Council

Jessica Weir is a member of the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre.

󠁡​​Rachel​ ​Morgain has received funding from the Australian and Victorian Governments, Australian Conservation Foundation, Bush Heritage Australia and The Nature Conservancy. She is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council and consults with NRM Regions Australia.

Katie Moon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Rare smelly penguin wins New Zealand bird of the year contest

The hoiho, which means ‘noise shouter’, triumphed in a year free from the usual scandals surrounding the competitionOne of the world’s rarest penguins has been crowned New Zealand’s bird of the year, in an unusually sedate year for the competition, free from the foreign interference and voting scandals of previous events.The endangered yellow-eyed penguin, or hoiho, is the largest of New Zealand’s mainland penguin species and is distinctive for the pale yellow band of feathers linking the eyes. Continue reading...

One of the world’s rarest penguins has been crowned New Zealand’s bird of the year, in an unusually sedate year for the competition, free from the foreign interference and voting scandals of previous events.The endangered yellow-eyed penguin, or hoiho, is the largest of New Zealand’s mainland penguin species and is distinctive for the pale yellow band of feathers linking the eyes.The hoiho, meaning ‘noise shouter” in Māori due to its shrill call, lives along parts of the South Island’s east coast and in the sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands. The shy, fishy-smelling species tends to live in native coastal forests, scrub or dense flax.There are believed to be roughly just 4,000 to 5,000 left in the world, according to the department of conservation, and its numbers are declining. The number of mainland breeding birds has dropped by 78% over the last 15 years – including an 18% dip over just the last year alone, says the Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust.“This spotlight couldn’t have come at a better time,” said Nicola Toki, chief executive of Forest & Bird, the environmental organisation that runs the annual competition.“This iconic penguin is disappearing from mainland Aotearoa [New Zealand] before our eyes.”The birds are “being hammered from all angles” including diseases, dog attacks, predation from introduced pests, she said in a statement. The penguin’s fishy odour is irresistible to dogs, which can smell them from a distance.The penguins were also drowning in set nets – nets anchored to the seafloor with weights – and are struggling to find food, Toki said, adding the birds urgently need marine protected areas to secure their survival.A karure, or Chatham Islands black robin pictured on Chatham Island in 2016 is the runner-up Photograph: Oscar Thomas/APThe bird of the year competition was launched in 2005 to raise awareness about the plight of New Zealand’s native birds, many of which are threatened, on the brink of extinction or already extinct due to the introduction of pests, human activity and declining habitats.New Zealand’s only native mammals are bats and marine species, putting the spotlight on its birds, which are beloved – and often rare.Over the years, the contest has become a lightning-rod for scandal, from crowning a bat the winner in 2021, to accusations of Russian interference in 2019, and claims Australians attempted to rig the contest in favour of the shag in 2018.The two-week competition attracted more than 52,000 verified votes – a significant drop compared with 2023’s event, which leapt to 350,000 votes across 195 countries after British-American comedian and talkshow host John Oliver ran a global campaign for the threatened pūteketeke – a grunting, puking bird with an unusual repertoire of mating rituals.Oliver’s self-described “alarmingly aggressive” campaign, including buying up billboards in New Zealand, Japan, France, the UK, India and the US state of Wisconsin. A plane with a pūteketeke campaign banner also flew over the beaches of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.His efforts were rewarded when the pūteketeke was crowned the 2023 winner.The hoiho, which secured 6,328 votes to win, also attracted celebrity endorsements, including from conservationist Dr Jane Goodall, host of the Amazing Race Phil Keoghan and former prime ministers Helen Clark and Chris Hipkins but the competition was a more ‘homegrown’ affair, Forest & Bird’s Ellen Rykers told RNZ.This year, local campaigners sought votes in the usual ways – launching meme wars and getting tattoos to prove their loyalty.The hoiho bid was run by a collective of wildlife groups, a museum, a brewery and a rugby team in the city of Dunedin, making it the highest-powered campaign of the 2024 vote.The Hoiho joins the kākāpō as the only bird to have taken out the avian election twice. The kākāpō won in 2008 and 2020.The tiny karure, a small “goth” black robin found only New Zealand’s Chatham Island, came second, while the kākāpō – the world’s heaviest, longest-living parrot – came third.

Yucaipa residents fight back against massive warehouse proposal

Residents fear a proposed warehouse complex is part of a push to remake Yucaipa into another Inland Empire logistics hub dominated by giant fulfillment centers and diesel trucks.

When David Matuszak looks out over Live Oak Canyon from his four-acre horse ranch, he has a sweeping view of farm fields and grazing cattle. For nearly 40 years, he’s been riding equestrian trails dotted with coastal oaks, chamise and buckwheat and flanked by the snow-capped mountains of the San Gorgonio Wilderness.“It’s one of the most scenic areas of Southern California,” said the author and retired high school teacher who also serves as president of Friends of Live Oak Canyon, which he describes as a grassroots environmental homeowners association.But Matuszak and others fear that could change if the city of Yucaipa green-lights the construction of two massive warehouses in an undeveloped area about a mile from Matuszak’s ranch. They say the project would spoil natural spaces and undermine the town’s rural character, bringing increased traffic congestion and air pollution. They fear it’s part of a push by city officials to remake Yucaipa into yet another Inland Empire logistics hub dominated by giant fulfillment centers and rumbling diesel trucks.“That’s exactly what we’re worried about, that we’re the next Fontana, Ontario or San Bernardino,” said Kathy Sellers, a retired San Bernardino courts reporter who’s lived in Yucaipa for 38 years. “That’s why we all live out here, to get away from that.” Jurupa Hills High School borders multiple large warehouses in Fontana. Some Yucaipa residents are protesting the planned construction of a massive warehouse facility there, saying that Fontana and other communities have suffered amid the spread of logistical warehouses. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) San Bernardino and Riverside counties are already home to an estimated 4,000 warehouses that span some 37 square miles — the largest contiguous cluster on the planet, according to a report released by environmental groups last year. The sprawling area east of Los Angeles sits near freeways and rail spurs that ferry goods to and from the busy ports of L.A. and Long Beach. Demand for the logistics centers was further driven by an explosion in e-commerce during the COVID-19 pandemic.The growth in warehouse development has raised concerns about poor air quality, increased cancer risk and the destruction of green areas that act as natural carbon sinks. More than 60 organizations, including Friends of Live Oak Canyon, signed a letter calling the surge one of the most critical environmental justice issues facing the region and urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to declare a state of emergency over its public health implications.Already, studies consistently rank the Inland Empire as having among the worst air quality in the nation. The region is forced to contend with high levels of diesel particulate matter, said Timothy Mullins, who moved to Yucaipa 25 years ago to escape development in Redlands.“By this project going in, we’re going to be even more burdened, and the health of the community is going to be degraded,” he said.Until recently, Yucaipa had largely been spared from this type of development. Now, a 363,000-foot warehouse near the border with Calimesa is slated for completion in the next couple months. And the project currently being considered — dubbed the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center — would consist of two buildings of roughly 1 million square feet each and generate some 1,100 daily truck trips, according to a traffic study.The project would be a financial boon to the city, which has struggled with a growing budget deficit that has officials planning cuts to public safety and community services should voters fail to pass a November ballot measure that would raise the sales tax.Developers would pay roughly $14 million in impact fees and invest millions more in infrastructure improvements, including building a water line and widening a portion of Live Oak Canyon Road, said Benjamin Matlock, Yucaipa city planner and deputy director of community development. That would help the city attract other projects to the area, including badly needed housing, he said. The developers have also agreed to provide funding for an aerial ladder truck for the Yucaipa Fire Department, he said. An aerial view of the site where developers hope to build two 1-million-square-foot warehouses in the Live Oak Canyon area of Yucaipa. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times) The infrastructure upgrades would total more than $37 million, financed without using taxpayer dollars or bonds, according to Dan Floriani, co-founder of project developer Pacific Industrial. The project would include 96 acres of permanent open space with a trail accessible to the public. An economic benefits analysis by a third-party consultant estimates it would create 1,200 to 1,600 permanent jobs, he wrote in an email.Edward Timmons, whose children are fifth-generation Yucaipa residents, once worked as a manager at a large fulfillment center in Rialto. He said the work was dominated by low-paying, low-skilled jobs with high rates of attrition. “Your average employee would stay there about three months; average manager, four to six months,” he said. “It’s not a place where you build a career. It’s a place that fills in the gaps until you find a better place to work.”He also questioned whether the project would provide the long-term economic benefits the city is hoping for. The local logistics industry has cooled since the pandemic, with warehousing and storage jobs shrinking for the first time in more than two decades and industrial building vacancies rising, according to an L.A. Times report published earlier this year.Timmons, who now works as a real estate broker and mortgage loan originator, pulled listings within a 30-mile radius of Yucaipa and tallied about 27 million square feet of vacant warehouse space when it comes to warehouses over 250,000 square feet.Timmons and other residents said that, while talks between the city and developers have been taking place for four years, many locals didn’t become aware of the proposal until it went before the planning commission in June. In July, the commission voted 3-2 not to recommend the project.“Nobody wants this,” Timmons said.In order for the project to go forward, Yucaipa’s City Council must both approve it and update a 2008 plan that specifies how the city’s freeway corridor — a 1,200-acre area bisected by Interstate 10 — should be developed. The council is expected to vote Sept. 23. Some residents say a proposal to build a massive shipping warehouse in Yucaipa threatens to turn the rural area into an Inland Empire logistics hub. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times) The 2008 plan already permits warehouses in certain areas, said Matlock, the city planner. The proposed update would reconfigure where those warehouses could be built, from an area closer to the freeway to a more discrete location, he said. The developers went through an “exhaustive effort” to design the site to be adjacent to a wastewater treatment facility and tucked behind hills, he added.Kristine Mohler, who was on the committee that drafted the 2008 freeway corridor plan during two years of meetings, said the choice to zone retail, commercial and industrial activity next to the freeway was deliberate, “so that people would go on and off the freeway and shop and do those type of things and not have such a tremendous impact on housing areas and the land.”The original plan earmarked the internal portion of the corridor for housing and open space, whereas under the proposed update, the warehouse project would be at its core, with housing around it, she said. “That’s just absurd for that area,” she said. “So what we originally planned, which we thought was very efficient, as non-invasive as possible, has turned into a huge warehouse hub. And that’s just not what we had in mind.”Although the warehouse complex wouldn’t be visible from the freeway, it would be visible from nearby trails and open spaces, said Sherli Leonard, president of the Redlands Conservancy. The nonprofit manages a 341-acre preserve that’s about a half-mile from the proposed complex and another 70 acres that’s nearby.“The views are lovely,” she said. “And it’s not just that they’re lovely but they actually benefit the human psyche. Look at car commercials: they don’t ever show someone driving through a warehouse district or even a neighborhood.”The land earmarked for the complex is privately owned and not open to the public. However, she said it is a wildlife corridor for mountain lions, coyotes, foxes, bobcats and the occasional bear.“It would cause significant damage to that environment, to that habitat, and also open the door for more such things — that’s from a conservationist standpoint,” she said. “From anybody’s standpoint, it will introduce 18-wheelers to a freeway offramp that is already seriously congested at many times of the day and there isn’t any way to mitigate that, you just have to deal with it.”When Matuszak moved to Yucaipa in 1977 to teach exercise science and biomechanics at the local high school, the nearby communities of San Bernardino and Redlands were dominated by orange groves and open fields where farmers grew strawberries and onions, he said.“Now, there are miles and miles of these warehouses and it’s concrete — concrete roofs, concrete walls, parking lots and so forth,” he said. That’s created a heat island effect that’s raised local temperatures by several degrees on top of global warming, he said.“We’re seeing the beginnings of that same push to extend what they’re calling the logistics capital of the world all the way out into our neck of the woods,” he said. “And we’re just furious about it. We’re going to do everything we can to stop that from happening.”

How scientists debunked one of conservation’s most influential statistics

The factoid about biodiversity and Indigenous peoples spread around the world, but scientists say bad data can undermine the very causes it claims to supportThe statistic seemed to crop up everywhere. Versions were cited at UN negotiations, on protest banners, in 186 peer-reviewed scientific papers – even by the film-maker James Cameron, while promoting his Avatar films. Exact wording varied, but the claim was this: that 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples.When scientists investigated its origins, however, they found nothing. In September, the scientific journal Nature reported that the much-cited claim was “a baseless statistic”, not supported by any real data, and could jeopardise the very Indigenous-led conservation efforts it was cited in support of. Indigenous communities play “essential roles” in conserving biodiversity, the comment says, but the 80% claim is simply “wrong” and risks undermining their credibility. Continue reading...

The statistic seemed to crop up everywhere. Versions were cited at UN negotiations, on protest banners, in 186 peer-reviewed scientific papers – even by the film-maker James Cameron, while promoting his Avatar films. Exact wording varied, but the claim was this: that 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples.When scientists investigated its origins, however, they found nothing. In September, the scientific journal Nature reported that the much-cited claim was “a baseless statistic”, not supported by any real data, and could jeopardise the very Indigenous-led conservation efforts it was cited in support of. Indigenous communities play “essential roles” in conserving biodiversity, the comment says, but the 80% claim is simply “wrong” and risks undermining their credibility.The carefully worded article, written by 13 authors including three Indigenous scientists, had been about five years in the making. But it raised other questions: including how a foundationless factoid got so much traction – and what other inaccuracies were circulating.“There were policy reports using it. There were scientific reports. It was cited in more than 180 scientific publications,” says Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, an ethnobiologist at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and one of the authors of the article. It was checked as “true” by a dedicated factchecking organisation, and quoted by numerous news organisations (including the Guardian). Fernández-Llamazares stressed they did not blame those who used the figure. Instead, he said: “What we are questioning is: how can it be that this figure has gone unchallenged for so many years?”To check the claim, the scientists searched decades of literature and citations. They did not find anything resembling an actual calculation. Instead, reports by the UN and the World Bank from the early 2000s seem to have popularised it. They in turn cited an encyclopedia article on eco-regions occupied by Indigenous peoples, and research that found some ​​Indigenous tribes in the Philippines were “maintaining over 80% of the original high-biodiversity forest cover”.Perhaps, however, the statistic should have raised eyebrows from the outset. Despite recent advances in measurability, biodiversity as a concept is still hard to define, let alone quantify and count. Millions of species aren’t even described or their status as a species is debated. “The 80% claim is based on two assumptions: that biodiversity can be divided into countable units, and that these can be mapped spatially at the global level. Neither feat is possible,” the Nature authors wrote.Historical land use reconstruction is a very messy business, especially at the global scaleErle Ellis, environmental scientistOn the face of it, the biodiversity field is very numbers driven. But the look of mathematical precision can be misleading, in a field that deals with measuring under-studied species, changing ecosystems and data black spots.“We are not honest with ourselves within our own ranks,” says Matthias Glaubrecht, a professor at the Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change in Hamburg. “Biology is a dirty science, so to speak: numbers here are an auxiliary construction to prove a case, but always accompanied by a big question mark.”Elephants in Africa, for example, are often used as a symbol of mass extinction. Discourse around African elephants often focuses on a dramatic decline in the 20th century. Popular data platform Our World in Data reported that there were once 26 million elephants in Africa, which declined to 10 million in 1900, to half a million today. The same figures are widely used by NGOs and the press.But 26 million elephants would mean almost one elephant for each square kilometre across the entire African continent, with its huge variations in habitat – a figure that strains plausibility.The number originated from a PhD thesis in the early 1990s by Oxford biologist Eleanor Jane Milner-Gulland. Debates around a ban on the ivory trade were running high at the time, and Milner-Gulland tried to estimate the influence of poaching on population sizes. Because there were no robust elephant counts until well into the 1900s, she built a statistical model, taking recent counts from areas populated by elephants and multiplying them out across the continent to areas where elephants could have lived. She arrived at an estimate of between 13.5 million and 26.9 million elephants for the early 19th century.“The assumption of the study is wrong,” says Chris Thouless, research director for Save the Elephants in Kenya: “It was written with the idea that hardly any people lived in Africa.”Thouless says an unsurprising range would be “a few million – rather than tens of millions”. There is no doubt that elephant populations have suffered. But their decline is a more complicated story than the sudden apocalypse sometimes painted. After being approached by the Guardian about the veracity of historical elephant data, Our World in Data removed the numbers.Statistical modelling of a world we might have lost is common in the field. But it’s tricky to do. “Historical land use reconstruction is a very messy business, especially at the global scale,” says Erle Ellis from the University of Maryland. Ellis works with these kinds of models, dating back 12,000 years. A single parameter based on an archaeological find can change an entire region. “There are lots of models – for example on habitat loss and what it does to a given species. But is there a good model that does that? I don’t think so,” Ellis says.Despite the importance of robust data in environmental crises, calling out bad statistics is sometimes seen as an attack on conservation itself. The Nature article about the 80% was in the making for five years, one of the authors says, because the topic is so sensitive and could be abused politically. In the article, they write that “the 80% claim could undermine [more] rigorous studies – as well as effective efforts to conserve biodiversity by Indigenous peoples on the ground”. After its publication, however, the authors faced some intense criticism.“The feedback here in Mexico is strong … is rude. Someone told me this is a call for war,” says Yesenia H Márquez, a co-author of the article and member of the expert group on Indigenous and local knowledge at the UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes). “But I think it’s not a problem to promote the paper,” she says. “We know our territories. We know all the biodiversity that we have.”Tin Fischer is a data journalist based in Berlin, and author of a book on how political allegiances can change perception of data.

Giant tortoises in Seychelles face threat from luxury hotel development

Conservationists and botanists express concern over plans for Qatari-funded upscale resort on Assomption IslandThe habitat of the largest giant tortoise population in the world is threatened by a Qatari-funded hotel development that aims to bring luxury yachts, private jets and well-heeled tourists to a remote island in the Indian Ocean, conservationists have warned.Plans for an upscale resort on Assomption, which is part of the Aldabra island group, are currently under discussion by the Seychelles authorities, and construction is already finished on an airport expansion that would allow bigger aircraft to land on the 11.6-sq-km (4.5-sq-mile) coral island. Continue reading...

The habitat of the largest giant tortoise population in the world is threatened by a Qatari-funded hotel development that aims to bring luxury yachts, private jets and well-heeled tourists to a remote island in the Indian Ocean, conservationists have warned.Plans for an upscale resort on Assomption, which is part of the Aldabra island group, are currently under discussion by the Seychelles authorities, and construction is already finished on an airport expansion that would allow bigger aircraft to land on the 11.6-sq-km (4.5-sq-mile) coral island.The developers have said they will follow world class sustainability practices. But wildlife conservation organisations and biologists argue that the project is being rushed through without sufficient analysis of the dangers. They say it should be halted until there is independent scrutiny of the risks posed to island fauna, which also include whales, turtles and many species of birds.They also fear there may be knock-on effects on the Aldabra atoll, which is a Unesco-protected ecosystem just 17 miles (27km) from Assomption. Aldabra is considered one of the world’s conservation jewels. It is most famous as a refuge for about 150,000 giant tortoises that bear the same name and are known for their longevity and immense size; males have an average weight of 250kg and a carapace of more than 122 cm.Aldabra provides a refuge for about 150,000 giant tortoises. Photograph: HandoutIn captivity, the oldest on record was a tortoise called Adwaita, who is reputed to have died at the age of 255 years in 2006 in Kolkata zoo, India. Other individuals include Darwin, who died in Blackpool zoo at the age of 105, and Esmeralda, who is said to be 180.Giant tortoises were wiped out from most Indian Ocean islands in the 19th century as a result of predation by sailors, but the Aldabra population thrived thanks to their isolation. Along with 400 other endemic species and the extraordinary colours of the landscape, they were part of why the atoll was listed as a world heritage site by Unesco in 1982.In recent decades, access has largely been limited to researchers, but the new high-end development may draw some of the world’s richest people much nearer.Unesco said it had been informed by a third party about the potential project on Assomption, which might have an impact on the Aldabra atoll world heritage site. A spokesperson said: “Unesco is following the situation and has requested further information from the Seychelles authorities, recalling the need to protect the outstanding universal value of the site.” The UN body has sent a letter to Seychelles president Wavel Ramkalawan outlining its concerns.Local conservation groups have also alerted the authorities to the ecological risks they say are posed by the hotel project proposed by Assets Group, a Qatari-owned company. These include invasive alien species, disturbance of tortoise and turtle habitats, destruction of sand dunes for construction, pollution, increased air and ocean traffic, and soil and plant damage.While the main impacts would be on Assomption, there have been concerns about the threat to Adambra, according to a scoping document seen by the Guardian and compiled by the Island Conservation Society, which oversaw the environmental impact assessment.The Indian Ocean Tortoise Alliance said the development jeopardised the Seychelles reputation as a global leader in marine environment protection: “The Assomption Island development project has the potential to significantly disrupt and inflict irreparable damage to one of the most precious national treasures of Seychelles, and indeed one of the most pristine and unique natural places still remaining on our planet,” observed the alliance’s founder, Thomas Kaplan, in a submission earlier this year.Another organisation, the Seychelles Islands Foundation, called for an immediate halt of construction until a biosecurity management plan was put in place. The foundation said that while it was not opposed in principle to the economic development of Assomption, it should not be rushed.“Given the proximity of Assomption to Aldabra, it is crucial to implement biosecurity measures that prevent the introduction of any invasive alien species to either island, given the devastating impacts they can have,” a spokesperson said in an email.There are also questions about the speed at which the project is moving forward and the lack of independent scrutiny. The main body responsible for the environmental impact assessment is the Island Conservation Society, which is part of the entity that is advocating for the project, the Island Development Corporation (IDC). This is headed by one of the most powerful figures in the Seychelles, Glenny Savy.The IDC says it is following due process and helping the Seychelles economy. It denies that the Assomption development will interfere with the habitat of the Aldabra atoll and said that, in any case, tortoises have adapted well to development in the past, and restoration of native vegetation and provision of water sources for the hotel will benefit the giant reptiles.The Indian Ocean Tortoise Alliance warned that the development project could ‘significantly disrupt and inflict irreparable damage to one of the most precious national treasures of Seychelles’. Photograph: HandoutIn an email, the IDC said concerns about disturbance of whale migration routes and pollution of marine environments were unfounded because no motorised water sports will be permitted in the vicinity of Assomption and maritime traffic will be limited to resupply boats and vessels with staff, guests and visitors. It said strict biosecurity protocols have been put in place for the construction and operational phases of the development. Half a dozen horses will be introduced for guests to ride around the island without the need for motor vehicles. The IDC said it was experienced and capable of ensuring environmental safeguards would be adequate.“In conclusion, we believe that Aldabra, much like the Galapagos – another Unesco world heritage site – should be accessible to the world. Currently, Aldabra’s access is limited to a select few, unlike the Galapagos, which welcomes global visitors,” a spokesperson said in an email.The Assets Group, one of the largely privately-owned developers in the Gulf, said its focus was on preserving and protecting Assomption and its ecosystem. It said it had conducted all the necessary environmental impact assessments working with local organisations.“Our approach is to protect species and reintroduce native ones. All planning and any future building will be conducted in a responsible manner, following sustainable best practice, with effective waste and water management in addition to regenerating the island’s biodiversity, which has been severely impacted in recent decades,” it said, referring to decades of guano mining on Assomption. “The planned development, when it gets underway, will revive and regenerate the island of Assomption, in collaboration with leading sustainability experts.”

MINAE Takes Stand Against Illegal Mining in Costa Rica’s Protected Areas

The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) issued a statement denying any intention to conduct gold mining in Corcovado National Park. This clarification came after Mario Gómez Venegas, director of the Directorate of Geology and Mines (DGM) at MINAE, submitted a request to Paula Mena Corea, director of the Osa Conservation Area, asking for a […] The post MINAE Takes Stand Against Illegal Mining in Costa Rica’s Protected Areas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) issued a statement denying any intention to conduct gold mining in Corcovado National Park. This clarification came after Mario Gómez Venegas, director of the Directorate of Geology and Mines (DGM) at MINAE, submitted a request to Paula Mena Corea, director of the Osa Conservation Area, asking for a delegation to enter the park as part of the PlanetGOLD Costa Rica project. Earlier this year, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) approved MINAE’s project, “Global Opportunities for the Long-term Development of the Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining Sector (ASM) – PlanetGOLD Costa Rica.” In a press release, MINAE denied the information being circulated and clarified the situation. “We strongly deny this statement and clarify that, in response to the illegal gold mining problem in the country, MINAE, with the support of GEF and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), launched a series of workshops in July to implement a project aimed at eliminating the use of mercury in gold mining,” the statement read. Document DGM-OD-368-2024 further explained that the PlanetGOLD program is in its initial phase, which requires field visits by the consulting team. The purpose of these visits is to inspect gold extraction sites, identify potential mineralization sources, collect samples, evaluate gold recovery processes, and verify whether mercury is being used. MINAE emphasized that the document signed by Mario Gómez is aimed at studying artisanal and small-scale mining associations, establishing gold value chains, and assessing environmental impacts in the cantons of Jiménez and Osa, all of which are linked to illegal mining activities. “This project tackles the issue of illegal mining and promotes safer methods in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), which currently employs extraction techniques that pose health risks, such as mercury use,” the statement added. MINAE also assured that, in collaboration with law enforcement, it will continue to address the problem of illegal gold mining, which extends beyond Corcovado National Park. The ministry will further promote initiatives to eliminate the use of hazardous substances, such as mercury, to protect human health and the environment. The post MINAE Takes Stand Against Illegal Mining in Costa Rica’s Protected Areas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.