Round 8 Envirofund
Round 8 of the Australian Government Envirofund is now open and closes on 28th April 2006.
Envirofund provides grants of up to $50,000 for local environmental projects. Weed management and rehabilitation works may be funded through Envirofund. For application forms and guidelines, phone 1800 303 863 or visit www.nht.gov.au/envirofund
Please contact Steve Welch at Environment ACT if you are considering an application 6207 7131 or steve.welch@act.gov.au
Envirofund provides grants of up to $50,000 for local environmental projects. Weed management and rehabilitation works may be funded through Envirofund. For application forms and guidelines, phone 1800 303 863 or visit www.nht.gov.au/envirofund
Please contact Steve Welch at Environment ACT if you are considering an application 6207 7131 or steve.welch@act.gov.au
“Queanbeyan Tomorrow” visioning strategy
PLACE BASED FORUM
QUEANBEYAN VISION 2021
10.30 am – 12.30 pm
Monday 27 March 2006
Queanbeyan Conference Centre
(Bicenntenial Centre)
253 Crawford Street, Queanbeyan
You previously received a letter and information from Mayor Frank Pangallo on the opportunity to participate in the “Queanbeyan Tomorrow” visioning strategy.
We have been able to organise an additional meeting during the day for members of the community and people from organisations and businesses to attend, as many people are busy at night.
If you are able to attend this meeting to share your ideas on how you would like Queanbeyan to be in the future and what services you think would be needed – please ring 02 62980281 by Wednesday 22 March 2006.
QUEANBEYAN VISION 2021
10.30 am – 12.30 pm
Monday 27 March 2006
Queanbeyan Conference Centre
(Bicenntenial Centre)
253 Crawford Street, Queanbeyan
You previously received a letter and information from Mayor Frank Pangallo on the opportunity to participate in the “Queanbeyan Tomorrow” visioning strategy.
We have been able to organise an additional meeting during the day for members of the community and people from organisations and businesses to attend, as many people are busy at night.
If you are able to attend this meeting to share your ideas on how you would like Queanbeyan to be in the future and what services you think would be needed – please ring 02 62980281 by Wednesday 22 March 2006.
Australian Government Envirofund
http://www.nht.gov.au/envirofund/
Now inviting applications for funding.
The Australian Government Envirofund is the local action component of the Australian Government's $3 billion Natural Heritage Trust. It helps communities undertake local projects aimed at conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable resource use.
Community groups and individuals can apply for grants of up to $50,000 (GST inclusive) to carry out on-ground and other actions to target local problems.
Applications for Round 8 close at 5pm on Friday 28 April 2006. Your signed original application must be received at the Envirofund office in Canberra on or before that date.
Round 8 will cover the normal range of activities funded by the Envirofund. Please read the Round 8 Guide and Application Form carefully before starting your application, as this Round is not the same as Round 7 (2005 Drought Recovery Round) and there have been some changes since the previous normal round (Round 6).
Hon Peter McGauran’s speech given at the Australian Landcare Council’s dinner 14 February
Landcare
What you all desperately want to know tonight is precisely what I can’t tell you – which is exactly where natural resource management is going beyond 2008 – beyond NHT2 and the NAP.
And I‘m sorry about that. It’s still a bit too soon. But we’re getting there and we’re making progress in what I think you’ll agree is the right direction.
We’ll shortly have the report from Kim Keogh, and Doug Chant, and Bob Fraser – which is - and I would emphasise this - just ONE of the sets of views that will inform those decisions.
Your views, the views of Landcare, is another and very important set – so understand that you are deeply included in that process and retain the very strong influence that you’ve properly long held – as the real pioneers of community based NRM.
We’re also doing a lot of work internally, at DAFF, looking into where we’ve been – in pretty forensic detail - and how we can improve our performance in delivering the tools that will maximise the benefits from targeted, coordinated, NRM.
So there are multiple streams of data on which decisions will be based, and some key parts of it are still to come in.
Senator Campbell and I expect to have the report from the Ministerial Reference Group by the end of the month.
We’ll use that input, and your input, and a range of other inputs, in discussing the issues with the states at the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council meeting in April.
There will then be engagement of the Prime Minister, whose had a strong personal interest in NRM as long as he’s been Prime Minister.
And ultimately there’ll be Cabinet.
So I’m simply not yet in a position to be in any way precise.
What I can do confidently – and determinedly – is provide some reassurances, and some broad indications, about the general directions in which we’re headed.
Perhaps a central issue for you is that the commitment to Landcare is solid: Whatever the overall shape of the future programmes – it will include Landcare.
And there will be a significantly enhanced focus on our productive landscapes as a cornerstone of the new arrangements.
There’s no doubt that, to date, the NHT, and perhaps even some aspects of the NAP, have been perceived as predominantly environmental programs. Certainly concern about the environment was a key catalyst in their development.
That perception issue has perhaps not been so deep in the case of the NAP: There was always a major association with productivity in that program: Most of the land identified as either salinised, or threatened with salinisation, is in our productive landscapes - and the clear focus of the NAP is to recover or protect the productivity of grazing and farming land. The NHT, on the other hand, has been more strongly identified with the environment.
And I certainly haven’t been comfortable with that since I came to the job.
As you well know, 60% of our country – and 70% of national water use - is under the stewardship of primary producers.
If we’re going to care for our landscape – from an environmental point of view – then by definition that’s only going to be achieved through some deep form of engagement with landholders: And that’s either through a predominantly regulatory regime - or through a more user-friendly process.
And there’s no doubt that, to date, the emphasis – perhaps with a high degree of inevitability - has been on regulation.
I use inevitability on the basis that regulation is the language of NRM for the states, which have the ultimate constitutional authorities in land management matters.
The classic, perhaps the most controversial and certainly one of the most important examples of that as far as landholders are concerned is the regulation of vegetation management.
Not so long ago clearing was a condition of maintaining a lease: Now, through a 180 degree turn in the content of regulation, and in response to green sentiment taking hold in most if not all state governments, we’ve got the exact opposite: heavy-handed regulation that comprehensively rules out clearing.
The water issue’s in the same basket, to a degree, and increasingly, biodiversity regulation – not all of it from the states – are other examples of the regulatory burden.
And much of this increasing regulatory requirement – the compulsion – of landholders to deliver environmental services has been in the name of the public good. Some of it returns a productivity component. A lot of it does not, and a lot of it is very onerous.
The circumstances that seem to be forever compounding this load remind me of the same sort of urban mindset that played out in relation to native title: The great sensitisation was, allegedly, in the cities – but the cities very happily pushed the resolution well beyond the city limits onto the bush: onto farmers and miners.
Conscience salved. Cost nil. And I think we’re seeing that again, to a very great degree, in relation to NRM: The environmental cost is perceived in the cities, and transferred to farmers - who have been blamed for simply abiding by the regs of the day.
So we’ve had an unfortunate confluence – of a traditional state government reliance on regulation – that’s aligned with green sentiment - to create an inordinate burden on landholders in relation to NRM - and we’ve got to break that cycle.
The commonsense approach – a much more just approach - is clearly a consensual approach - with more carrots – fewer sticks.
And we’ve seen a lot of recent good work that’s pointing in that direction, as the informed way to go. A stand-out is the Productivity Commission’s work on vegetation.
Importantly, that report got strong support from the Commonwealth, and I think has been important in getting the attention of many of my colleagues to the fact that regulation has become a counter-productive, not to say unjust, blunt instrument in landscape management.
There’s certainly no rocket science in that overall conclusion as far as you’re concerned of course: Landcare was and is a consensual, cooperative, grass roots approach to land repair and maintenance that’s helped establish some of the key groundrules for effective NRM into the future.
And perhaps the key groundrule is the principle, widely understood among landholders, that a sustainably productive landscape is, by definition, a reasonably healthy landscape.
That’s why you’re engaged in Landcare. Environmental benefits accrue, but so do productivity gains – and the two ultimately merge into the sustainability that’s the real driver.
Whether it’s the microbial health of soils, through to the more visible symptoms of landscape health - vegetated, non-eroding gullies and river-banks – and thus healthier water - to shade-slash-habitat trees - decent groundcover - it’s the farmer with the environmentally healthier landscape who is ultimately going to be the most productive farmer, especially in multi-generational terms.
The trick is going to be in consolidating this growing recognition of the central role that landholders have into a model for future NRM programs that has less regulation, and more carrots, and broad support.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all - in achieving this greater role for landholders - is how it’s going to gel with the regional structure that’s been built under NHT – and the NAP – because that regional structure is certainly staying.
The Ministerial Reference Group’s charter was how the regional processes might be refined, not how it might be superceded.
So achieving a sharper focus in the future on better ways to engage farmers is going to require a highly consensual approach: There are many stakeholders who are going to have to be on board.
The states are going to have to be on board, because in seeking to take the lead on NRM the Australian Government has necessarily had to work through and with the States: That’s just a fact that reflects the States’ constitutional pre-eminence on NRM issues.
The regional bodies are clearly going to have to be on board.
And the model that’s ultimately adopted to provide a higher recognition for landholders has to have broad support across the Commonwealth agencies, not least with the Minister and Department of Environment and Heritage.
And of course landholders themselves have to be on board.
Oddly enough the latter may be the most challenging of those tasks - because developing a format for willing farmer involvement to deliver environmental services, equitably and fairly, is not going to be easy. There are plenty of opinions about how to go about it – and at least as many about how not to go about it.
We have to deal with the duty-of-care issue, and there are plenty of opinions on that too, at either end of the spectrum: We have to find an agreed ground-zero in terms of what’s reasonable to expect of farmers.
A middle ground for the duty-of-care has to be found between the extreme green end of the NRM spectrum – which would have that bar set ridiculously high – as against the other extreme – which would basically exclude any outside influence inside the fence-line.
And then there are key decisions on the tools to be used – stewardship payments, environmental management systems - market based instruments.
Regulation, in-so-far as it remains ought to be as sensible, and as flexible, as we can make them – because one of the biggest problems with many of the NRM regs is the one-size-fits-all syndrome.
Certain regulatory requirements might be quite sensible in one area – and almost meaningless in another.
That’s a big challenge because it requires a degree of consensus across a range of jurisdictions, with a range of existing statutory controls and no doubt strong views on where they’re prepared to bend – where they’re not.
So I have to say to you that the design is still far from complete.
The funding issue is far from settled.
Whether we have two programs that are analogous to the NHT and the NAP – or whether there is one – is in the air:
You’ll no doubt be aware that there is a considerable push among some of the key stakeholders for there to be just one program, with NAP funding merged into a broader based NHT program.
Some of that is based on inter- regional jealousy – where, for example, an NHT region adjoining a NAP/NHT region sees more money going to the joint region.
Some of it is based on the fact that not all water quality issues are associated with salinity.
So there is still a way to go before we know exactly the shape of what lays ahead.
But I would like to think that, as you patiently wait, you will have faith that the very best endeavours - in this still quite young development of an holistic approach to landscape repair and maintenance - will be maintained, and that it will be improved.
I hope that you will also be encouraged by the steady spread of the recognition that greater attention has to be paid to positively engaging the long-term managers of most of the landscape.
And I hope and know that you will recognise that the Howard-Fischer, then Howard-Anderson, and now Howard-Vaile governments have demonstrated a deep and steadily increasing commitment to the task now for a decade.
The first phase of the NHT, and then the development of the NAP, reflected an approach that was built on achieving a national consensus on the NRM issues that confronted us, and getting on with the job of dealing with them.
That continued through NHT2 – with the addition of the regional structures – and even though that transition was a long way from perfect, the extent of the commitment to the job can’t be questioned: $3 billion to NRM through the Trust, and $700 million – from the Australian Government – to the NAP.
Water has also come ever more comprehensively into play - through the NWI and the associated $2 billion funding commitment - through the concerted effort to improve productivity and the environment along the Murray - as well as through the abiding water aspects of the NHT and NAP.
Throughout the development of those contributions the stand-alone commitment to Landcare has been maintained.
I know that the bottom line is not what we’ve done – what we’ve previously committed to – but what we commit to and do into the future – and that’s an understandable approach: perfectly human, perfectly reasonable.
But I do emphasise that we have shown that commitment, will continue to show that commitment, and I can assure you that the Landcare movement – the pioneers of community based NRM – will not only have a place in the brave new world – but will be among the first to know how it’s going to unfold.
You’ll know very soon after I do.
Thank you for another opportunity to be with you and – sincerely - thanks for the ongoing input.
It’s invaluable, and I hope that you will ultimately see a reasonable reflection in what emerges.
What you all desperately want to know tonight is precisely what I can’t tell you – which is exactly where natural resource management is going beyond 2008 – beyond NHT2 and the NAP.
And I‘m sorry about that. It’s still a bit too soon. But we’re getting there and we’re making progress in what I think you’ll agree is the right direction.
We’ll shortly have the report from Kim Keogh, and Doug Chant, and Bob Fraser – which is - and I would emphasise this - just ONE of the sets of views that will inform those decisions.
Your views, the views of Landcare, is another and very important set – so understand that you are deeply included in that process and retain the very strong influence that you’ve properly long held – as the real pioneers of community based NRM.
We’re also doing a lot of work internally, at DAFF, looking into where we’ve been – in pretty forensic detail - and how we can improve our performance in delivering the tools that will maximise the benefits from targeted, coordinated, NRM.
So there are multiple streams of data on which decisions will be based, and some key parts of it are still to come in.
Senator Campbell and I expect to have the report from the Ministerial Reference Group by the end of the month.
We’ll use that input, and your input, and a range of other inputs, in discussing the issues with the states at the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council meeting in April.
There will then be engagement of the Prime Minister, whose had a strong personal interest in NRM as long as he’s been Prime Minister.
And ultimately there’ll be Cabinet.
So I’m simply not yet in a position to be in any way precise.
What I can do confidently – and determinedly – is provide some reassurances, and some broad indications, about the general directions in which we’re headed.
Perhaps a central issue for you is that the commitment to Landcare is solid: Whatever the overall shape of the future programmes – it will include Landcare.
And there will be a significantly enhanced focus on our productive landscapes as a cornerstone of the new arrangements.
There’s no doubt that, to date, the NHT, and perhaps even some aspects of the NAP, have been perceived as predominantly environmental programs. Certainly concern about the environment was a key catalyst in their development.
That perception issue has perhaps not been so deep in the case of the NAP: There was always a major association with productivity in that program: Most of the land identified as either salinised, or threatened with salinisation, is in our productive landscapes - and the clear focus of the NAP is to recover or protect the productivity of grazing and farming land. The NHT, on the other hand, has been more strongly identified with the environment.
And I certainly haven’t been comfortable with that since I came to the job.
As you well know, 60% of our country – and 70% of national water use - is under the stewardship of primary producers.
If we’re going to care for our landscape – from an environmental point of view – then by definition that’s only going to be achieved through some deep form of engagement with landholders: And that’s either through a predominantly regulatory regime - or through a more user-friendly process.
And there’s no doubt that, to date, the emphasis – perhaps with a high degree of inevitability - has been on regulation.
I use inevitability on the basis that regulation is the language of NRM for the states, which have the ultimate constitutional authorities in land management matters.
The classic, perhaps the most controversial and certainly one of the most important examples of that as far as landholders are concerned is the regulation of vegetation management.
Not so long ago clearing was a condition of maintaining a lease: Now, through a 180 degree turn in the content of regulation, and in response to green sentiment taking hold in most if not all state governments, we’ve got the exact opposite: heavy-handed regulation that comprehensively rules out clearing.
The water issue’s in the same basket, to a degree, and increasingly, biodiversity regulation – not all of it from the states – are other examples of the regulatory burden.
And much of this increasing regulatory requirement – the compulsion – of landholders to deliver environmental services has been in the name of the public good. Some of it returns a productivity component. A lot of it does not, and a lot of it is very onerous.
The circumstances that seem to be forever compounding this load remind me of the same sort of urban mindset that played out in relation to native title: The great sensitisation was, allegedly, in the cities – but the cities very happily pushed the resolution well beyond the city limits onto the bush: onto farmers and miners.
Conscience salved. Cost nil. And I think we’re seeing that again, to a very great degree, in relation to NRM: The environmental cost is perceived in the cities, and transferred to farmers - who have been blamed for simply abiding by the regs of the day.
So we’ve had an unfortunate confluence – of a traditional state government reliance on regulation – that’s aligned with green sentiment - to create an inordinate burden on landholders in relation to NRM - and we’ve got to break that cycle.
The commonsense approach – a much more just approach - is clearly a consensual approach - with more carrots – fewer sticks.
And we’ve seen a lot of recent good work that’s pointing in that direction, as the informed way to go. A stand-out is the Productivity Commission’s work on vegetation.
Importantly, that report got strong support from the Commonwealth, and I think has been important in getting the attention of many of my colleagues to the fact that regulation has become a counter-productive, not to say unjust, blunt instrument in landscape management.
There’s certainly no rocket science in that overall conclusion as far as you’re concerned of course: Landcare was and is a consensual, cooperative, grass roots approach to land repair and maintenance that’s helped establish some of the key groundrules for effective NRM into the future.
And perhaps the key groundrule is the principle, widely understood among landholders, that a sustainably productive landscape is, by definition, a reasonably healthy landscape.
That’s why you’re engaged in Landcare. Environmental benefits accrue, but so do productivity gains – and the two ultimately merge into the sustainability that’s the real driver.
Whether it’s the microbial health of soils, through to the more visible symptoms of landscape health - vegetated, non-eroding gullies and river-banks – and thus healthier water - to shade-slash-habitat trees - decent groundcover - it’s the farmer with the environmentally healthier landscape who is ultimately going to be the most productive farmer, especially in multi-generational terms.
The trick is going to be in consolidating this growing recognition of the central role that landholders have into a model for future NRM programs that has less regulation, and more carrots, and broad support.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all - in achieving this greater role for landholders - is how it’s going to gel with the regional structure that’s been built under NHT – and the NAP – because that regional structure is certainly staying.
The Ministerial Reference Group’s charter was how the regional processes might be refined, not how it might be superceded.
So achieving a sharper focus in the future on better ways to engage farmers is going to require a highly consensual approach: There are many stakeholders who are going to have to be on board.
The states are going to have to be on board, because in seeking to take the lead on NRM the Australian Government has necessarily had to work through and with the States: That’s just a fact that reflects the States’ constitutional pre-eminence on NRM issues.
The regional bodies are clearly going to have to be on board.
And the model that’s ultimately adopted to provide a higher recognition for landholders has to have broad support across the Commonwealth agencies, not least with the Minister and Department of Environment and Heritage.
And of course landholders themselves have to be on board.
Oddly enough the latter may be the most challenging of those tasks - because developing a format for willing farmer involvement to deliver environmental services, equitably and fairly, is not going to be easy. There are plenty of opinions about how to go about it – and at least as many about how not to go about it.
We have to deal with the duty-of-care issue, and there are plenty of opinions on that too, at either end of the spectrum: We have to find an agreed ground-zero in terms of what’s reasonable to expect of farmers.
A middle ground for the duty-of-care has to be found between the extreme green end of the NRM spectrum – which would have that bar set ridiculously high – as against the other extreme – which would basically exclude any outside influence inside the fence-line.
And then there are key decisions on the tools to be used – stewardship payments, environmental management systems - market based instruments.
Regulation, in-so-far as it remains ought to be as sensible, and as flexible, as we can make them – because one of the biggest problems with many of the NRM regs is the one-size-fits-all syndrome.
Certain regulatory requirements might be quite sensible in one area – and almost meaningless in another.
That’s a big challenge because it requires a degree of consensus across a range of jurisdictions, with a range of existing statutory controls and no doubt strong views on where they’re prepared to bend – where they’re not.
So I have to say to you that the design is still far from complete.
The funding issue is far from settled.
Whether we have two programs that are analogous to the NHT and the NAP – or whether there is one – is in the air:
You’ll no doubt be aware that there is a considerable push among some of the key stakeholders for there to be just one program, with NAP funding merged into a broader based NHT program.
Some of that is based on inter- regional jealousy – where, for example, an NHT region adjoining a NAP/NHT region sees more money going to the joint region.
Some of it is based on the fact that not all water quality issues are associated with salinity.
So there is still a way to go before we know exactly the shape of what lays ahead.
But I would like to think that, as you patiently wait, you will have faith that the very best endeavours - in this still quite young development of an holistic approach to landscape repair and maintenance - will be maintained, and that it will be improved.
I hope that you will also be encouraged by the steady spread of the recognition that greater attention has to be paid to positively engaging the long-term managers of most of the landscape.
And I hope and know that you will recognise that the Howard-Fischer, then Howard-Anderson, and now Howard-Vaile governments have demonstrated a deep and steadily increasing commitment to the task now for a decade.
The first phase of the NHT, and then the development of the NAP, reflected an approach that was built on achieving a national consensus on the NRM issues that confronted us, and getting on with the job of dealing with them.
That continued through NHT2 – with the addition of the regional structures – and even though that transition was a long way from perfect, the extent of the commitment to the job can’t be questioned: $3 billion to NRM through the Trust, and $700 million – from the Australian Government – to the NAP.
Water has also come ever more comprehensively into play - through the NWI and the associated $2 billion funding commitment - through the concerted effort to improve productivity and the environment along the Murray - as well as through the abiding water aspects of the NHT and NAP.
Throughout the development of those contributions the stand-alone commitment to Landcare has been maintained.
I know that the bottom line is not what we’ve done – what we’ve previously committed to – but what we commit to and do into the future – and that’s an understandable approach: perfectly human, perfectly reasonable.
But I do emphasise that we have shown that commitment, will continue to show that commitment, and I can assure you that the Landcare movement – the pioneers of community based NRM – will not only have a place in the brave new world – but will be among the first to know how it’s going to unfold.
You’ll know very soon after I do.
Thank you for another opportunity to be with you and – sincerely - thanks for the ongoing input.
It’s invaluable, and I hope that you will ultimately see a reasonable reflection in what emerges.
'Garden Plants Going Bush'
Steve Welch, ACT Landcare Facilitator, is seeking people to help with the 'Garden Plants Going Bush' display at Lanyon Garden Festival 25 - 26 March.
If you can help contact Suzie Breitkopf on 6207 2484 suzie.breitkopf@act.gov.au
Steve Welch, ACT Landcare Facilitator, is seeking people to help with the 'Garden Plants Going Bush' display at Lanyon Garden Festival 25 - 26 March.
If you can help contact Suzie Breitkopf on 6207 2484 suzie.breitkopf@act.gov.au
Invasive species - a Global Challenge
by Dr Mark Lonsdale Assistant Chief of CSIRO Entomology.
8pm Thursday 2nd March- ANU (details below)
One of CSIRO's weed and pest experts Dr Mark Lonsdale is the new Chair of a global project, the Global Invasive Species Programme, which is combating the threat of invasive pest species world wide.
"Invasive species such as weeds, foxes, rabbits and marine pests cost Australia billions of dollars each year. The cost worldwide is too high to calculate," says Dr Lonsdale. "In many countries invasive species impact on economic development, human health, native species and agriculture. In developing countries invasive species pose a serious threat to the health and wellbeing of billions of people."
Worldwide, invasive species have become one of the most significant drivers of environmental change but Mark believes their impact can be reduced. "Invasive species are an international problem which requires an international solution," says Dr Lonsdale. "By combining regional knowledge from around the globe the GISP aims to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimising the spread and impact of invasive species." As the new Chair of GISP, Dr Lonsdale sees opportunities to tap into a growing pool of international knowledge which he believes will have benefits for Australia, such as techniques to control pests which have not yet arrived here. GISP was established in 1997 and is currently funded by the World Bank. It has created an international network of governments, research organisations and trade industries with the common goal of addressing the invasive species problem.
Dr Lonsdale's past work includes researching the impact of invasive weeds and their biocontrol, environmental risk assessments, and assessing the ecological implications of genetically modified organisms.
All welcome
Field Naturalists meeting: 8pm Thursday 2nd March: ANU Division of Botany and Zoology, Gould Building (Building 116), Daley Rd, Australian National University. (Map of ANU - http://campusmap.anu.edu.au/displaymap.asp?grid=ef54)
8pm Thursday 2nd March- ANU (details below)
One of CSIRO's weed and pest experts Dr Mark Lonsdale is the new Chair of a global project, the Global Invasive Species Programme, which is combating the threat of invasive pest species world wide.
"Invasive species such as weeds, foxes, rabbits and marine pests cost Australia billions of dollars each year. The cost worldwide is too high to calculate," says Dr Lonsdale. "In many countries invasive species impact on economic development, human health, native species and agriculture. In developing countries invasive species pose a serious threat to the health and wellbeing of billions of people."
Worldwide, invasive species have become one of the most significant drivers of environmental change but Mark believes their impact can be reduced. "Invasive species are an international problem which requires an international solution," says Dr Lonsdale. "By combining regional knowledge from around the globe the GISP aims to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimising the spread and impact of invasive species." As the new Chair of GISP, Dr Lonsdale sees opportunities to tap into a growing pool of international knowledge which he believes will have benefits for Australia, such as techniques to control pests which have not yet arrived here. GISP was established in 1997 and is currently funded by the World Bank. It has created an international network of governments, research organisations and trade industries with the common goal of addressing the invasive species problem.
Dr Lonsdale's past work includes researching the impact of invasive weeds and their biocontrol, environmental risk assessments, and assessing the ecological implications of genetically modified organisms.
All welcome
Field Naturalists meeting: 8pm Thursday 2nd March: ANU Division of Botany and Zoology, Gould Building (Building 116), Daley Rd, Australian National University. (Map of ANU - http://campusmap.anu.edu.au/displaymap.asp?grid=ef54)
