ambiente zine, issue 3

/ a m • b e n • t i /~

cultivated reflections on sustainable development

volume 3, 02/14[election special]

ambientezine.com.au

z i n e

Featuresfederico [davila] Food systems in Australia’s food regime: implications for the future? . . . . . . . . . 8

leila [alexandra] Whatever happened to revegetation? Perspectives on policy paradigms. . . . . . . 20

Opinionbenjo [keaney] & tom [keaney] A privatised waste dump? Are you kidding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

julie [melrose] Climate refugees and Australia - laggard or leader? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Regulars

home economics for sustainable development[the dreaded twins] Organising financial management for your Neoliberal household . . . . . . . . . . . 26

brainsquadringleader - karina [bontes forward]

overlord - luke [kemp]

designboss - guy [leech]master of the intertubes - glen [wright]

Front cover photo - adapted from John Crux: flickr.com/photos/63349090@N08/8716119096/

ambientezine.com.au

Special thanks to: In partnership with:

volume 3, 02/14 [election special] 1

Welcome to the third edition of Ambiente! In this edition, we tackle the recent Australian federal election, and try to work through some of the major issues that were present in the lead-up to the election, those appearing in the short while afterwards, and prospects for the future. We have some of ANU’s best minds at work for this; coming from the cradle of the action, Canberra youth speak out. First up we have Benjo Keaney and Dr Tom Keaney with an enlightening opinion piece on the proposed nuclear waste dump at Muckaty in the Northern Territory, and its environmen-tal and cultural implications. Federico Davila then paints a sharp picture of what Australia’s food policy arena looks like, on both macro and micro levels, questioning the dominant productivist paradigm and outlining what challenges will have to be faced in the future. Julie Melrose takes us on a journey through the murky world of climate and refugee pol-icy, highlighting the serious problems to be

telegram from the brainsquad

faced in the future by Australia and its small island neighbours, and what the Coalition government’s current solutions are. Lastly, Leila Alexandra explains Australian reveg-etation and forest policy, specifically looking at conceptual framing and how that affects Australian policy, and what the Coalition idea of reveg looks like. The regular Home Economics for Sustainable Development deconstructs the household budget neoliberal style, following the example set by the new household patri-arch, the Coalition government. We hope these quality pieces get your braincogs working in new ways and help you to scrutinize policies, political escapades and the impact international moves have on our small world in Australia, and maybe help prepare you for the next election in 3 years!

Yours, Luke and Karina


Lived Nuclear Waste, with a half-life of less than 100 days2. These medical products can be stored in the facilities in which they are used and disposed with general refuse with-out any impact on provision of nuclear medi-cine services. It is important to realise that challenging the presence of the proposed waste repository at Muckaty will not endan-ger the provision of nuclear medicine to the Australian community. Fourth, a repository at Muckaty will require transport of radioactive waste over great distances and through remote environ-ments. There is an increased risk of road and rail accidents on NT road and rail networks. Accidents and any associated radioactive waste spill require specialised management which may not be immediately available in the territory. This puts emergency respond-ers, health care staff, communities and the environment at risk of exposure to radioac-tive materials. Fifth, the facility at Muckaty has been proposed as a ‘storage facility’ for intermedi-ate level radioactive waste rather than a facil-ity used for its ultimate disposal. This princi-ple of storage versus disposal again separates the proposed repository from the principles of best practice of radioactive waste man-agement. It is irresponsible and expensive to move waste to a temporary facility from where it may need to be moved in the future,

or where it may be left in long term storage that does not meet international disposal requirements. The safe long term disposal of nuclear waste provides a challenge for all Australians, and the proposed waste repository at Muckaty is a national issue. Instead of a solution of fast-tracked political convenience, radioactive waste management demands a transparent and independent national enquiry to develop a comprehensive and evidence-based plan. Let us hope that sanity prevails…

Benjo Keaney is currently studying a PhD at the ANU in Archaeology on the Bogong Moth. Dr Tom Keaney is a GP based in Alice Springs.

For more information and to get involved go to beyondnuclearinitiative.com or mapw.org.au/files/downloads/Muckaty_Basics_Dec-2011.pdf

References1. Bureau of Resource Sciences (1997) A radioactive

waste repository for Australia: Site selection study Phase 3: Regional assessment: A public discussion paper. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.

2. Austin Health. 2007. Radionuclides and Radiop-harmaceuticals. Available at: http://www.petnm.unimelb.edu.au/nucmed/detail/radionuc.html

opinion

benjo [keaney]tom [keaney]

1. PhD candidate, CASS, ANU;

2. GP, Alice Springs

Recent news that officials in the Department of Industry have designs for a $150 million nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory, show that the newly elected government seems keen to both fast-track and privatise a highly controversial facility. The Abbott government is commis-sioning a business case that would allow fed-eral cabinet to consider the project this year and potentially have a facility built by 2019. The department briefed the private sector in October on its request for the development of a business case. This means the nuclear waste dump could be constructed and managed under a public-private partnership, a waste dump run for profit shielded from full public scrutiny by corporate in-confidence. But the fight is far from over. Traditional Owners maintain that both the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth failed to accurately identify, consult with and receive their consent and are seeking to reverse the decision. A month-long trial has been set for the Federal Court case in June 2014. Labor is divided on the use of Muckaty Station as a radioactive waste dump. Local MPs and incoming senator Nova Peris have publicly voiced concerns, but the former fed-eral Labor government remains cautiously

supportive, pending the outcome of the Federal Court case. Regardless of how the case goes, the proposal for a waste dump at Muckaty is a dud one, and there are a number of reasons why the proposed repository needs to be reconsidered. Firstly, scientific methodology and prin-ciples of best practice in the management of radioactive waste appear have not been applied in the choice of Muckaty as the pre-ferred site for a repository. In previous fed-eral government site assessments, Muckaty was not even considered in a short list of sites deemed appropriate as possible storage facilities1. Secondly, a comprehensive process of community consultation about the proposed repository with the landowners and custodi-ans of Muckaty was not performed. This is evident with the upcoming Federal Court hearing examining the legitimacy of consent for the proposed repository by traditional owners, and ongoing concern expressed by members of the Barkly Shire. Third, the justification that the reposi-tory is needed to ensure ongoing nuclear medicine services in Australia is false. These claims have been made by both the ALP and the Coalition. Most radionuclides used in nuclear medicine are classified as Very Short

A Privatised Waste Dump? Are you kidding?


Join the green team!

If you’re into writing and reading, have an eye for detail, are passionate about cur-rent issues, the environment and our world, and work well in a close-knit team, we want to hear from you!

ambiente are looking for new members of the team, especially people with editing, website and design skills. Experience with social media would be a plus. Contact us at [email protected] with a copy of your CV and a short paragraph outlining why you’d like to be a part of the our team and what you could contribute.

Look forward to hearing from you!


feature

federico [davila]

Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU

Food systems in Australia’s food regime: Implications for the future

The Coalition Government has promised to drastically change a suite of policies, guidelines and programs introduced during the 6-year Labor government. One of the many sustainability issues this government will have to rightfully govern over is the one of Australian food systems. Food systems are comprised of a series of activities ranging from production to consumption, and include the relation-ships between humans and ecosystems1. Embedded in food systems is high-level national agricultural policy, which informs state and regional policies and legisla-tions. Food producers and consumers thus have to carry out their every day food related practices within the legal boundaries and guidelines set around food sys-tems by national governments. Australian agriculture is, at large, dominated by a productivist, output-oriented production model2. Food availability is confined to the retail outlets to which the industrially produced food is delivered. Through the development of a highly productive Australian food system during the 20th century, Australia has positioned itself as a global leader in agricultural production. The nature of this large-scale industrial agriculture, and the support it gets from industry and government, have left consumers disempowered to take political action and become more meaningfully involved in their food choices. Furthermore, the production-oriented food system has contributed to severe eco-logical degradation and the market control of flow of domestic commodities to consumers in a highly capitalist-driven system. In light of the state of Australian food production and distribution, this article will pose two major food systems policy issues that the new Coalition gov-ernment will be required to govern over. Firstly, I will discuss the inheritance of the previous government’s National Food Plan, and how the agricultural vision has been carried forward. Secondly, the threat to Australian food sovereignty over the introduction of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be discussed, with a focus on the further corporatisation of the Australian food system. For this article, I will use the conceptual framework of food regimes to situate the Australian food system and the discussion of the two selected issues the Coalition government will have to address.

A Framework for Situating Australian Agriculture

Australian agricultural policy, largely supported by industry and government, has been driven by competitive productivism, focusing on maximising food output for international trade, and as such reduces the opportunities for alternate food systems to develop3. Regardless of which government governs the nation, a strong focus on technocratic, productivist agriculture that minimises opportunities for ecological conservation and provides opportunities for food retail diversity is a common trend in agricultural governance. The advent of productivism in the food policy discourse needs to be placed in a historical context in order to understand where it has originated. The concept of food regimes, as proposed by Friedmann and McMichael4 historically contex-tualise the development of the global food system since the industrial revolution. Through connecting periods of financial development to food production and con-sumption, food regimes are a useful tool to understand why dominant discourse behind agricultural policy has ended up where it is. At its core, the food regimes approach argues that the emergence of neo-liberal trade policies under capitalism created opportunities for industrial agricul-ture to be become the norm throughout the world5,6. Food regimes openly create an opportunity for politics and environmental thinking to coincide. They acknowl-edge the drivers behind accumulation of capital from agricultural commodities, and offer a critical space for ecological knowledge to intervene and critique the consequences of such accumulation. The three stages of food regimes are sum-marised in Table 1.7,8,9

Table 1: The three stages of food regimes.Food Regime Key Components Defining Concepts

First Food Regime 1870s--1930s

Creation of national economiesColonialism and trade between Eu-rope and colonised statesMarket Protectionism DevelopedAgriculture became a capital-ist economic sectorAgro-industrial relations developed

Capitalist growth

Second Food Regime: post- World War II1947--1973

Post-Colonial productionIntensified meat productionWide commodification of foodCold War food crisisNation state driving productionIntroduction of the Green Revolution

Aid and De-velopmentFood Security, Production Ori-ented Concept

Third Food Regime: Corporate Food Regime1973--present

Nation state loses control over productionElite consumerismAgricultural Intensification Productivist discourse dominates agriculture

Food Security: Access Oriented ConceptFood SovereigntyComplementary Food Systems


The National Food PlanThe business-as-usual model from the NFP and the productivist mindset in Australia has been recently explored.10,11,12 The NFP follows the prevalent trend in domestic food policies, which operate within competitive productivism framed by neoliberal ideologies13. The NFP was the product of extensive research and consul-tations on behalf of Gillard’s Labor government. Throughout, the NFP has goals for growing exports, thriving industry, benefiting people and promoting sustain-able food14. Through focusing on agricultural intensification, the NFP rapidly situ-ates itself within the corporate food regime through a high presence of a productiv-ist discourse and elite consumerism of staple commodities. Take, for example, the notion of agricultural intensification. Australia aims to ‘increase the value of agricultural exports by 45% by 2025’, and ‘increase productivity by 30%’. Conforming to this business as usual model, the NFP ignores the global food waste problem, and assumes that no social or behavioural change in society can occur. Furthermore, it ignores the severe impacts industrial food production has had on ecosystems. In a country where land has been chronically cleared for the purpose of agricultural production, further promoting intensive agriculture demonstrates the lack of concern over habitat destruction. Australian landscapes have been sig-nificantly altered. Some 90% of native vegetation in temperate zone of Eastern

Australia has been cleared for farming and housing, and 50% of rainforests and 30% of woodlands have been removed for agricultural practices15. Whilst signifi-cantly contributing to Australia’s global standing as an Agricultural exporter, these landscape changes have significantly affected native fauna and flora, some of which is now extinct or critically endangered. Despite these lessons, Australia persists in being a global Agricultural exporter. Through following this path, Australia will be unable to act as a global leader in ecologically sound food production. Furthermore, another potentially damaging notion exists in the corporate food regime- the idea of elite consumerism. Indeed, Australia wastes almost $8 billion worth of food every year, largely from unfinished meals or rotten food left in the fridge16. An important element of this figure is the fact that households with an average income of over $100,000 waste more food. Australians are able to afford a wider variety of food available at retail outlets, only to waste a large portion of it. The overconsumption of commodities is leading Australians to waste more money on food than double the amount of foreign aid we give globally. Aid is of relevance for Australian food systems, as the NFP also claims it will contribute to developing countries by ‘helping farmers gain access to new agricultural technolo-gies’. Such grandeur in food assistance by Australia thus aims to ensure that the productivist notions of agriculture are also exported and taken up by farmers in countries where there are severe governance, gender and political barriers prevent-ing food production, which agricultural technologies will fail to address.


The inconsistency between a focus on growing exports and intensifying our food system while also caring about farmers internationally is further exacer-bated by the second issue regarding food systems that the Coalition government will have to face. Whilst the NFP was a product of the previous government, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a whole new issue that will profoundly affect Australian producers, consumers and international farmers in a way that is seldom being discussed in the media and general public.

The Trans-Pacific PartnershipThe ambitious free trade deal being negotiated between 12 countries, amongst them Australia, Japan and the United States, will further liberalise trade and allow greater corporate influence in market product flows. Although ideal, in a sense, for consumers who want access to affordable global commodities, the neoliberal TPP will perpetuate unsustainable and unjust food systems through corporate control over food flows. If Australia is genuinely concerned about improving the well-being of farmers internationally as it claims it is (not only through the National Food Plan, but also through the Australian Aid and ACIAR programs), then it must cohesively examine the politics which it is pursuing in international trade and the implications these have on such farmers. The TPP will likely create disadvantages in developing countries through fierce competition for low price of product and rapid production. This cycle of constant dependence on providing markets to gen-erate income can force farmers in developing countries to shift from traditional farming practices to more intensive, productivist-oriented ones. Smallholder farmers in many developing countries currently produce a wide variety of produce in mixed farming systems.17,18,19 As such, they do not depend on a single commodity to sell to a market as a means of generating income. Thinking systemically, we can then begin to understand the implications of a highly consumerist society, like Australia, which expects cheap staple food com-modities, which will be more freely traded through the TPP, and thus generate barriers for these smallholder farmers that are not part of this mainstream system. The TPP has been developed in high secrecy between the governments involved20. The highly secluded negotiations further demonstrates that the deal is being developed by elites who want to further promote the neoliberal corporate food regime, which supports high value agricultural commodities. Small produc-ers will become more excluded from markets as they will be unable to compete with artificially generated low prices, designed for the elite consumers. For example, the TPP would significantly liberalise the agricultural system in Japan, opening up the door for Australian trade21. Japan is a country were 80% of the farms are classified as smallholder of 2 hectares or less. These small producers will be significantly affected by the cheap imports from other

countries, including Australia22. The TPP will thus create little barriers for large scale, intensive agriculture to take place, at the cost of smallholder farmers and the natural environment.

What it Means for AustraliansIn an era where our political voice is confined to occasional ballot opportunities, it is unlikely that Australians will get a say in the future of Australian agricultural policy and food trade. There are likely to be ongoing ecological impacts stemming from further intensification of agriculture to increase the production of staple com-modities. These commodities will serve to feed Australia, but also act as cheap commodities in countries trading with Australia. Along with the ecological costs, social inequity will continue to be promoted by liberalising trade, largely through enforced market exits on small producers. Both major political parties in Australia have promoted a corporate food regime in Australia through focusing on the perpetual growth of agricultural com-modity output. The NFP, engineered by the Labor Government, promoted the growth of the agricultural sector and the growth of trade in South-East Asia. Further to this, the new Coalition government is likely to sign a TPP which will liberalise trade between countries and promote competitive low prices of staple commodities. Both of these policies are indicative of a discourse that reasserts the existing corporate food regime. Given that high level agricultural policy and trade is unlikely to promote radically different agricultural systems, it will be up to small scale producers and consumers to generate new food systems. In doing so, producers and consumers can grow and buy food with ecological and social justice principles in mind. This will require deeper understandings in society of the importance of knowing where and how food is produced, and a critical examination of agricultural value chains in the Australian market systems. Given the forces that are pushing towards the further liberalisation of agriculture in Australia, informal economies and support networks between producers and consumers in Australia will act as a meaningful contribution towards generating a new food regime.

Federico is a School Visitor at the Fenner School of Environment and Society. His research spans across the fields of sustainability education, food sovereignty and international development.

References1. Ericksen, Polly J. (2008). Conceptualizing food sys-

tems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234-245.

2. Lawrence, Geoffrey, Richards, Carol, & Lyons, Kristen. (2013). Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29(0), 30-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.005

3. Ibid4. Friedmann, H, & McMichael, P. (1989). Ag-

riculture and the State System: The Rise and Decline of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present. Socilogia Ruralis, 29(2).

5. Ibid.6. McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy,

The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1): 139-169. 7. (Adapted from) Fairbairn, M. (2010). Framing

Resistance: International Food Regimes and the Roots of Food Sovereignty. In H Witt-man, D Annette Aurélie & N Wiebe (Eds.), Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood.

8. (Adapted from) Friedmann, H, & McMichael, P. (1989). Agriculture and the State System: The Rise and Decline of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present. Socilogia Ruralis, 29(2).

9. (Adapted from) Friedmann, Harriet. (2009). Discus-sion: moving food regimes forward: reflections on symposium essays. Agriculture and Human Values, 26(4), 335-344. doi: 10.1007/s10460-009-9225-6

10. Dibden, Jacqui, Potter, Clive, & Cocklin, Chris. (2009). Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(3), 299-308. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.12.003

11. Rose, Nick. (2012). The draft National Food Plan: putting corporate hunger first Retrieved July 5 2013, from https://thecon-versation.com/the-draft-national-food-plan-putting-corporate-hunger-first-8342

12. Rose, Nick, & Davila, Federico. (2013). Feed-ing the world with a mix of science and tradition Retrieved July 12 2013, from https://theconversation.com/feeding-the-world-with-a-mix-of-science-and-tradition-15693

13. Lawrence, Geoffrey, Richards, Carol, & Lyons, Kristen. (2013). Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 29(0), 30-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.005

14. DAFF. (2013). The National Food Plan.15. Aretino, B, Holland, P, Peterson, D, & Schuele,

M. (2001). Creating Markets for Biodiversity:

A Case study of Earth Sactuaries. Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper. Canberra

16. ABC. (2013). Do Australians waste $ 8 bil-lion worth of edible food each year?. Re-trieved November 5 2013, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/food-waste-value-australia/4993930

17. Altieri, M. (2008). Small Farms as a Plan-etary Ecological Asset: Five Key Reasons why we should Support the Revitalisation of Small Farms in the Global South. Food First. Available at: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2115. Accessed April 22 2012.

18. ETC Group. (2009). Who will feed us? Ques-tions for the Food and Climate Crisis.

19. Falvey, L. (2010). Small Farmers Secure Food: Sur-vival Food Security, the World’s Kitchen and the Critical Role of Small Farmers. Songkhla: Thaksin University Book Center in association with the Institute for International Development Australia.

20. Wikileaks. (2013). Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). Retrieved 17 November 2013, from https://wikile-aks.org/tpp/pressrelease.html

21. Muller, A.R, Kinezuka, A, & Kerssen, T. (2013). The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Threat to Democracy and Food Sover-eignty. Food First Backgrounder, 19(2).

22. Ibid.

The Way of the Future!

As much as we like our print-copy zine (it's printed on recycled paper with vegie inks), we have decided to move more of the action to our new website! The website will become the host for publication of all types of submissions—whatever you, our readers and writers, deem to be the most cutting-edge, important, and interesting topics. As long as it pertains to sustainable development, the natural environment and humans, we're keen to receive your writings. This will ensure a greater flow of student and non-student writings and wider readership, and will make up the content of a bi-annual printed 'best-of ' ambiente zine.

Submission guidelines are the same, we are accepting three types of submissions:

Feature articles: 1,000 - 1,500 words, preferably based upon primary academic research.

Informed opinion pieces: 600 - 800 words, something which you feel strongly about and have a relatively good base of knowledge on.

Creative pieces:Drawings, poetry, short stories, comics, photographs, you name it. Video submis-sions (less than 5 minutes) will also be considered for the website.

Send in your pieces to [email protected] from today!


opinion

julie [melrose]

Juris Doctor, ANU College of Law

Australia may have gone backwards on both climate change and refugees in the recent election, but our problems are only going to get worse. Australians must decide if we are going to act as a champion for those dis-placed by climate change, or continue with misplaced hostility. Climate change and refugees were both key issues on the political agenda dur-ing the recent Australian Federal Election in 2013. Contrary to previous elections, both involved a race to the bottom, with both par-ties attempting to out-do each other in their cruelty and rollback of policies addressing climate change and refugees. I have worked previously both with refugees as well as environment advocacy projects. Last year I ran as the Greens can-didates for the lower house in Canberra in order to campaign for, and have an impact on, these issues that I care so deeply fo<?>r.<?> Climate change and refugee policy in the past were approached with drastic differ-ences by the major parties. After 13 years of a conservative Coalition government led by John Howard, I witnessed the new Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratify the Kyoto Protocol at the Bali Climate Change talks in 2007 as his first act of government. In 2010, Labor won the Federal Election with the

help of the Greens to form a minority gov-ernment, on the condition that Labor would support the Greens to implement a price on carbon pollution. People across Australia rallied for a carbon price, including here in Canberra, and, after much struggle, we got one. Carbon emissions were reduced, and Australia was able to join other leading nations in paving a way to addressing dangerous climate change. Contrary to the opinion of many opposing forces, the sky didn’t fall down. We had a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) helping to boost investment in clean energy technologies, a Climate Commission to provide independent information on cli-mate change to the public, and various other funds and programs established supporting biodiversity and marine conservation ini-tiatives. Despite the ABC’s Vote Compass showing more than 61% of Australians believed Australia should do more to address climate change, Abbott made climate change policy a divisive issue in the election. He repeatedly called for the scrapping of the carbon price and cutting ‘green tape’ to ‘open Australia back up for business’. Under the new Coalition Government and Prime Minister Tony Abbott (who in the past has said “climate

Climate Refugees and Australia: Laggard or Leader?

change is crap”), progress on climate change and environment policy is going backwards. The carbon price and CEFC, Biodiversity Fund, new marine parks, federal environ-mental laws, the Climate Commission and the Ministry for Science are all being abol-ished or weakened in place of voluntary poli-cies of ‘Direct Action’ involving soil carbon and a ‘Green Army’ of land carers to clean up the environment. These policies have previ-ously been called a ‘farce’ by one of Abbot’s own senior Ministers, Malcolm Turnbull. They simply do not have the scientific and technical substance to enable Australia to get even close to meeting its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 5-25% on 2000 levels by 2050. Refugee policy suffered equally dev-astating blows during the 2013 election from both major parties attempting to out-do each other with cruelty as a form of ‘deterrence’ to people getting on boats to reach Australia. Labor announced that refugees who came on boats would never be settled in Australia, and instead would be sent to Papua New Guinea; a country with its own serious human rights and development challenges. To top it off, $375 million of the aid budget would be redirected to help pay for new offshore detention centres. The Coalition under Abbott responded with even more cruelty, announc-ing the issue to be a ‘national emergency’ requiring military intervention through ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ who would turn back boats and buy back boats in Indonesia to stop them reaching our shores. Labor’s PNG solution has angered people within PNG, and the Coalition’s policy has deeply offended Indonesia who saw these policies as directly violating their territo-rial sovereignty. Both major parties have

attempted to deflect the ‘problem’ of their international obligations to refugees to other poorer countries in the region, rather than taking responsibility and showing leadership through compassion. The Coalition refugee policy would also re-introduce Temporary Protection Visas for refugees already in Australia, eliminat-ing the opportunity for family reunion and limiting access to legal aid and recourse. On top of these policies, they have dramatically cut the Australian Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) budget to focus more on domestic issues. The UNHCR has repeatedly expressed concern over Australia’s approach to refugees, indicating that we may be in seri-ous breach of our international legal obliga-tions as a member of the Convention. The Greens advocated for an end to deterrence-based measures that simply haven’t worked – and a move toward genuine regional coopera-tion through the UNHCR. Providing safer pathways, more humanitarian spaces, and an end to offshore detention were key policies to help achieve this. Unfortunately, the crueler policy position of the Coalition prevailed. Tying these two issues of climate change and refugee policy together, what does the current approach tell us about Australia’s willingness to address climate change displacement in the region? – It’s an important question as this is already a very real problem for many small island states. Sea level rise is predicted to continue as the ocean warms and glaciers melt. Rising waters will lead to a new definition of refugees: climate change/environmentally displaced persons. In the Asia-Pacific region in particular, we know that our small island neighbours are already experiencing the devastating impact of sea level rise.


If our island neighbours were to be displaced by rising sea levels, or increasing frequency of natural disasters, would we as a nation respond with the same level of cruelty as we currently have toward refugees fleeing persecution? Would our government ‘turn back the boats’, carrying those fleeing from their homes that no longer exist due to climate change? Would the language of solu-tions, deterrence, illegals, queue jumpers, and national security be used? After all, there is no recognition of environmentally displaced persons under the UN Refugee Convention. There have been bills proposed to the Australian Parliament to address climate change displaced persons, such as Greens Senator Kerry Nettle’s Migration (Climate Refugees) Amendment Bill 2007, but they have been defeated. Australia needs to revisit its approach to climate change displaced persons and recognize the leadership role it can and should play in the region towards assisting the most vulnerable people with policies of compassion. We also need to show leadership on addressing climate change, as the root cause of climate dis-placement which is affecting the communities who had no responsibility for its causation. We are coming towards making a key choice on climate refugees and our future as a nation - will Australia be a new leader or continue to be a laggard?

Julie Melrose was the Director of the ANU Student Delegation to Rio+20 (ANU Rio+20 Project) in 2012, that inspired the group to create this zine. She congratulates them for their ongoing advocacy, perseverance, and passion for tackling the big issues of climate change and sustainable development into the future.

The Federal Fabio How to make the most out of the Next Erectio- I mean

Election DayElection Day is perhaps the most underrated time for romance. Nothing gets blood boiling and pas-sions raised like politics and reoccurring images of prime ministerial budgie smugglers. So, why let one political party be the only ones getting lucky on Election Day? These tailored Pick-Up Lines (PULS) will help you to make the most out of the next Election Day. Australia’s democratic loss need not be your own! If you ever find yourself at a polling booth, whether it be near a wild but sensual Greens sup-porter or so cold it’s hot Liberal member, please feel free to try and implement one of these: » “Can I see your secret ballot?” » “Would you like to use my lower house, or

should we just stick to the upper house?” » “It appears that my heart has taken a 2.3%

swing towards you…” » “You’re my first preference” (preferably said

with a wink).


feature

leila [alexandra]

Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU

“It is not the environment that creates problems for society but society that creates prob-lems for itself by not understanding how to interact with the environment.”

—Thomas Sterner

Landscapes and policies are shaped by values. Trees are fundamental to many landscapes, and are valued for a vast array of reasons; providing food and shel-ter, maintaining functioning ecosystems, and for aesthetic and cultural reasons. Motives for removing, retaining or re-integrating trees and shrubs into agricul-tural landscapes are as diverse as the landscapes. How we think of and frame policies about landscapes is vital. How notions are conceptualised governs how we frame situations, and this framing determines how we respond.1 Such framing influences perceptions of relative importance and whether a solution is seen as an end or a means. Policies can be conceived of as articulated manifestations of how society, or portions of society, perceive and frame issues. The changing focus of Australian revegetation policies results from shifts in the way society values trees in agricultural landscapes. How things will shift in the Abbott area is an important, and perhaps worrying, question given Australian history. Since the 1980s revegetation policies have evolved in response to changing values and dominant ideas about landscapes. Traditionally polarised paradigms of production and conservation tend to dominate these policies. Despite successive Australian governments endorsing sustainable land-use, the practical integration of these apparently competing agendas in vegetation policy remains evasive. This is a tragic oversight given Australia’s challenges. The extent of deforestation in Australia is vast; approximately half of the area covered by forest or woodland at the time of European settlement has been cleared.2 Consequently, a range of land, water and atmospheric degradation issues have resulted. In 1995 it was estimated that 29% of agricultural land was irrevers-ibly degraded and that over 50% required rehabilitation or changed practices.3 This decline continues, adversely affecting agricultural productivity, the livelihoods of

farmers and the integrity of rural communities.4,5 Vegetation and forestation in Australia matter, but the policy responses to them have been schizophrenic, vari-able and ultimately inadequate.

BifocalismRather than being focused on the integration of options, Australian revegeta-tion policies have diverged into two distinct streams - industrial production and environmental conservation - which sit at either end of the spectrum identified above.6,7 The two streams are a result of two distinct perspectives on deforesta-tion. From an agricultural perspective, it is a problem of land degradation which compromises ecological well-being and reduces agricultural productivity. From a forestry perspective, it has resulted in a lack of wood products, threatening the overexploitation of old growth forests and the forestry industry. Despite senti-ments in policy statements and strategies, the practical integration of these two traditional production industries has been limited.8,9 These divisions compromise both streams and hinder the adoption of sustainable natural resource management.

Evolving Policy-Problem FramingWithin these two streams at the Federal level, there have been nine separate strate-gies and twenty-one individual programs attempting to encourage revegetation in three decades10. This “confusing tapestry of often overlapping” initiatives11 reflects not only the afore mentioned diversity in Australia, but also the ad hoc character of Australian policy making.12,13 Yet amongst this tangled “tapestry” some pat-terns can be found including biophysical factors (e.g. drought); political leadership; scientific understanding and international policy developments.14 It is difficult to discern a logical pattern based on the impacts of specific and identifiable drivers. Dramatic or gradual change to policies occurs as a result of ‘policy windows’. These don’t occur in a linear sequence but rather when enough of the ‘right’ ingredients in the ‘right’ mix join to create an environment conducive to policy change.

1980’s: The Early DaysIn 1982, tax incentives to clear land for agricultural land were removed, replaced by a policy of tax deductible tree planting. 1982 was declared ‘Year of the Tree’ and the first revegetation policy, the National Tree Program (NTP), was introduced. This dramatic policy shift is indicative of the way policies respond the interact-ing influences of circumstances and interpretative ideologies. A serious drought in early 1980’s brought the topic of land degradation onto the national agenda amid growing recognition, concern, and scientific understanding of environmental issues.15 During this period the problem was framed as tree decline, to be addressed by increasing tree cover through revegetation.

Whatever happened to revegetation? Perspectives on Policy Paradigms


1990’s: LandcareThese policies merged into the National Landcare Program, initiated in 1989 after years of informal community group action and lobbying by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers Federation.16,17 Tree planting continued to play central role in addressing the broadly perceived problems of land degradation and unsustainable management practices.18 A new participatory style of policy emerged as the long dominant paradigms of positivism and reductionism were replaced by notions that there are multiple perspective on reality.19,20

Meanwhile in 90’s: Forestry or Farm ForestryIn the 1990’s forestry was being redefined in recognition of the need to balance social, economic and environmental outcomes.21 In 1993 the first farm forestry policy was introduced, along with the Joint Venture Agroforestry Project (JVAP) - a collaboration between research and development agencies, the forest industry and environment programs. Despite obvious potential, these efforts were severely hindered by the entrenched divide between production and conservation values; the dominance of the forestry industry; institutional capture and a general lack of farm forestry culture.22

Late 1990’s -2000’s: Multiple ComplexitiesFrom the second half of the 90’s the environmental policy arena became increas-ingly complex, reflecting recognition of the interacting dimensions and scale of bio-geo-physical processes. Seven new policy programs were initiated between 1995 and 2005, as a plethora of land use issues - salinity, biodiversity, water and climate change - took centre stage. But this is the past, we must now turn to look at how Australia’s landscapes will be valued and in turn managed in the future under a Liberal regime.

Future PerspectivesNow in 2013, thirty-one years since the first revegetation policy, this vast land of fields and pasture still yearns for trees. How might they be valued in the poli-cies of the Abbott government? The Coalition government’s official policy docu-ment claims to strive for a strong and sustainable forest industry; an innovative and competitive agriculture sector; and a direct action plan for a Green Army to combat climate change.23 Yet it is clear from the last few months that behind this rhetoric the governments primary agenda is economic growth. The ‘green light’ for environmental destruction has been given. Environmental considerations are being ignored as ‘green tape’ is removed and ‘a one-stop shop’ for environmen-tal approvals implemented. They have refused to take any more native forest out of production, despite commitment from the previous government to do so amid


ongoing and widespread community pressure. The underlying causes of land deg-radation are being buried under the superficial systematic problems of weed and pest management. Abbott claims the Green Army, recruited from school leavers and the young unemployed, will be “the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia’s history and first time that Australia has approached environmental remediation with seriousness”.24 This insults the thousand of landholders and other citizens committed to our environments. The army aims ‘to clean up’ the environ-ments, yet as any tree grower or ecologist knows, a healthy, resilient environment is ‘messy’. Trees, it seems, will be valued for reducing unemployment, for fuelling the economy; and for ‘cleaning up’ landscapes.

ConclusionThe serious consequences of deforestation have been recognised in Australian pol-icy for thirty years. Scientific understandings of the causes or solutions to land deg-radation have not changed dramatically in this time, but political interpretations and will has. Originally revegetation was seen as an “end” in itself - to increase tree cover, and then became a “means” to address a range of environmental issue. Conceptualisation of deforestation solely as a problem of resource management or a way of addressing forest commodity deficits on the one hand, or of a “blanket” solution to environmental degradation on the other, has undermined the potential for pragmatic applications of sustainable development principles in the meeting the challenges of restoring health to Australia’s agricultural landscapes and in building a viable farm forestry industry. The lack of integrated policies reflects an inability to frame reafforestation in ways which incorporate the complexity of sustainability principles and to ensure they are applied in ways which work for Australian com-munity and landscape. Will the Green Army march to the beat of a different drum or will the battlefields for revegetation remain divided along the trenches set up between conservation and production so long ago?

Leila is a joyful individual who loves planting things, and makes a killer persimmon pudding.

References1. Bardwell, L. V. 1991. Problem-framing: A per-

spective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management, 15(5), 603-612.

2. Herbohn, K., Harrison, S., & Herbohn, J., 2000. Lessons from small-scale forestry initiatives in Australia: the effective integration of environmen-tal and commercial values. Forest Ecology and Management, 128(3), 227-240. (??? 99 or 2000)

3. Mead, D., 1995. The role of agroforestry in industri-alized nations: the southern hemisphere perspec-tive with special emphasis on Australia and New Zealand. Agroforestry systems, 31(2), 143-156.

4. Cocklin, C., Mautner, N., Dibden, J., 2007. Public policy, private landholders: Perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management, Journal of Environmental Management, 85: 986-998.

5. Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., 2000. Landcare and Catchment Management in Australia: Lessons for State-Sponsored Community Participa-tion, Society & Natural Resources, 13: 61-73.

6. McDonald, G., 1993. Reafforestation in Australia, In: Afforestation: policies, planning, and progress, Mather, A., Belhaven Press, London, Floriada.

7. Race, D., & Curtis, A. 2007. Adoption of farm forestry in Victoria: linking policy with practice. Australasian Journal of Environ-mental Management, 14(3), 166-178.

8. Donaldson, J., 2001. Farm forestry policy and extension: what’s in it for Australia? What’s in it for farmers. Proc: Forestry Ex-tension Conference, Lorne, Australia.

9. McDonald, G., 1993. Reafforestation in Australia, In: Afforestation: policies, planning, and progress, Mather, A., Belhaven Press, London, Floriada.

10. Donaldson, J., 2001. Farm forestry policy and extension: what’s in it for Australia? What’s in it for farmers. Proc: Forestry Ex-tension Conference, Lorne, Australia.

11. Herbohn, K., Harrison, S., & Herbohn, J., 2000. Lessons from small-scale forestry initiatives

in Australia: the effective integration of envi-ronmental and commercial values. Forest Ecol-ogy and Management, 128(3), 227-240.

12. Ibid.13. Dovers, S., 2013. The Australian Environ-

mental Policy Agenda. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(2), 114-128.

14. Ibid.15. Ibid.16. Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., 2000. Landcare and

Catchment Management in Australia: Lessons for State-Sponsored Community Participa-tion, Society & Natural Resources, 13: 61-73.

17. Sobels, J., Curtis, A., Lockie, S. 2001. The Role of Landcare group networks in rural Aus-tralia: exploring the contribution of social capi-tal, Journal of Rural Studies, 17:265-276.

18. Cary, J., & Webb, T. 2001. Landcare in Aus-tralia: Community Participation and Land Management, Journal of Soil and Wa-ter Conservation, 56 (4): 274-278.

19. Pretty, J., 1995. Participatory Learning For Sustaina-ble Agriculture, World Development, 23(8):1247-1263.

20. Roling, N. G., Jiggins, J., 1998. The ecological knowl-edge system. Facilitating sustainable agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 283-311.

21. Race, D., Guijt, I., & Kanowski, P., 1998. Aus-tralian experiences of farm forestry. Environ-mental conservation, 25(03): 234-243.

22. Alexandra, J., & Hall, M. 1998. Creating a vi-able farm forestry industry in Australia-what will it take?. Canberra: Rural Industries Re-search and Development Corporation.

23. (Liberal Party, 2013. Polices and Discus-sion Papers 2013. Viewed 10.10.2013 from http://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies

24. Ibid.


Organising Financial Management for Your Neoliberal Household

regular

home economics for sustainability

the dreaded twins

For the savvy housekeeper, keeping your finances in check is a

must! Cut and streamline your luxury community items- after all,

they are the community’s responsibility, right? Reprioritise your

essentials, the individual comes first (unless they’re a refugee), and

hey presto, your finances will run better and will benefit those who

are most important - YOUR FAMILY. Here we give a fine example

of neoliberal household management, inspired by the management

decisions of the patriarch of the Australian family, Tony Abbott.

“Asylum seekers”For those pesky refugees, a solution that will finally deter their constant drain on Australian funds! Remember, it’s not an obligation; they’re illegal. Money is better-spent on buying boats from people-smugglers - that way they’ll never get over…

What ministries?Science minister?! That money could be used for a new sport and ANZAC centenary port-folios, not to mention defence!! Science doesn’t help you achieve sporting or war victories. These things are important for the national psyche!

AusAid

Aid has been a big a portfolio for too long. Just

redirect most of its funding to the PNG solu-

tion, which is a much better way to treat for-

eigners, and streamline it by making a DFAT

portfolio… you’ll save money, time, and

most of all, unneeded effort! DFAT is better

equipped to deal with foreigners anyway. Subsidies and TaxesTo keep the 1% percentile richest, don’t put taxes on their indus-tries! Subsidise them, especially that cheap fossil fuel. Taxes for mining and for carbon are simply unnecessary and stop money-hungry businesses from prospering! The money will trickle down into the economy anyway, and carbon isn’t really a problem anyway.

TAFE cutsEducation? Funding? What for? It may provide opportunities for marginalised communities, but if you can’t afford education, maybe you shouldn’t be educated? Education is for the rich.

World Heritage…The Great Barrier Reef and the

Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage

Areas aren’t really THAT important

are they? Coal mines and extractive

industries are much more important,

think of the jobs they’ll create!

Essentials Cost Luxury Items Cost

Indonesian boats & community ‘engagement’

20 million Climate Commission

5.4 million

PNG Solution 1.1 billion Department of Climate Change

common sense

Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade

increased portfolios

Ausaid 4.5-10 billion

Unblocked Trade & the Trans-Pacific Partner-ship (TPP)

who knows??? Mining & carbon taxes

who knows??

Defence Up to 2% GDP TAFE Funding 111 million

Minister for Sport

Minister for Science

12,000 public service jobs

5.2 billion

Minister for Assisting the PM for the Centenary of the ANZAC

100 million Great Bar-rier Reef

priceless

Fossil fuel subsidies

9-35 billion Tasmanian World Herit-age Area de-listing

biodiversity and humili-ation

Climate change??Commission for what? Department of what? Carbon tax? Climate change is all a ‘load of crap’ anyway, anyone who claims it’s a real threat is just talking through their hat. We recommend the ‘user pays’ principle for sound financial management: if the community wants it, let them fund it. Your house-hold shouldn’t be burdened if you don’t think you’ll benefit from a safe climate. Leave the emergency transition up to the suckers in Tuvalu.

Public ServiceThose behind-the-scenes worker-bees of the fam-ily bureaucracy, that keep the cogs turning while our patriarch runs marathons, are actually an over inflated appendix. Trimming them will make the others work harder, but with the psy-chological mind game of job insecurity as an added bonus.

Unblock trade & the TPPCutting out barriers to trade is an important step to exploiting your household’s natural resources; among other things, the TPP will stop any intellectual property barriers between the Pacific nations, making trade easier, especially since corporations will be able to sue sovereign households!

*Tip: how to stifle the disgruntled voices that disrupt the smooth imple-mentation of your growth-oriented targets: » Decentralise environ-

mental legislation! » Outlaw ‘environmental

blackmail’ so that your children’s companies can do what they will without the green tape!


UsOnce upon a time, a dedicated group of students from different disciplines went on a journey far, far away (Brazil) to hear lots of people (the UN) talk about the future we want and try to solve the world’s problems, in the form of a conference (Rio+20).

WhatAmbiente is the lovechild of this affair, a pro-fessionally wayward whim in paper (and soon cyber) form.

WhoAmbiente is a publication for the abundance of students working on the cutting edge of sustainable development research, whose efforts and ideas often go unheard of outside of academic circles. Although a student-driven publication, Ambiente invites reader-ship of a wider audience, and is designed to be a space for sharing and learning.

YouWe welcome contributions from all walks of life, primarily students, but really, we’re all continually learning, right? Research-based, opinion, and not least, creative, show us your colours so they can be shared.

To contribute to Ambiente, please email us at [email protected]

noun (Portuguese, Spanish)

environment, climate, surroundings

Brazil, land of the Amazon and the samba, has a relationship with landmark moments in environmental history. Both the 1992 Earth Summit and its recent 20-year anniversary, Rio+20, were held in Rio de Janeiro. As with the infamous ‘sustainable development’ term, the Brazilian Portuguese word ‘ambiente’ denotes not just the natural environment, but deals with a wider conception of a holistic (social, economic and ecological) environment within which we must all live.

/ a m • b e n • t i /

~

ambiente zine, issue 3

Documents

election special

australian policy

proposed nuclear waste

opinionbenjo keaney

proposed waste repository

australias food policy

neoliberal household

forest policy