Biodiversity conservation and vegetation clearing in Queensland: Principles and thresholds

Clearing of native vegetation is a major threat to biodiversity in Australia. In Queensland, clearing has resulted in extensive ecosystem transformation, especially in the more fertile parts of the landscape. In this paper, we examine Queensland, Australian and some overseas evidence of the impact of clearing and related fragmentation effects on terrestrial biota. The geographic locus is the semi-arid regions. although we recognise that coastal regions have been extensively cleared. The evidence reviewed here suggests that the reduction of remnant vegetation to 30% will result in the loss of 25-35% of vertebrate fauna, with the full impact not realised for another 50-100 years, or even longer. Less mobile, habitat specialists and rare species appear to be particularly at risk. We propose three broad principles For effective biodiversity conservation in Queensland: (i) regional native vegetation retention thresholds of 50910: (ii) regional ecosystem thresholds of 30%: and (iii) landscape design and planning principles that protect large remnants, preferably > 2000 ha, as core habitats. Under these retention thresholds. no further clearing would be permitted in the extensively cleared biogeographic regions such as Brigalow Belt and New England Tablelands. Some elements of the biota. however, will require more detailed knowledge and targeted retention and management to ensure their security. The application of resource sustainability and economic criteria outlined elsewhere in this volume should be applied to ensure that the biogeographic regions in the north and west of Queensland that are largely intact continue to provide extensive wildlife habitat.

Nuclear weapons as obstacles to international security

This article argues that nuclear weapons serve no useful purpose in military calculations; moreover, their continued retention invites the dangers of further proliferation and of accidental use. They are thus defined here as obstacles to, rather than as facilitators of, international security. Seven reasons are presented to support this contention, including an assessment of the moral implications and the strategic limitations of nuclear weapons. Despite these limitations, and the recent commitments made by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals, nuclear weapons remain central to the strategic doctrines of these states. Several reasons are put forward to explain why this retention continues, including the unchanging nature of strategic mindsets, the presence of vested interests, and now, in the case of the USA at least, a renewed reliance on nuclear weapons, regardless of how appropriate and effective such a strategy might be against emerging terrorist or `rogue state' threats.

The Utility of the Human Security Agenda for Policy-makers

The idea of “human security” is gaining attention among policy-makers and security analysts. Little scholarly attention has been given to the questions of why states accept (or reject) a human security agenda or how such an agenda is incorporated into policy practices. The article suggests that a human security approach is most likely to be applied when both humanitarian and national interests combine. Yet when states or organisations adopt a human security approach, they often misjudge the complex and long-term commitment required of such an approach. There is also the potential for such an agenda to be manipulated to justify questionable courses of action. These issues frame an analysis of six recent case studies.