Amphibian populations have been rapidly disappearing worldwide. Nearly one-third of the world’s amphibian species are on the verge of extinction.

Events are taking place all around the world – including in Australia and New Zealand, where we have some amazing and highly threatened amphibians. Read more about them at my previous post, Save the Frogs Day.

An Australian Great Barred frog with a leech. Photo from photolucide.com

Click to view data

In 2009, 1.46 million animals were subjected to either death or physical challenge through research procedures in Australia – this equates to nearly a third of all animals used in Australian research.

When 2009 figures are compared to 2005, the number of animals made ‘unconscious without recovery’ has doubled; the number experiencing ‘major physiological challenge’ has more than quadrupled.

Australian research seems to be on an unrelenting, merciless march toward greater animal cruelty.

The table below shows the number of animals used in Australian research and teaching by severity of procedure, and the percent increase from 2005.

The data come from Humane Research Australia (HRA), gathered from a variety of sources. HRA points out that there are serious gaps in the data, not least because data are not available for Queensland, Western Australia or the Northern Territory, and data from the ACT do not provide a breakdown by type of procedure.

Another interesting trend is a rise in the production of genetically modified animals. From 2005 to 2007, the number of genetically modified animals produced under Australian research ranged between 4 and 5 thousand animals. In 2008 this number rose dramatically to over 40,000 animals. And in 2009 it rose even more dramatically – more than doubling to over 100,000 animals. It is difficult to determine the level degree of cruelty or suffering experienced by these animals, but the sharp rise will add to the fears for those concerned for the welfare of animals.

View the full data here>

Data source: Humane Research Australia, humaneresearch.org.au/statistics/

Photo: Françoise Rodriguez

Frogs are in trouble. Around the world their numbers are dropping. Many of Australia’s and New Zealand’s amazing frogs species are under threat. Let’s work together to keep them from disappearing. April 28th is international Save the Frogs Day.

Earth is witnessing an amphibian extinction crisis, with at least half of the world’s 6,600  amphibian species under threat. This is an extinction crisis to dwarf all others: 12 percent of bird species are threatened, and 23 percent of mammal species are threatened.

We need to take action to save our frogs from extinction. Save the Frogs Day is the world’s largest day of amphibian education and conservation action. Now in its third year, the day aims to encourage the appreciation and celebration of amphibians by people from all walks of life.

Addressing the amphibian extinction crisis
represents the greatest species conservation
challenge in the history of humanity.[1]

In 2011, to mark the day in Australia, a presentation on The Wild World of Frogs was held at the University of Queensland. Two events were held in New Zealand: Hamilton Zoo raised awareness and took tours of its frogs; and there was a ‘Save the Frogs Search’ at the National Aquarium of New Zealand in Napier.

Save the Frogs and Amphibian Ark are great international resources on frogs and amphibians. The Amphibian Research Centre and NZ Frog are good places to start for more local information.

We have some amazing frogs in Australasia. Australia’s many wonderful frog species have adapted to every habitat on the continent, from the wettest rainforests to the driest deserts. Some of Australia’s most amazing frogs have disappeared in our lifetime – the Gastric Brooding Frog, for example, which raised its tadpoles in its stomach, became extinct in the ‘70s or ‘80s.

New Zealand has just four native frog species, but they are very special and ancient thanks to the land mass having split off so early from Gondwana. New Zealand’s native frogs are ‘evolutionarily ancient’, little changed from the frogs that hopped around 200 million years ago. They are silent (and so don’t have ears) and are poor jumpers – when they leap, they ‘belly flop’ instead of landing on their legs! The uniqueness of New Zealand’s frogs makes their conservation all the more important. One of New Zealand’s natives – Archey’s frog – is ranked top of the Zoological Society of London’s EDGE measure, which weighs up a species’ endangered status with its uniqueness. It is a very important little animal indeed.

NZ Frogs is coordinated by Dr Phil Bishop from the University of Otago. If you get a chance, make time to watch Phil’s 6-part ‘webinar’ hosted by Save the Frogs. It is a very informative and easy to follow seminar.

Part 2>
Part3>
Part4>
Part5>
Parts 6 to 8 are question and answer time, and can be viewed at the Save the Frogs YouTube channel>.

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the USA also made a fantastic documentary, the Thin Green Line, on the plight of amphibians. Sadly, PBS documentaries can’t be viewed outside the US. But there is a very good ‘making of’ video viewable on YouTube:

Animal Rights Hub Australasia

[1] Dr Kevin Zippel, Why Do We Need an Amphibian Ark?, ActionBioscience.org.

Click to view data

In 2005, just over 600,000 animals were killed or physically ‘challenged’ by research and teaching procedures. By 2008 this had grown to nearly 1.16 million animals: a 92 percent increase, or nearly 555,000 more animals.

The data come from Humane Research Australia, gathered from a variety of sources. HRA points out that there are serious gaps in the data, not least because reporting is patchy – a sign perhaps of the shame some States feel about being honest and transparent about these practices? Taken at face value, they show trends that will shock some and cause concern to many.

The proportion of animals subjected to death or physical ‘challenge’ by procedures increased from about one in six to one in every four animals (from 14 percent in 2005, to 23 percent in 2008).

There was almost a tripling in the number of animals subjected to ‘major physiological challenge’ by research procedures.

It is also interesting also to note the rise in the production of genetically modified animals from around 5,000 in 2005 to 41,000 in 2008. This is a 700 percent rise in three years! A sign of things to come?

The summary table below shows the number of animals used in Australian research and teaching by severity of procedure, and the percent increase from 2005. View the full data here>

Data source: Humane Research Australia, aahr.org.au/statistics.html
Text and data analysis: Animal Rights Hub Australasia

An excellent way to spend 45 minutes if you have time, the interview is part of a Channel 4 (UK) TV program The Genius of Darwin, which won Best Documentary Series in the 2008 British Broadcasting Awards.

Many of the issues discussed will be familiar to anyone who has read Singer. But it’s always good to hear him talk, as he has a talent for explaining highly abstract ideas in clear and simple language.

The interview covers a lot of ground and requires the brain to do a bit of exercise. But it’s worth it. A brief description of the things they talk about is below.

Dawkins and Singer start out discussing Darwin’s revolutionary view that human beings are animals and not as ‘special’ as pre-Darwinian thinking held. Interestingly, as Dawkins explains, Darwin consciously tried to break the received idea that humans are special, arguing that animals displayed emotions and even spirituality.

The two go on to range across all sorts of issues. They have an interesting discussion about animals suffering for human benefit – where should we draw the line and how should we decide when animal suffering is justifiable? Singer wheels out some frightening statistics: in the USA alone, over 10 billion animals are raised and killed for food each year, while 40 million animals are used for research.

The discussion dwells for a time on Dawkins’ carnivorism, and his self-confessed lack of awareness about the treatment of the animals he eats. Singer argues that meat eaters have a responsibility to know about how animals are reared and slaughtered, because their consumption is likely to be supporting a system that causes pain and suffering. He draws a parallel between meat eaters who turn a blind eye to the suffering of the animals they eat and those who turn a blind eye to human suffering.

Singer’s case is built on two main pillars. First, that animals feel pain. Second, that we should care for others, what he calls his ‘golden rule’ of moral and ethical action: put yourself in the position of others and consider what it is like for them. To not care about how others feel, he says, is ‘cutting yourself off from a part of reality’.

Dawkins considers his continued meat eating to be the result of conformity and lack of social stigma. He draws interesting parallels between animal welfare and slavery.

Singer expresses optimism that the animal movement is making a difference. He suggests we are moving toward a ‘tipping point’ that will see the pressure to eat meat diminish and meat alternatives become more socially acceptable.

They have some pretty way-out discussions about cannibalism, and about whether or not they would eat steak grown in a laboratory. This moral dilemma may be closer than many think, with reports that scientists are trying to develop edible laboratory-grown tissue (see some news items on this rather bizarre development).

Singer and Dawkins also toss around an interesting hypothetical about creating an animal that is a hybrid of human and other species – an animal that would make people think about where and how they draw the line between humans and other animals. It’s good to see these two great minds playing, and even struggling, with the implications of such a concept, rather than going over familiar ground.

Animal Rights Hub Australasia, 12 December 2009

I will be adding a couple of non-cultural policy related posts over the next couple of weeks. I have brought these over from an animal rights blog I used to produce. If you don’t want to see them (there’s only three) you can always unsubscribe from my blog feed. But of course you are more than welcome to read them!

Thanks for following my work, and for all the valuable input, comments and advice. I wish you all the best in your endeavours, and hope the pending Australian cultural policy is kind to those affected.

All the best.

Chris

1. Australasian cultural policies (ie in general);
2. Analyses of the cultural sector and cultural policy issues;
3. Arts councils, arts funding; and
4. The cultural policy system.

Putting them together like this gives them a coherence lacking in their chronologically ordered online counterparts. If you do download the full document I hope you find them interesting and useful. Online versions of all the essays appear on this website.

The collection is downloadable as a single document: Cultural Policies Australasia (PDF 1.8MB). A full list of contents is below.

Contents:

Section 1: Australasian cultural policies

• An introduction to Australian cultural policy
• An introduction to New Zealand cultural policy

Section 2: Analyses of the cultural sector and cultural policy issues

• Australia’s creative revolution
• Policies for boosting arts demand
• Modelling the economic impacts of cultural policies
• Measuring the economic impact of cultural policies

Section 3: Arts councils, arts funding

• In defence of the Australia Council
• Crowdsourcing government arts funding
• Estimating deadweight loss in arts funding

Section 4: The cultural policy system

• A poverty of inquiry
• Encouraging the academy

Economic theory predicts that cultural policies will have an expansionary impact on the cultural sector (see Modelling the economic impacts of cultural policies). This article uses data from Australia and New Zealand to show the theory in action.

The article, published in Culture360 Magazine, uses data from Australia and New Zealand to compare trends in government cultural expenditure and cultural employment. The data reveal a remarkably strong correlation between cultural expenditure and employment in both countries: on both sides of the Tasman, as governments increased their financial commitment to culture, cultural employment grew.

The data are not only consistent with the predictions of Economic theory, they allude to a degree of cultural policy success in both countries.

To test the predictions of Economic theory mentioned above, two measures are needed: one measuring the level of government’s cultural support; the other measuring the size of the cultural sector.

Well-developed cultural statistics programs Australia and New Zealand allow a measure for each to be found relatively easily, with the added benefit that the countries use similar definitions and standards. The two statistical indicators used for this analysis are:

1. real (ie inflation-adjusted) national government cultural expenditure per capita.
2. employment in cultural occupations as a percent of total employment.

The figures to the right show timelines for these two indicators for each country from 1991 to 2006. Different y-axis scales allow the two data series to be plotted on the same graph.

The timelines show clearly that both funding and employment increased in both countries over the period.

An alternative way to display the data, which reveals the relationship even more clearly, is shown in the figures at the bottom of the page. These figures plot the two indicators against each other to give an idea of how strong the relationship is between them: the closer the data points are to the line, the stronger the relationship. It is unusual in the social sciences to see data series like these so strongly correlated.

How might the data be interpreted? With the data showing such a strong relationship between government cultural expenditure and the size of the cultural sector, it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the size of the cultural sector has been driven by the increase in funding.

However, it is important to remember that the data show a correlation, not a causation; they can’t say that an increase in funding caused the expansion in employment in each country’s cultural sector. Nor do they tell us that the expansion has brought a qualitative improvement – an improvement in culture or cultural experiences.

That said, the data do provide some evidence to support the prediction from Economic theory that increased government cultural expenditure will cause an expansion in the cultural sector. And they do hint that Australasian cultural policies have, at the very least, ‘gained traction’ – that the cultural policies of governments in Australia and New Zealand have not been impotent. Cultural policies have, it appears, enjoyed a degree of success.

To find out more about the data and their implications, read the full article:
Measuring the impact of cultural policies >
Culture360 Magazine, 3 November 2011

Could the difference simply be due to a ‘lag’ in New Zealand data, or does it signal something more substantial? Have New Zealand’s cultural policies been more successful in promoting cultural sector sustainability? Or has New Zealand benefited from its special citizen-in-residence, film-maker Peter Jackson?

If the strong growth in cultural employment is due to the ‘Jackson effect’, then New Zealand cultural policymakers face an unusual succession planning problem: what to do when Jackson’s run ends.

In An introduction to New Zealand cultural policy I look at New Zealand’s cultural policy system and take a quick scan of recent policy developments and issues.

The online version of the article is in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. Or alternativly you can read the whole thing in one lump in my collection of essays Cultural Policies Australasia (PDF 1.8 MB).

This is the third in a series of article I have written for the Culture360 magazine. The others are An introduction to Australian cultural policy and Policies for boosting arts demand (see also the supplemental post Modelling the economic impacts of cultural policies).

The article follows up on some of the issues raised in my editorials for the special Australasian edition of cultural trends.

Policies for boosting arts demand, the second of my articles for Culture360[1], expands on my ideas for rebalancing an Australian arts sector that is showing the classic signs of oversupply.

As evidence of oversupply, I present data showing increasing levels of creative arts practice and declining relative incomes of professional artists. The policies that dominate Australia’s cultural policy system tend to work to boost supply, so they are likely to aggravate problems associated with oversupply, such as declining relative incomes. Policies aimed at boosting arts demand – ‘demand-side policies’ – can work to alleviate the problems.

The figure below illustrates the difference between ‘demand-side’ and ‘supply-side’ policies. Demand-side policies act on the audience-consumer side of the cultural ‘value chian’, whereas supply-side policies act on the creation, production, and distribution side. (This side also includes services to these actors, such as membership organisations, peak agencies and artist representatives and agents)

The article provides examples of such policies and compares their impacts with supply-side policies.

I’m really arguing for two things in the article – more policies aimed at expanding arts demand and more demand-side policies. These are not one and the same: many ‘audience development’ policies are in fact supply-side policies. For example, most of the Australia Council’s audience and market development initiatives are not demand-side policies, they are supply-side policies -– they provide incentives to producers and marketers, not to consumers.

Just because a policy aims to expand audiences doesn’t mean it’s a demand-side policy. A policy that subsidises theatres to improve disabled access is a supply-side policy: even though it has expanding audiences as its ultimate objective, it funds producers, not audience members. Similarly, assistance to arts marketers ‘incentivises’ the supply-side of the arts sector, not the demand-side, even though the ultimate goal is to increase arts audiences. Marketing assistance provided to arts organisations is a supply-side intervention.

I thought this was a bit too complicated to flesh out in an online article aimed at a broad audience, so glossed over the distinction. In hindsight, perhaps this was a mistake. Some comments received reveal scepticism about the efficacy of audience development programs. Perhaps this is because most of them are supply-side rather than demand-side policies. I would expect that demand-side policies would work much better than supply-side policies at expanding audiences.

The article argues that demand-side policies have a number of benefits over supply-side policies:

• They ensure that art is experienced, that it has an audience. Under supply-side policies, art may be produced but not experienced by an audience
• They can be designed to leverage private expenditure
• They can have a multiplier effect on arts consumption
• They have a democratising effect on who gets funding, because decisions are taken by a wider group of people

The democratising brings a number of additional benefits:

• It improves the equity of arts funding
• It reduces the power of ‘vested interests’ in arts funding
• It lets arts funding flow to newer artistic forms, thereby allowing policy to move more easily with the times.

Many of the pros and cons of each type of policy result from economic modelling of cultural policies detailed in my post Modelling the economic impacts of cultural policies.

Arguments for more demand-side policies in Australian cultural policy are not new. But, with the government still promising to develop a national cultural policy, it does seem a particularly critical time to argue for a better policy mix. More of the same will only make artists’ lives more difficult.

Read the full article:
Policies for boosting arts demand>
Culture360, 12 July 2011